1 ITXA6263-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ttm INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6263 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Searle (I) Ltd. .. Respondent. Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant Mr.B.V.Jhaveri for the respondent CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Not on board. Taken up by consent of the parties. 2. Heard. Admit on the following questions of law. “(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in deleting the disallowance made by A.O. u/s.40A(5) of Rs.90,000? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in allowing the terminal allowance u/s.32(1)(iii) of Rs.1 lac?” 3. As regards the first question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mercantile Bank Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 283 ITR 84, the said question is liable to be 2 ITXA6263-10.doc answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, first question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4. As regards the second question is concerned, ITAT has allowed the claim of the assessee by following its decision in the case of the Assessee for A.Y. 1984-85. Counsel for the revenue states that the appeal filed by the revenue against the decision of the ITAT for A.Y.1984-85 has been dismissed for want of removal of office objection. No steps have been taken to restore the said appeal. Moreover, no error is pointed out in the decision of the ITAT. In these circumstances, the second question cannot be entertained. 5. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)