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 TAX APPEAL NO.1195 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik-2 ..Appellant V/s. Autocop (India) Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent Nashik Mr. Vimal Gupta for Appellant Mr. S.N.Inamdar for Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. R.S. R.S. MOHITE, JJ MOHITE, JJ MOHITE, JJ DATED DATED DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2009 : 7TH JANUARY, 2009 : 7TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The main question which arises in this appeal was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs.28,38,000/- incurred by the assessee on foreign travel of the same directors was allowable as business expenditure considering the evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) which proves that the business assessee did not require any foreign travel. 2. From the order of Commissioner (Appeal), an appeal was preferred before the ITAT by the assessee. Before ITAT, it was pointed out that for the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer after detailed analysis on similar travel expenses has concluded that those are in the nature of business expenditure and have to be allowed in the light of the evidence laid. The ITAT then observed that there is no dispute that the travelling expenses incurred in the year under consideration are similar in nature and spent on travel of the same directors and for the similar purpose of trade fairs and meetings. Questions framed on behalf of the review pertains to this aspect. However, it is not disputed that for the assessment year 2004-05 similar expenses were considered in nature of business expenditure and that for the assessment year in question the expenses are similar. 3. We may further note that the Tribunal also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Session J.David & Co.P.Ltd. V/s. CIT (1999) 118 ITR 261 where the Supreme Court traced the history of Section 37 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 4. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal based on the earlier order of the Assessing Officer for the Assessment year 2004-05 and the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Session J.David & Co.P.Ltd. V/s. CIT (1999) 118 ITR 261 in our opinion, the question of law does not arise and consequently, the present appeal is dismissed accordingly. ( R.S. MOHITE,J.) R.S. MOHITE,J.) R.S. MOHITE,J.) ( F.I. REBELLO,J) F.I. REBELLO,J) F.I. REBELLO,J)