K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3358 OF 2005 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1447 OF 2005 The CIT Mumbai City-10 ..Appellant Versus M/s.Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd..Respondents ---- Mr.Vimal Gupta and Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Ms.Sandhya Vedpathak i/by Manekshah & Sethna for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 26th March, 2008. PC 1. There is a delay of 90 days. We have also heard parties in appeal. In the light of that, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1447 OF 2005 1. Revenue has preferred the appeal on 2 questions of law as set out in the appeal memo. As far as question-(A) is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in 290 ITR 667. 2. In so far as question-(B) is concerned, the learned Tribunal relied on the order for the A.Y.1992-93 in the case of very assessee. Learned : 2 : Tribunal also placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in CIT V/s.Indian Transformers Association reported in 270 ITR 259. 3. The present appeal is in respect of A.Y.1997-98. Learned Counsel is unable to point out whether they have preferred any appeal in respect of A.Y.1992-93. 4. Considering the above, in our opinion, the said questions would not arise and consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)