: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.813 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.813 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.813 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. Pramod B.Shetti ..Respondent Mr.N.A.Kazi for the Appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani i/b.Ashok Boghani & Co.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 : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have perused the original assessment order dated 19th March,2003 as well as the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) dated 25th August,2003, wherein the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has clearly given a finding that the amount of Rs.28,09,595/- was allowable as a revenue expenditure on the basis of mercantile system of accounting. Over and above, the very same order was challenged in an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has given a finding concurring with the finding given by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that the Assessee had taken a delivery of software module during the previous year under assessment and also that fact had not been disputed by the Revenue. It was also not disputed :2: that the Assessee was following mercantile system of accounting and therefore, the Assessee’s claim was not subject to the date of actual payment. If the Assessee had incurred a liability in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the Assessee, he could claim the corresponding deduction. 2. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no substantial question of law involved in the above. The above Appeal is devoid of merits. Hence, the same 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.)