1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.366 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax 6 ...Appellant V/s. M/s.Burroughs Wellcome (I) Limited ...Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the petitioner. Mr.Percy Pardiwala, senior counsel with Ms.Urvashi Tapas i/by M & M Legal Ventures for the respondents. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused appeal. 2. Mr.Suresh Kumar fairly states that so far as question framed at Sr. No. (a) and (g) is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the assessment order passed in the case of assessee for earlier assessment years, against which appeal has not been preferred by the revenue and the revenue has accepted the order. So far as expenditure towards club membership fees is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon the Judgment of this Court. In the circumstances, both the questions can hardly be said to be substantial questions of law. 2 3. So far as questions framed at Sr. No. (k) and (l) are concerned, Mr.Suresh Kumar fairly states that the said questions revolve around the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal based on appreciation of evidence, with which no fault can be found. If this be so, they can not be said to be the substantial questions of law. 4. So far as question framed at Sr.No.(i) is concerned, same is covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. M/s.Oman International Bank SAOG, in Income Tax Appeal No.114 of 2009 decided on 9th February, 2009 (unreported). Hence, needs no fresh consideration. 5. So far as issues falling within the sweep of questions framed at Sr.No. (b), (h) and (j) are concerned, the issues involved therein are restored by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh along with reframed question, whereunder original questions (c), (d), (e) and (f) are consolidated by the learned counsel for the revenue, needs no consideration except small clarification that the Assessing Officer while considering the issues shall also be free to consider the effect of the Apex Court judgment in the case of K. Ravindra Narayan reported in 295 ITR 228. 6. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with the observations and clarifications made herein above. No order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (V.C. Daga, J.)