: 1 : 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.369 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO.369 OF 2005 TAX APPEAL NO.369 OF 2005 Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ...Appellant V/s. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, . Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.M. Subramanian, Advocate, for the Appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. A.V. A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 10TH JULY, 2008. : 10TH JULY, 2008. : 10TH JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondents, though served. 2. By the above Appeal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant is seeking to raise the following two substantial questions of law :- (a). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not following the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. T.P. Sidhwa and consequently rejecting the assessee’s claim that the rental : 2 : income from Kantilal House’ property is not chargeable to tax? (b). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision of Section 27(iiib) of the Act is applicable and therefore, the income from ’Kantilal House’ property is assessable under section 22 of the I.T. Act as income from house property although the assessee was only a monthly tenant? 3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the present Appeal is arising out of assessment year 1994-95. The very same above mentioned questions of law were raised in the Income Tax Appeal No.388 of 2004 for the assessment year 1989-90, Income Tax Appeal No.389 of 2004 for the assessment year 1990-91 and Income Tax Appeal No.458 of 2004 for the assessment year 1991-92. This Court by a Judgment dated 28th November, 2005 found no substance in the aforesaid questions of law. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgement and Order dated 28th November, 2005, the present Appellant : 3 : had preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein leave has been granted and the Appeal has been admitted. However, since we are bound by our Judgement dated 28th November, 2005, for the same reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the above Appeal and the same stands dismissed. [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]