bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1528 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Hoechst Marion Russel Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr.J.D.Mistry with Mr.B.D.Damodar i/b. Kanga & Co. for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Following two substantial questions of law are sought to be raised in the appeal. a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions made on account of provisions for liability towards long service entitlement and leave salary encashment ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.7.42 crores on the ground that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking provisions of section 92 of the Act ? 3. So far as first question is concerned, it is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. Vs. CIT 245 ITR 248. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not distinguish the said judgment and so far as second question is concerned, in paragraph No.28 of the order, the Tribunal, after threadbare discussion and after appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding of fact with which no fault can be found. The appeal is without any substance, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)