1 61 itxa 5748.10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5748 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-3 .. Appellant Vs. M/s. Ruchi Properties Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistri, senior counsel with Mr. P.C. Tripathi i/b Mr.Raj Darak for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1 Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this Appeal which read thus: A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was right in confirming the order of Learned CIT (A) in deleting the addition to income from House Property made by A.O. on account of enhanced Annual Letting Value of the property, and directing AO to adopt the ALV of property as shown by assessee? B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was right in setting aside the order of Learned CIT (A) on the issue of allowability of interest expenditure under section 57 of the Income 2 61 itxa 5748.10.doc Tax Act, 1961 and restoring the same to A.O. with the direction to allow the claim for interest paid if units are capable of earning dividend? 2 As regards the first question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar questions raised by the Revenue in Assessee’s own case being Income Tax Appeal No. 91 of 2001, the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Ruchi Properties Limited and Income Tax Appeal No.253 of 2001, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-VI vs. Ruchi Products Ltd. have been dismissed by this court on 15th January, 2008 and 29th January, 2008 respectively. Hence, the first question cannot be entertained. 3 As regards the second question is concerned, the question itself records that the ITAT has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh determination of the question involved therein. Since the ITAT has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we see no reason to entertain the second question. 4 Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)