1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1144 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Inventure Growth & Securities Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. Ms. Aasifa Khan for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal was admitted on on 19/6/2009 the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of the learned CIT(A) who had confirmed the disallowance of the depreciation of Rs. 14,31,378/- on BSE members card and had not agreed with the case of the assessee and that the said BSE membership card formed the part of the block assets of plant and machinery pursuant to the appellant order of the then CIT(A) for A.Y. 1997-98 and consequently the depreciation for the A.Y. under consideration was allowable on the return down value as defined under section 43(6) on the return down value of the block of assets of plant and machinery without exclusion of the cost of BSE membership card including in the said block of assets ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of CIT (A) who had confirmed the disallowance of trading of trading loss of Rs.47,68,610/- in respect of the transactions of trading in units of mutual fund ? 2 2. So far as the first the question is concerned, appeal is allowed for the reasons recorded in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.971 of 2006 [CIT V/s. M/s. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. (with other matters)] decided on 11th September, 2009 since the question sought to be raised relates to depreciation with regard to the BSE membership card. Accordingly, the question No.1 is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, the issue sought to be raised is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. reported in [2009] 310 I.T.R. 421. In this view of the matter no substantial question of law arise in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)