:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.614 OF 2004 TAX APPEAL NO.614 OF 2004 TAX APPEAL NO.614 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Wall Street Construction Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.J.S.Saluja for the Appellant. Mr.P.R.Toprani for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The above Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: A. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer against the claim by the assessee as to the deductibility of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the act in respect of Rs.1,51,87,937/- the money borrowed and used for the purpose of its construction activity and further upholding the method of valuation of work in progress as adopted by the Assessee? 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent fairly states, that in view of the judgment of the Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in the case of Wall Street Wall Street Wall Street Construction Construction Construction Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax, Tax, Special Range-12, Mumbai (2006) 101 ITD (Mum) Special Range-12, Mumbai (2006) 101 ITD (Mum) Special Range-12, Mumbai (2006) 101 ITD (Mum) :2: (SB) (SB) (SB), the Respondent is not opposing the above Appeal. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also states, that the above decision of the Special Bench pertains to the very same Assessee and the above Appeal was filed prior to the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench. 3. In view thereof, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)