1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2325 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8 ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Radix Sensors Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 21st January, 2010. P.C. : 1. Two questions of law have been formulated in the appeal by the revenue under Section 268 : (A) “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon ble Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the ’ disallowance of Rs.27,92,704/- made on account of commission paid to M/s.Radix Microsystems without appreciating the facts of the case? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon ble Tribunal was correct in law in directing the ’ Assessing Officer to allow deduction on payments made within the grace period in respect of delayed contributions of PF and ESIC?” 2. Insofar as question No.(A) is concerned, it is an admitted position before the Court that in the proceedings relating to Assessment Year 1997-98 there was a remand following which the assessing officer had allowed the 2 claim which had attained finality. In the circumstances, the first question will not raise any substantial question of law. Insofar as the second question is concerned, it is covered against the revenue by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. ((2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). Hence, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)