1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.490 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-tax, City – IX, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Wall Street Construction Limited ..Respondent. Mr.J.S. Saluja for the appellant. Mr.Pankaj Toprani for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : “The question involved in the present case is computation of income based on method of accounting namely, when profit from business is computed on project completion method, whether interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of such business should be taken as part of administrative cost or should be included in work in progress and allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.” 2. Both parties agree that after filing of this appeal, the Special Bench of the Tribunal has considered the very same issue in case of very same assessee in the case reported in [2006] 101 ITD 156 (Mum) SB) by an order dated 22-9-2005, 2 wherein the very same issue is answered in favour of the revenue and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. Said order has been accepted by the assessee, as per the statement made by Mr.Toprani, appearing on behalf of the respondent – assessee. He thus submits that in view of this, the revenue’s appeal needs to be allowed. 3. Accepting the statement made in this behalf, the question raised herein is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee for the reasons recorded in the judgment cited supra. The appeal is thus disposed of with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)