bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.695 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.696 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Hindalco Industries Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.J.S.Saluja for appellant. Mr.Pankaj Toprani for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Both these appeals relate to the A.Y.1991-1992 and 1992-1993 between the same parties. The facts involved are identical. The question of law sought to be canvassed are common. They read as under: a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the Sales Tax from total turn over for computation of deduction under Section 80 HHC? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that Club Fees paid to employees are perquisite for the purpose of Section 40(a)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing that the premium payable on redemption of debentures be allowed, ignoring the fact that the premium payable is contingent liability which will consummate only on maturity of debentures? d) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing that expenses incurred on earning income from house property in respect of facility for lift, the air conditioning, watch and ward, and light for common area be allowed as an expense ignoring the fact that entire income is taxable under the head income from house property and only statutory deductions allowed thereon ? e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the assessee’s share of rental receipt and service charges from the Industry House of Calcutta under the Head Income from House Property and Income from other sources respectively ? f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee’s claim for proportionate premium of Rs.71,20,536/- payable on redemption of debentures issued in c.ys.1984 and 1996 and F.Y.1988-89 ? 3. So far as first two questions are concerned, both parties agree that the same are covered and answered in favour of the assessee by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works 290 ITR 667 (SC) and another judgment of this Court in the case of Otis Elevators Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 195 ITR 682 (Bombay) against the Revenue. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the third and fifth questions are covered and answered by the Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. Vs. CIT 225 ITR 802 (SC), in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 5. So far as fourth question is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order which is still holding the field since A.Y.1980-81 till date. The Revenue has accepted the earlier orders of the Tribunal almost for a period of more than 10 years. In this view of the matter, fourth question can hardly be said to be a substantial question of law. 6. In the above view of the matter, both the appeals stand dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)