1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Income Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2010 [Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. Emkay Taps & Cutting Tools Pvt. Ltd.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. L.S. Dewani, Adv., for respondent sole. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 25th August, 2011. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A. Parchure for the appellant and learned Adv. Mr. L.S. Dewani for respondent. 2. Mr. Dewani has tendered calculation showing the tax effect, which shows calculation of Tax of 35 per cent and Surcharge of 5 per cent. Total tax effect is Rs. 3,40,641-00. He states that as per the Instructions dated 15th May, 2008, the present appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, should not be entertained. Apart from this, he also states that all judgments right from [1] CIT Vs. Camco Color Co. [254 ITR 565], [2] CIT Vs. Pitwa Engineering Works [276 ITR 519], and [3] Madhukar Inamdar cover this controversy. 3. In the alternative, it is urged that 2 Commissioner of Income Tax has interfered in the matter in exercise of powers under Section 263 of Income Tax Act and reasons given by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are valid. 4. According to learned counsel for appellant, the view taken by Commissioner of Income Tax deserves to be upheld and the interference by Commissioner of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not proper. 5. We have perused the impugned order. Apart from tax effect, we also find that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has noted that the view taken by AO was in accordance with then prevailing view and hence interference under Section 263 was not warranted. 6. The Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. MAX India Ltd. [[(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)] is, therefore, attracted in present matter. 7. In this situation, we do not find any Substantial Question of Law arising in the matter. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau| 3