: 1 : 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 APPLICATION NO.61 OF 1999 TAX APPLICATION NO.61 OF 1999 TAX APPLICATION NO.61 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, . Mumbai City - III, Mumbai ...Applicant V/s. American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai ...Respondent Mr.Parag Vyas, Advocate, for the Applicant. . Mr.P. Pardiwala, Advocate, i/b. M/s.Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C., for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. A.V. A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 4TH JULY, 2008. : 4TH JULY, 2008. : 4TH JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking a reference with regard to the following substantial questions of law :- (a). Whether the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.75,24,426/- made by the A.O. on account of memorandum interest including interest of Rs.47,51,144/- in the case of W.G. Forge and Allied Industries Ltd.? (b). Whether the facts and circumstances of : 2 : the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the interest on account of W.G. Forge and Allied Industries Ltd. amounting to Rs.47,51,144/- including in the memorandum interest of Rs.75,24,426/-? (c). Whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in setting aside the order of the CIT (A) and directing the A.O. to recompute the management expenses that could be allowed under the head interest on securities with applying the restrictive provisions as contained in following Sec.37 of the I.T. Act? 3. We have perused the Judgment of the Tribunal rejecting the Application seeking reference dated 24th July, 1998 specially for the reasons stated in paragraph No.4. The Revenue had accepted and not challenged the rejection of the application before the Tribunal on the very same questions of law for the earlier assessment year 1984-85. 4. In view thereof, we are not inclined to entertain the above Application and the same stands dismissed. : 3 : [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]