=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX TAX TAX APPEAL NO.670 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.670 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.670 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020 ...Appellant v/s M/s National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 ...Respondents Mr Suresh Kona for Appellant. Mr Dinesh Vyas with Mr P.C. Tripathi for Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND J.P. DEVADHAR JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH OCTOBER 2008 15TH OCTOBER 2008 15TH OCTOBER 2008 =2= P.C.- 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax has raised four questions of law in this appeal. The first question relates to the expenditure incurred for obtaining latest technical know-how in respect of VCC, a product already manufactured by the assessee. The Tribunal, relying on its decision in the case of Cadbury Fry (India) P.Ltd. v/s ITO in ITA No.1285/Bom/1981 allowed the claim of the assessee. The learned counsel appearing for appellant is not in a position to state as to whether the decision of the Tribunal in Cadbury Fry (India) P.Ltd. has been accepted or not. In the absence of any material to show that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cadbury Fry (India) P.Ltd. is contrary to law, we see no reason to entertain the first question. 2. As regards question Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance and depreciation on imported rotters and starters which were kept ready as standby in case there is a shut down of the plant. The finding of the Tribunal is based on findings of facts. No question of law arises and therefore we see no reason to entertain these questions. =3= 3. as regards question No.4 is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for appellant agreed before the Tribunal that the question is covered by the decision of Patna High Court in the case of CIT v/s N.P.Singh and others, reported in 207 ITR 183. The learned counsel is therefore unable to distinguish the said decision or show us as to how the said decision is not applicable to this case. Accordingly, question No.4 does not arise. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( J.P. DEVADHAR J.)