1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1071 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. S.M. Dye Chem Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. J.S. Saluja for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 10TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. In this appeal four questions are sought to be raised reading as under:- a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer amounting to Rs.3,68,16,000/- being the difference between value determined by the Dist. Valuation Officer and the value shown by the assessee ? b. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the appeal of the revenue and confirming the order of the CIT (A) and directing the deletion of Rs. 1,25,000/- in redemption of debentures being the claim of premium payable on redemption of debentures ? c. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in dismissing the appeal of the revenue and confirming the order of CIT(A) and directing to delete disallowance made by the assessing officer u/s.35AB of Rs.4,22,448/- ? d. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in directing to delete disallowance made on account of interest amounting to Rs.6,10,500/- on interest free 2 loans taken by an employee ? 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue fairly states that so far as questions (a) & (c) are concerned, both revolve round the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence which can hardly said to raise any substantial questions of law. 3. So far as question (d) is concerned, the Tribunal has treated the interest free loans given to the employees for the purposes of business. If this be so, this question does not raise any substantial question. 4. So far as question (b) is concerned, learned counsel for the revenue states that the Tribunal has followed its own order for the earlier assessment years i.e. 1991-92. The appeal preferred against the said order being Income Tax Appeal (Lod.) No.1807 of 2006 has already been dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of the Tribunal for the earlier year has come final and conclusive. Apart from this, the question involves deletion of Rs.1,25,000/-. The tax effect is negligible. Hence we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. However, the question of law sought to be raised is kept open for being considered in an appropriate case. 5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)