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.270 OF 2004 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.270 OF 2004 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.270 OF 2004 The CIT .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Kesar Enterprises .. Respondent Mr.A.S.Rao for the Appellant. Ms.Asifa Khan for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 28th August, 2008 DATE : 28th August, 2008 DATE : 28th August, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This Appeal has already been admitted by this Court on 11.1.2005 on three substantial questions of law mentioned in the said order. 2. The learned Counsel for both the parties categorically state that so far as the first question of law mentioned in the order dated 11.1.2005 is concerned, the same has already been covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Britannia Britannia Britannia Industries Limited V/s CIT - 278 ITR 546 (SC) Industries Limited V/s CIT - 278 ITR 546 (SC) Industries Limited V/s CIT - 278 ITR 546 (SC) in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. In view thereof, the said first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 3. The learned Counsel for both the parties also categorically state that so far as the second question of law mentioned in the order dated 11.1.2005 is concerned, the same has also been covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT CIT CIT V/s.General Insurance Corporation - 286 ITR 232 (SC) V/s.General Insurance Corporation - 286 ITR 232 (SC) V/s.General Insurance Corporation - 286 ITR 232 (SC) in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. In view thereof, the said second question is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 4. So far as the third question of law mentioned in the order dated 11.1.2005 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Appellant concedes that it does not involve any substantial question of law but merely involves the finding of fact. Hence, we are not answering the said third question of law and the same stands rejected. 5. Appeal stands disposed of. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)