1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2006 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 34 of 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 34 of 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 34 of 2006 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 105 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2006 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 618 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 618 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 618 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 898 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 898 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 898 OF 2007 Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax ... Respondent Mr.S.N. Inamdar with Mr. P.C. Tripathi for the Appellants. Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 17, 2009 DATED: FEBRUARY 17, 2009 DATED: FEBRUARY 17, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The appeals raise the following questions : "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the 2 reimbursement made to a unit of the Army, by cheque is against public policy? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by appellant for sales promotion is not allowable u/s. 37 on the ground that it is allegedly in the nature of unlawful consideration granted to military personnel?" . The questions which are raised here, were the subject matter of Income Tax Appeal No. 549 of 2005 which we have allowed. For the reasons given therein, these appeals will also have to be allowed. . In the light of that, question No. (a) is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently question (b) is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Appeals disposed of accordingly. 3 (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)