Itxa/748/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S. Etco Automotives Pvt.ltd

*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.748 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-III -Versus-M/s. Etco Automotives Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. A. K. Jasani for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 27[th] August, 2014 P.C.: 1]On 30[th] December, 2011, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year 2004-05. 2]The only question that arose from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 8[th] June, 2010 was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the said Commissioner erred in upholding the addition of Rs.39,57,924/- being deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In allowing the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal relied on its findings for the same assessment year and in assessee's own case but for purpose of *2* deleting an addition made under section 143(3) of the said Act. 3]That addition also pertains to same claim and issue, namely, of deemed dividend. The same statutory provision was sought to be applied and invoked. The attempt of the revenue was not upheld by the Tribunal on 18[th]February, 2011 when it allowed assessee's Appeal No.171/Mum/2010. 4]The order passed by the Tribunal on 18[th] February, 2011 deleting the addition was subject matter of Income Tax Appeal No.2301 of 2011. That appeal together with batch of other appeals came to be decided by this Court on 4[th] July, 2014. In dealing with those appeals, this Court refused the request of the revenue to re-consider a Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered on the same point in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Universal Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (324) ITR 263. 5]Both sides state that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by this order of the Division Bench. In the light of this, we are of the view that the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of. No costs. (A. K. MENON, J.)wadhwa (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)