-: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 JURISDICTION ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s. Radhakrishna Hospitality Services Ltd., Gala No.5 & 6, Jyoti Wire House, Shah Industrial Estate, Andheri (West), Mumbai-53. ... Respondent. .... Mr. Vinod Gupta with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistry with A.K. Jasani for the Respondent. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & : F.I. REBELLO & K.U. K.U. K.U. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2008. : 25TH JUNE, 2008. : 25TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Revenue is in appeal against the order of ITAT which has confirmed the orders passed by the CIT(A). On behalf of the Appellant, the learned Counsel points out that ITAT relied upon a decision in the order of the Special Bench in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. V/s. DCIT (263 ITR AT 1). The learned Counsel submits that he is not aware as to what has happened to that Judgment mainly whether revenue has preferred an appeal thereto. 2. On the other hand, on behalf of the assessee, the learned Counsel draws attention to the order of CIT(A) and more specifically paragraph 16 on page 19 -:2:- which reads as follows :- " I have carefully perused the assessment order and the contentions made before me. While making the addition, the AO has not questioned the nature of the loan raised by the appellant company, which is a working capital loan. The AO has also not disputed to the appellant’s debiting it in its books of accounts as a trading loss, following the accounting standards AS-11 prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The only objection of the AO is that the claim of foreign exchange loss is purely hypothetical as it remains outstanding at the year end and was not repaid. The AO has also not commented on various judgments cited before him, stating that the facts in those cases may be different and therefore they could be distinguished." 3. That being the finding of fact, the question is whether the law has been correctly applied. We may note that CIT(A) relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in Sutlaj Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. C.I.T. (116 ITR 1) and the Judgment of this Court in C.I.T. V/s. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation (1986) 161 ITR 673, which has followed the decision in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills (Supra). 4. Considering the above and as the facts are not disputed, in our opinion, the question of law as prayed not arise and consequently, the appeal is dismissed. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) REBELLO, J.) (K.U. (K.U. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.) CHANDIWAL,J.)