1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1682 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1683 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1850 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1851 OF 2008 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2046 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Hindustan Dorr Oliver Limited, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr.B.D. Damodar i/by Kanga & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 22nd January, 2010. P.C. : 1. In all these appeals, a conditional order was passed for removal of office objections. We do not find any noting in the record that the time granted was extended by the Court. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has stated before the Court that he has prayed for and has obtained an extension of time. With a view to obviate any technical difficulty, we extend the time and have proceeded to hear and dispose of the appeals on merits. 2 2. The only issue which has been canvassed in these appeals by the revenue against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31st July 2007 pertaining to assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 & 1995-96 is the correctness of the deletion by the Tribunal of a disallowance of payment of technical fees. The Tribunal has noted that a similar issue arose in the case of assessee for assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 & 1987-88 and the Tribunal had held in favour of the assessee by coming to the conclusion that the payment made was to be allowed as revenue expenditure. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue has also stated before the Court that in respect of all the aforesaid years, no reference was made and the technical services fee relates to the same transaction. The Court is informed that for assessment year 1984-85, an application was made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was dismissed. We are informed by the learned counsel that this has been accepted by the revenue. In this view of the matter, no distinction can be made or has been sought to be made before us on behalf of the revenue in these appeals, which pertain to assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94 & 1995-96. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law would arise particularly in view of the fact that the revenue has already accepted the decision of the Tribunal pertaining to earlier assessment years. 3. The Appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)