IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1243 OF 2008. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1243 OF 2008. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 1243 OF 2008. The Commissioner of Income-tax .. Appellant. Vs M/s RLC Engineers Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr J. S. Saluja, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr K. Shivaraman, with A. R. Singh, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. AND V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In the above appeal, the appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in upholding the decision of CIT (A) in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax without examining the applicability of provisions of Section 10-B (9) of Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. We have perused the judgment of the CIT(A) dated 10.11.2003 as well as the judgment of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2006. Both Authorities have confirmed that there is no transfer of shareholding of the Industrial Undertaking. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (V.C. DAGA,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J) (DR S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J)