1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.430 OF 2009 M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ..Appellant. V/s. ITO 2(2))(3) ..Respondent. Mr.Sanjiv S. Shah for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent. The main question which is sought to be raised in this appeal reads as under:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that revenue authorities were correct in disallowing poportionate interest paid apropos the interest free advance Rs.460/- lakhs given by appellant to Roplas (I) Ltd. ? " 2. So far as the other three questions are concerned they are different sets of the very same question. 3. We are taken through the order of the Tribunal and Tribunal after appreciating the evidence has 2 confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the revenue authorities that the authorities below have rightly disallowed the corresponding interest paid on the borrowed funds of Rs.460 lakhs which were given to Roplas (India) Ltd. as an interest free advance. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing tried to place reliance on the judgment in the case if C.I.T. V/s. Kishinchand Chellaram reported in (1977) 109 I.T.R. 569 (Bom.). The said case is distinguishable on facts. Apart from this, it is seen that findings of fact is recorded by the Tribunal and we do not see any substantial question of law arise in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)