1 63 itxa 5968.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5968 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-3 .. Appellant Vs. Esteem Textiles Trading Private Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistri, senior counsel with Mr. P.C. Tripathi i/b Mr. Raj Darak for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1 Three questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this Appeal which read thus: A Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in quashing the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? B Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the dividend distributed after 31.03.2003? 2 63 itxa 5968.10.doc C Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in ignoring the non-obstante clause in section 115-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which clearly restricts the applicability of section 80M of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2 As regards the first question is concerned, the counsel for the parties state that similar question raised in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai vs. M/s. Nikhil Investment Company Private Limited in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 3006 of 2009 has been rejected by this court on 15th March, 2010. Accordingly, the first question cannot be entertained. 3 As regards the second and third questions are concerned, these questions become academic once the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is set aside by the ITAT. Hence, the second and third questions cannot be entertained. 4 The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)