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 APPEAL NO.520 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.520 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.520 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. I.W. Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 15TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The appeal seeks to raise the following questions of law:- (i) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the TAT was right in deleting the addition of Rs.16,46,791 and allowing the deduction under section 35AB of the I.T. Act 1961, totally disregarding the facts of the case which show that the expenditure has no co-relation with the business of the assessee ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in deleting the addition on account of interest on borrowed monies for purchase of technical know-how for non business purpose, especially when the whole transaction was a make belief one ? (iii) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT is perverse in as much as it has allowed deduction u/s.35AB disregarding the main issues, and taking into account totally irrelevant considerations ? - = : 2 : = - 2. The first and second question of law sought to be raised arise out of the findings given by the Tribunal more particularly in paragraph 4.1 of the impugned order wherein the approval of the R.B.I. was relied upon to record finding of fact that the assessee was engaged in business of manufacturing goods. The decision in the case of CIT V/s. TELCO reported in 68 ITR 325 was also followed by the Tribunal in support of its view. 3. The third question is another shade of 1st question. In the above premises, this appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)