(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.99 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant Vs. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd...Respondent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. Mr. Arun Sathe, Senior Counsel with Mr. M.Vaidya and Mr. Panjabrao Naik, for the respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 5TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 5TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 5TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . In so far as question i), the same reads as under:- "i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that repairs and rents are not to be disallowed under Section 37(4) on the ground that the same were allowable under Section 30 and 31 of the Income Tax Act,even though the said expenses form part of the omnibus expenses on the guest house? The same is answered in favour of Revenue by the judgment of this Court reported in 278 ITR 547. (-2-) 2. In so far as question ii), the same reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee that expenses on medical reimbursement in excess of Rs.5,000/- should only be considered as part of the expenses covered under Section 40A(5)?" Considering that the same has been answered in favour of the assessee in 202 ITR 922 the question of law would not arise. 3. In so far as question iii) is concerned, in view of the view taken by this Court in the judgment reported in 69 Taxman, 563, the question of law as referred would not arise. 4. In so far as question iv), in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 275 (SC) the question of law would not arise. Appeal disposed of accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)