IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Versus M/S. FOMENTO FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD ... Respondent Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. N. Thakkar and Mr. Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, Advocates for Respondent. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 3rd March, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. The learned Counsel Shri Rivonkar submits that in the facts of the case, the judgment relied upon by the ITAT is not applicable. The Counsel submits that the bad debt shown by the respondent-company has been shown by M/s. Ratnalaya Pvt. Ltd. (RPL) as expenses on account of the respondent-company. The Counsel submits that the respondent-company has not even communicated M/s. Ratnalaya Pvt. Ltd. (RPL) a sister concern regarding payment of the amount shown as bad debt. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in the present appeal the questions of facts cannot be raised by the appellant. Reliance is placed on the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5293 of 2003 and the amended provisions of the Income Tax Act post-1st April, 1989. 4. Considering the facts of the case and the order passed by the Apex Court, cited supra, we find that the appellant has not raised any substantial questions of law in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH