hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 3032 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Ravalgaon Sugar Farm Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. B.V. Jhaveri with Ms. Priti Shukla for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 DATED: FEBRUARY 11, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Matter not on board. By the consent of the parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. . In appeal two questions have been raised which are as under : "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure made by A.O. invoking Section 14A of the Act? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is right in directing the A.O. to recompute the deduction u/s. 80IA?" . In so far a s question (a) is concerned, the parties agree that the same is purely a finding of fact. Consequently the said question as framed would not arise. . In so far as question (b), C.I.T.(A) has remanded the matter to A.O. to recompute he deductions. That fining has been confirmed by the I.T.A.T. In our opinion, as there are two concurrent findings of fact and no perversity is shown, the questions of law would not arise. Appeal disposed of 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.)