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 ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1719 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1719 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1719 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Imperial Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.R.Ashokan for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None present for respondent, though served. 2. By this appeal the appellant sought to raise the following substantial questions of law :- a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in applying the correct interpretation of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and other sections of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in vacating the order of CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act setting aside the assessment order u/s. 143(1) dated 8/3/2002 ? 3. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. 4. We have perused the Judgment of the I.T.A.T. passed on 29/6/2005. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of the said order has held that the assessee has nowhere included the brokerage and commission which is shown as other income in Schedule K for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The same is merely a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arise out of the same. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)