K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.57 OF 2000 M/s.Bachharaj & Company Ltd., )..Appellant Versus The Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-25)..Respondents W I T H INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.355 OF 1999 M/s.Bachhraj & Co. Ltd., )..Appellant Versus The CIT, Mumbai City-I Mumbai )..Respondents ---- Mrs.Vasanti B.Patel for the appellant. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 4.3.2009. PC 1. Considering the questions as framed, in our opinion, it would be suffice to answer question-(a) only which is as under :- (a) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to deduction under Section 80 M of the said Act in respect of the Appellant’s share in the dividend income of a registered firm wherein the appellant is a partner inspite of the fact that the said income has been taxed as dividend income ? 2. In our opinion, considering the section, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this : 2 : Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopalkrishna M.Singre (Bom) reported in 214 ITR 443 and in the case of CIT Vs. Jamnalal & Sons reported in 294 ITR 286 (Bom.). 3. Considering the above, question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The order of the Tribunal is modified. Appeal disposed off. INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.355 OF 1999 1. The Tribunal had preferred the following questions for consideration for the A.Y.1988-89. (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company was not entitled to deduction u/s 80 80M of the I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of the applicant’s share in the dividend income of a registered firm wherein the applicant is a partner inspite of the fact that the said income has been taxed as dividend income ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in distinguishing the order of the Tribunal in the applicant’s own case for the earlier assessment year relying on the judgments reported in 83 ITR 170(SC) and 43 ITR 352(SC) rendered under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 inspite of the fact that the Tribunal in its earlier order had mentioned that "the judgments rendered under the old Act of 1922 will not apply where provisions are not similar ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances : 3 : of the case and in law, Tribunal erred in not following its earlier order in the applicant’s own case especially when no new facts were involved ? (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) 2. In so far as 1st question for A.Y. 1989-90 is concerned, we have answered the same in Income-tax Appeal No.57 of 2000 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hence, the question no.1 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 3. As question no.1 is answered in favour of the assessee, question no.2 will become academic and hence returned un-answered. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)