(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.64 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2871 OF 2008 The Commissioner of IncomeTax.....Appellant Vs. M/s.Audco India Ltd...............Respondent Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. Mr. A.K. Jasani, for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 29th January, 2009 DATED: 29th January, 2009 DATED: 29th January, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Considering the order to be passed delay condoned. 2. In so far as Question (A) is concerned, considering the concurrent findings of fact on a similar issue by the judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.89 of 2002 between the same parties, we have disallowed the Question by order dated 4th February, 2008. The same would apply in so far as the present Question also is concerned. 3. In so far as Question (C) is concerned, the Tribunal had relied on the judgment of this Court in Alfa Laval 266 ITR 418 Alfa Laval 266 ITR 418 Alfa Laval 266 ITR 418 as also Bangalore Clothing Bangalore Clothing Bangalore Clothing Co., 260 ITR 371 (Bom.) Co., 260 ITR 371 (Bom.) Co., 260 ITR 371 (Bom.) Considering the above, in (-2-) our opinion, since we have no reason to take a different view than the view taken by this Court, the said Question also would not arise. 4. In so far as Question (B) is concerned, considering the question at the highest the tax would be assessed on a sum of Rs.9.00 lakhs and odd. The tax effect would be below the limit of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Considering the above, in our opinion, the Question need not be answered and the same is left open to be answered in an appropriate case. Notice of Motion along with Appeal disposed of. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)