:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2001 TAX APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2001 TAX APPLICATION NO.24 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Applicant Vs. M/s.Raymond Woollen Mills Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Ashok Kotangale, A.G.P. for the Applicant Mr.P.T.Pardiwalla with B.Das i/b. Gagrats for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH APRIL, 2007 : 16TH APRIL, 2007 : 16TH APRIL, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In the present matter, the following substantial question of law is sought to be raised: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the performance reward of Rs.57.02 lacs paid to an employee of the company for Assessment Year 1980-81 and Assessment Year 1981-82 in this year is covered under the provision of Section 36(1)(ii) 1st proviso of the Act?" 2. The above question of law is squarely covered by our High Court in the case of Commissioner of Commissioner of Commissioner of Income Income Income Tax Vs. M/s.Tata Iron & Steel Bombay House Tax Vs. M/s.Tata Iron & Steel Bombay House Tax Vs. M/s.Tata Iron & Steel Bombay House in Income Income Income Tax Reference No.95 of 1988 Tax Reference No.95 of 1988 Tax Reference No.95 of 1988 in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. :2: 3. By consent, the above Application is treated as statement of the case and the above question is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The Application stands disposed of accordingly. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)