bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.2311 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan i/b.Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.Vinayak Shete i/b. Poorvi Kamani for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Office objections are overruled. Registry to register the appeal. Taken up for hearing on admission at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Perused appeal. 3. In the above appeal, three questions are framed styled as substantial questions of law. 4. So far as first question is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier order passed in ITA No.1430, 1431, 1513 and 1513 of 1981 for A.Ys.1974-75 to 1977-78. The appeal preferred against that order has already been dismissed by this Court being ITXA No.195 of 2002 in assessees case vide order dated 26th March, 2007. At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention that the appeal pertaining to A.Ys.1974-75 to 1977-78 was based on the earlier order of the Tribunal for the A.Ys. 1969-70 and 1970-71. No challenge was set-up to the said order by the Revenue. The order relied upon by the Tribunal was accepted by the Revenue. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise from the first question. 5. So far as second question is concerned, the finding is based on the earlier order of the Tribunal passed in the case of M/s. Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No. 6410/Mumbai/90 for the A.Y.1983-84. The said order has already been accepted by the Revenue. Hence, this question does not give rise to the substantial question of law. 6. So far as last question is concerned, it is nothing but a different shed of a second question. Apart from the above, this question involves tax effect less than Rs.4/- lac. 7. In the above view of the matter, we do not see any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. In the result, The appeal is, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)