( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1089 OF 2000 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1089 OF 2000 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1089 OF 2000 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant Vs. TATA Chemicals Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr.S.S.Shetty with Mr.P.C.Tripathi for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 28th August, 2008 DATE : 28th August, 2008 DATE : 28th August, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Appeal has already been admitted by this Court on two substantial questions of law mentioned in the order dated 3.12.2001, which read as under:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A), directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Section 37(4) without appreciating the fact that the expenses on maintenance, repairs and renovation are not allowable, and that the disallowance was rightly made as per the provisions of Section 37(4) read with section 37(5). (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A) of deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,79,988/- made under Section 40A(9) of the Assessing Officer being sundry contributions made by the Assessee? 2. The learned Counsel for both the parties categorically state that so far as the first question of law, which is reproduced hereinabove is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme ( 2 ) Court in the case of Britania Industries Limited V/s.CIT Britania Industries Limited V/s.CIT Britania Industries Limited V/s.CIT - 278 ITR 546 (SC), - 278 ITR 546 (SC), - 278 ITR 546 (SC), in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. In view thereof, the aforesaid first question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 3. So far as the second question of law which is reproduced hereinabove is concerned, the learned Counsel for both the parties state that the said question of law is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited V/s.CIT - 261 ITR 501 Mahindra & Mahindra Limited V/s.CIT - 261 ITR 501 Mahindra & Mahindra Limited V/s.CIT - 261 ITR 501, in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. In view thereof, the aforesaid second question is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 4. Appeal stands disposed of. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)