1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1363 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1366 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1369 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1815 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Polylefins Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Ms. V.B. Patel for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. In this appeal, the revenue has raised as many as 18 questions. All these questions sought to be raised were considered by the Tribunal and decided against the revenue in its earlier order for the assessment year 1986-87 and 1987-88. Learned counsel for the revenue has given us a chart giving details of the factual aspects and categorically admitted that no appeal was filed for the assessment year 1986-87 against the order of the Tribunal, whereas in the 2 appeal filed against the order for assessment year 1987-88, all these questions were never raised though all these questions arose from the order of the Tribunal. In the above view of the matter, it is clear that the revenue has not only accepted the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1986-87 but also conceded in the appeal filed against the assessment year 1987-88. 2. Apart from the above, so far as question (e) in ITXA No.1815/09 and (f) in ITXA No.1363/09 are concerned, both are covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. V/s. CIT reported in 225 ITR 802. 3. In addition to this, it would not be out of place to mention that so far as questions (b) and (f) in ITXA No.1369 of 2009 are concerned, they are covered by the judgments of this Court, one in the case of CIT V/s. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd. reported in 216 ITR 690 (Bom) and CIT V/s. Parle Biscuits Ltd. reported in 282 ITR 547 (Bom). The chart given by the learned counsel for the revenue is retained on record. 4. In the above view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in the above appeals. All the appeals are dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)