1 25 itxa 3563.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3563 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 .. Appellant Vs. M/s. Sykes & Ray Equities (I) Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant. Mr. Kirit J. Hakani for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1 Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this Appeal, which read thus: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs.7,60,815/- made as per SEBI Interest Regulation Scheme, 2004, by holding that the liability crystalised during the previous year, even though interest pertained to earlier period? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was right in deleting the disallowance of V-SAT charges and lease line charges by holding that the assessee did not have tax withholding 2 25 itxa 3563.10.doc obligation under section 194 J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of payment of Rs.13,94,263? 2 As regards the first question is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the ITAT in para 5 of its order is that in the present case, the liability to pay interest crystalised in the assessment year in question even though the interest pertained to the earlier period. Thus, in our opinion, the decision of the ITAT is based on finding of fact and no question of law arises. Accordingly, the first question cannot be entertained. 3 As regards the second question is concerned, the counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the Revenue in the case of the Income Tax Commissioner Mumbai City-4 vs. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd. Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 475 of 2011 has been dismissed on 28th July, 2011. Accordingly, the second question cannot be entertained. 4 Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)