1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1521 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.C Mahendra Exports, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.K.R. Chaudhary for the appellant. Ms.A. Vissanji for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the revenue has not pressed first question. So far as second question is concerned, same is covered by the judgment in the case of CIT V/s. Badridas Gauridu reported in 261 ITR 256. The very same judgment has been relied upon by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the revenue submits that the revenue has not accepted the said judgment and SLP is pending against that 2 judgment, but that cannot be a ground to entertain this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the revenue could not distinguish the said judgment. Both the authorities below have considered the aspect carefully and considering the identical factual matrix, the view is taken by the tribunal, with which no fault can be found. 4. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)