1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1139 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-19 ...Appellant Mumbai V/s. M/s.Cardio Products ..Respondent Mr.A.S.Shivsharan, Advocate, for the appellant Dr.P.Daniel i/b.Mr.Vishnu S. Hadade, Advocate, for the respondent CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 1ST OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The above Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. (a) The Substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of Sec.37(1) and other provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case 2 and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal right in deleting the addition of Rs.10, 81, 370/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the disallowance of commission allegedly paid to M/s.Vanita Sales and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. For reasons recorded in the assessment order. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his Order dated 28th September, 2004, in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 has clearly mentioned that the assessee has produced the documentary evidence to substantiate payment made to M/s.Vanita Sales and Marketing Pvt. Ltd and the record clearly indicates that such payment had been made to M/s.Vanita Sales and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. In view thereof, the amount was allowed to be deducted. 3. The said issue was again considered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its Order dated 7th January, 2008. The Tribunal in paragraph eight has given findings concurring with the findings given by the CIT(A) and came to a conclusion that the learned CIT(A) was correct in law and upheld the Order of CIT(A). The findings given by the ITAT are clearly of findings of facts and there is no question of 3 law involved in the above Appeal. Hence, the above Appeal stands dismissed. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (R.M.SAVANT, J.)