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. 381 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2009 TAX APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Tata Sons Ltd. ... Respondent. Vimal Gupta with P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Dinesh Vyas, senior counsel with Ajit Shah and P.C.Tripathi for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 20th April 2009. : 20th April 2009. : 20th April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused appeal. 2. By this appeal, the following questions of law are sought to be raised by the appellant- Revenue: "(A) Whether on the facts and on in the circumstances of the case and law, the I.T.A.T. is right in directing the A.O. to tax the dividend income on net basis? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT is right in allowing the expenditure on distribution of refreshment coupons to the employees despite it is not incurred for business purpose? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the I.T.A.T. is right in treating the amount was received on termination of re-insurance division of the assessee company as capital receipt? 2. So far as question-A is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice that the said question is covered by this Court in C.I.T. C.I.T. C.I.T. v. Ambalal Kilachand v. Ambalal Kilachand v. Ambalal Kilachand, (1995) 81 Taxman 435 (Bom). In this view of the matter, the said question can hardly be said to be a substantial question of law. 3. So far as question-B is concerned, learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Tribunal relied upon its earlier order in the case of assessee itself in ITA No.629/Mum/2003. The said order has been accepted by the Revenue. In this view of the matter, the said question cannot be said to be a substantial question of law. 4. So far question-C is concerned the same is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. C.I.T. C.I.T. v. Narendra D. Desai v. Narendra D. Desai v. Narendra D. Desai, (2008) 214 CTR 190. 5. In the above view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA J.) J.) J.)