IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.338 OF 2009 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.338 OF 2009 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.338 OF 2009 The Commmissioner of Income ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Control Print (India) Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.P.A.Sahadevan for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2009. DATED : 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent. The appeal seeks to raise the following question of law :- 1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer holding that the claim in respect of bad debts can be allowed after it has been written off in the books of account and the assessee is not required to prove that the debt has become bad ? 2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in holding that the interest income did not accrue to the assessee even though the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting ? 3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in treating the market development expenditure as revenue expenditure holding that since there was no indication of corresponding existence of a stream of income the expenditure cannot be spread over - = : 2 : = - for a period even though the assessee had in fact amortised these expenses over sixty months in its books of accounts and when put together the chunk of these expenses was such whose benefits the assessee was going to derive over a period of time ? 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that so far as the question No.1 is concerned, it is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.114 of 2009 decided on 9/2/2009 in the case of Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) V/s. M/s.Oman International Bank SAOG (unreported). 3. So far as the 2nd and 3rd questions are concerned, both are based on the appreciation of evidence wherein both the authorities have recorded the findings of fact. 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. (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, J.) J.) J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)