IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Income Tax Application No. 904 of 1995 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay .. Applicant V/s. M/s. Bombay Gymkhana Ltd., Bombay .. Respondent WITH Income Tax Application No. 905 of 1995 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay .. Applicant V/s. M/s. Bombay Gymkhana Ltd., Bombay .. Respondent WITH Income Tax Application No. 914 of 1995 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay .. Applicant V/s. Santacruz Gymkhana .. Respondent WITH Income Tax Application No. 915 of 1995 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay .. Applicant V/s. Santacruz Gymkhana .. Respondent WITH Income Tax Application No. 927 of 1995 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay .. Applicant V/s. Santacruz Gymkhana .. Respondent Dr. P. Daniel for the Applicant Mr. Ajay Singh i/b. Mr. K. Gopal for the Respondent CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 04.07.2005. DATED : 04.07.2005. DATED : 04.07.2005. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. Both the learned counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent fairly state that the issue raised in the above is squarely covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Chelmsford Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 Chelmsford Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 Chelmsford Club v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 (243) ITR 89 (243) ITR 89 (243) ITR 89 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Under these circumstances, Applications stand dismissed. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (J.H. BHATIA, J.)