-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income Tax Appeal No.100 of 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/s Polyolefins Industries Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant Ms.Vasanti B.Patel for 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. 4th September,2008 4th September,2008 4th September,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel a ppearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The above appeal was admitted on 21st December, 2004 on the following substantial questions of law. i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in directing the AO to rework the amount of perquisite value in respect of provision of motor car by adopting rule 3(c) of the I.T.Rules 1962? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in holding -2- that (i) corporate share expenses has to be reduced lin computing the profit eligible for deduction u/s 80-I and (ii) earlier years losses and investment allowance not to set off if the same has been adjusted against the profit of the other units in earlier years? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.77,900/- made by the assessing officer under Rule 6B of the I.T.Rules 1962 while observing no force in the appeal of the revenue? iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.36,987/- made by the assessing officer on account of expenses incurred towards rent, repairs and depreciation in respect of the guest of the assessee? 3. Mr.Sahadevan states that the appellant is not pressing question nos. (i) and (ii). 4. As far as question (iii) is concerned, both the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent -3- categorically state that the said question is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Allana Sons Pvt.Ltd. reported in 216 ITR 690 against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view thereof the said question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. As far as question no.(iv) is concerned, both the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent categorically state that the said question is squarely covered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Britania Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another reported in 278 ITR 546 (SC). Accordingly the said question is answered in favour of the revenue. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)