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.637 OF 2002 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.637 OF 2002 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.637 OF 2002 The CIT .. Appellant Vs. Singapore Airlines Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.R.A.Vaishampayan for the Appellant. Mr.F.V.Irani with Mr.A.K.Jasani 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 : 22nd August, 2008 DATE : 22nd August, 2008 DATE : 22nd August, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This Appeal has already been admitted by this Court on 3rd September, 2004. Perused the Tribunal’s order, wherein, the Tribunal has categorically observed that the estimate of income liable to deduction of tax at source made by the Assessee was honest, fair and reasonable. Over and above, the Tribunal has followed its own decision in the Indian Airlines Ltd V/s.ACIT - (1996) 59 Indian Airlines Ltd V/s.ACIT - (1996) 59 Indian Airlines Ltd V/s.ACIT - (1996) 59 ITD 353 ITD 353 ITD 353, wherein the Tribunal had taken a view that the belief of the Assessee that the allowances were only the reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the employees, and as such, could not form part of their income in view of the Board’s circular. The allowances were by way of transport allowance, meal allowance and laundry allowance. 2. Over and above Mr.Irani, the learned Counsel for the Respondent also brought to our notice the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s.Nicholas CIT V/s.Nicholas CIT V/s.Nicholas Piramal India Limited dated 15.1.2008 passed in the ITXA Piramal India Limited dated 15.1.2008 passed in the ITXA Piramal India Limited dated 15.1.2008 passed in the ITXA 432 of 2001 432 of 2001 432 of 2001, wherein, the very same issue was involved and this Court has taken a view that when the Assessee acts on the bonafide belief and makes the estimate then it is the case for no interference and accordingly the said Appeal filed by the CIT came to be dismissed. 3. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the present Appeal also 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.)