1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION KJ NOTICE OF MOTION NO.235 OF 2011 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2394 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-16 Mumbai ) City-16, Mumbai )..Appellants Vs. Shri Mangal Bhansali )..Respondent ---- Mr. A. V. Shivsharan for the appellants. Mr. J.R.Shah for the respondent. ---- CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 14/2/2011. PC 1 By consent, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause-(a). Notice of Motion disposed off. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J) 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2394 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-16 Mumbai ) City-16, Mumbai )..Appellants Vs. Shri Mangal Bhansali )..Respondent ---- Mr. A. V. Shivsharan for the appellants. Mr. J.R.Shah for the respondent. ---- CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 14/2/2011. PC 1 Mentioned. Not on board. By consent, taken up for admission. 2 The only question raised in this Appeal is whether the ITAT was justified in allowing the interest claimed by the assessee. The finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal is that 3 the assessee has established the nexus of the borrowed funds with the investment in shares and accordingly assessee is entitled to the deduction of the interest amount. The CIT(A) in paragraph 2.1 of his order has recorded that the similar interest claim of the assessee has been allowed in the past. Nothing is brought to our notice that the earlier view taken by the Tribunal which has attained finality is erroneous or contrary to law. In this view of the matter, Appeal is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J) 4