IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2729 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2729 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2729 OF 2007 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1474 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1474 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1474 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income TaX )..Appellant Mumbai City-3 Versus M/s.Innova Tradecom P.Ltd., )..Respondents ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.J.D.Mistry with Raj Darak for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 12.12.2007. PC 1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1474 OF 2007 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on questions of law as framed in paragraph-7 of the appeal memo. Question (A) is covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lazor Syntex Limited v. Lazor Syntex Limited v. Lazor Syntex Limited in Income Tax Application No.11 of 1999 decided on 11.6.2007. : 2 : 2. Question (B) is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Miss.Dhun Dadabhoy Miss.Dhun Dadabhoy Miss.Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT, Bombay Kapadia v. CIT, Bombay Kapadia v. CIT, Bombay reported in 63 ITR 651. 3. Question (C) is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v.J.K.Investors (Bombay) CIT v.J.K.Investors (Bombay) CIT v.J.K.Investors (Bombay) Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., reported in in 248 ITR 723. 4. Considering the questions as covered, no substantial question has arised. Consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)