1 itxal986.06 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.986 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, Pune 411 044. ....Appellant Vs. Kinetic Motors Co.Ltd., Pune-411 012. ....Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, advocate for appellant. Mr. S.N.Inamdar, advocate for respondent. CORAM:- J.P.DEVADHAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 8, 2011. P.C. 1. By consent, the appeal is restored to file. 2. Three questions of law are raised in this appeal, which read thus: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Hon’ble ITAT erred in allowing the depreciation @ 40% on trucks owned by the assessee Company, who is not in the business of running them on hire. 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Hon’ble ITAT ought to have followed the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sardar Stones 2 itxal986.06 215 ITR 350. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Hon’ble ITAT erred in allowing the expenditure incurred on advertisement of 2nd death anniversary of the Chairman of the Company, which is purely personal in nature.” 2. As regards first two questions of law are concerned, Counsel for both sides state that similar question raised in the assessee’s own case being ITXAL No. 1169 of 2006 has been dismissed by us today. For the reasons stated therein, these questions cannot be entertained. 3. As regards second question is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that similar question raised in the assessee’s own case being ITXAL No.1170 of 2006 has been dismissed by us today. Hence, second question cannot entertained. 4. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)