1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2315 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 ..Appellant. Vs. Spellbound Trading Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Ms Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant. Mr. J.D. Mistry with Mr. P.C. Tripathi i/b Mr. Raj Darak for the Respondent. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 14th January, 2010. P.C.: 1. Two questions of law have been framed in the appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the revenue : a) “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was right in dismissing the appeal filed by ’ the Revenue and allowing exemption u/s.54EA of Rs.6,86,33,387/- without appreciating the fact that assessee did not invest the sale consideration received on sale of assets but invested the application money received from M/s. Reliance Petrosynth Pvt. Ltd. towards unsecured optionally convertible premium notes in equity shares of M/s. Reliance Port & Terminals Ltd. and claimed exemption u/s. 54EA on the ground that the entire sale proceeds have been invested in the specified securities within the specified time limit? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble ITAT was right in dismissing the appeal filed by ’ the Revenue and allowing the stock borrowing charges of Rs. 72,00,000/- as business expenditure without appreciating the that that the assessee had not made any provisions for these charges in the Profit & Loss Account and further because these charges were in the nature of unascertained and contingent liability?” 2 2. Insofar as the first question of law is concerned, the Tribunal has followed its judgment in the case of Dy. CIT v. Gaylord Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 5732/M/04 dated 18th December, 2007). On the second question the Tribunal has followed its judgment in Adbhut Trading Company Limited (ITA 3597/M/02 dated 25th July, 2005). Counsel appearing for the revenue has stated before the Court that both these judgments have been accepted by the revenue since no appeals were filed. No distinction has been sought to be made out insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned so as to take a different view in the present mater. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law is raised. The appeal is dismissed. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)