:1: bgp bgp bgp 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 CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.872 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.872 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.872 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.United Health Care Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. In the above, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Ld.CIT (A) deleting addition of Rs.122.61 lakhs made on account of cessation of liabilities under section 41(1) of the Act? 2. We have perused the order dated 18th December,2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, especially the reasons given in paragraph No.2 of the said order. It is explicitly clear that the Tribunal has concurred with the findings given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). It is merely a finding of fact. Over and above, in paragraph No.7, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the Revenue could not point out any fresh evidence contrary to the findings of fact given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Hence, we do not find any substantial question of law in the above Appeal. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) :2: