Itxa/1207/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central-Iii v. The Board Of Control For Cricket In India

kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1207 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NOS.1143/2012, 1154/2012, 1155/2012 AND 1194/2012 Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant -Versus-The Board of Control for CricketIn India. ..Respondent ........... Mr.Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant/ Revenue.Mr.P.J.Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Nitesh Joshi with Mr.P.C.Tripathi i/by Mr.Atul Jasani, for the Respondent/ Assessee. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- 31[st] July, 2014 P.C.: 1We have heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, appearing in support of these Appeals and Mr.Pardiwalla and Mr.Nitesh Joshi, appearing for the Respondent/ Assessee. We have perused the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. We are satisfied from reading of the orders that the questions of law termed as substantial are not such. That is for the simple reason that the fund created for the purpose of players or umpires either with matching contribution from the Board or players or umpires or otherwise may be from the income of the Board, but the fund is kept aside so as to eventually give benefit to those who have contributed to the game. Upon their retirement both the players and umpires are handed over the sums as recognition of their contribution towards the game. We do not find that the findings in paragraph 9 of the order in upholding the view of the Commissioner raise any substantial question of law. The findings are in consonance with the factual material placed on record and cannot be, therefore, termed as perverse. They are also not vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Considering the admitted factual background and in relation to the role and activities of the Board and the application of income we are of the view that the first question cannot be termed as substantial question of law. 2In relation to the second question as well, all that the Tribunal has done is to conclude that the land and building can have two different owners. Therefore, the sum which has been spent on construction of Indoor Stadium is the claim which has been rightly allowed by the first Appellate Authority. The findings of fact from paragraphs 11 to 13 in relation to the second question also do not raise any substantial question of law. The findings cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. 3Resultantly, the Appeals fail and they are dismissed. No costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)