:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.766 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.766 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.766 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Nainraj Investment Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.Jitendra Jain i/b. PDS Legal for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2008 : 26TH AUGUST, 2008 : 26TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the above Appeal, the following two substantial questions of law were sought to be raised: i) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in treating the supplementary agreement as a valid one and not colourable device to evade tax and deleting the addition of Rs.38,90,864/-? ii) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in not considering the said transaction as colourable nature of entire agreement and deleting the addition of Rs.16,51,875/- which was confirmed by the CIT(A) ? 2. Perused the order dated 20th January,2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Both the aforesaid questions were sought to be raised on the ground that the Respondent Assessee’s supplementary agreement was a colourable device. On this issue, the Tribunal as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (A) had :2: categorically given a finding that they were of the considered opinion that the supplementary agreement cannot be held invalid and therefore, no addition on account of royalty can be sustained and hence the same was deleted. 3. In fact, both the aforesaid questions arise out of the supplementary agreement which have been held to be valid and in fact even the original of the supplementary agreement appears to have produced before the Assessing Officer. In view thereof, no adverse inference can be drawn, as the original supplementary agreement was produced before the Assessing Officer. 4. The above Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is only a matter of finding of fact, The Appeal is totally devoid of merits. Hence, the same stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)