IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1171 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Killick Nixon Ltd. ... Respondent. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 1st October 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused appeal. 2. So far as question Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, it is decided by the Tribunal on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.S.A.Builders v. C.I.T., 288 ITR 1. Learned counsel for the appellant- revenue could not demonstrate as to how the Tribunal was wrong in applying the principles laid down in the said judgment. In this view of the matter, the said question cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. 3. So far as question No.3 and 4 are concerned, the legal expenses were crystalised in the assessment year 1998-99. Therefore, the same were allowed by the tribunal with which no fault can be found. Question No.4 is nothing but a different shade of question No.3. 4. In the above view of the matter, appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)