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.1106 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Karimjee Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr.Jitendra Singh i/by Mr.K.Gopal for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 7th August, 2008 DATE : 7th August, 2008 DATE : 7th August, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Mr.Gupta, the learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly states that he is not pressing 2nd Question but only the 1st Question of law raised in this Appeal, which reads as under:- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in allowing depreciation on 5 wind mills, for which the Respondent was not the owner and therefore in view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Respondent is not entitled to claim the depreciation for the same? 2. Perused the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.3.2007 wherein, in paragraph 17 to 21 the Tribunal, after detailed analysis, has held that the Respondent is fully entitled to claim the depreciation in view of the Board’s Circular No.9 dated 23.3.1943 which is quoted in paragraph No.19 of the Tribunal’s order. There is no dispute that the Revenue is totally bound by the Board’s Circular. We do not find any substantial question of law involved in this Appeal. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)