-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income-tax Application (L) No.10 of 2001 with Income-tax Application (L) No.11 of 2001 with Income-tax Application (L) No.12 of 2001 with Income-tax Application (L) No.13 of 2001 with Income-tax Application (L) 14 of 2001 Commission of Income-tax. .. .. Applicant v/s. Central Bank of India. .. .. Respondent Mr.A.N.Kotangale i/by Mr.H.D.Rathod for applicant. Mr.F.B. Andhyarujina, Sr.Advocate with Mr.R.M.Sidhwa for res. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 5th September 2006 DATED : 5th September 2006 DATED : 5th September 2006 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. All the above Applications seek to raise the following question of law:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances in the law, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance on account of -2- rediscounting charges paid to IDBI?" 2. The respondent is a Bank in all the above Applications and the discounting charges received are sought to be taxed. A Division Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Bank of Maharashtra reported in CIT vs. Bank of Maharashtra reported in CIT vs. Bank of Maharashtra reported in 264 ITR 568 264 ITR 568 264 ITR 568 has already held that the discounting charges are not chargeable. This being the position, the question sought to be raised is already covered in favour of the assessees. No reason to entertain the Applications and they are dismissed. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)