The Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 v. M/S. Dawood & Company

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1034 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-14 : Appellant v/s M/s. Dawood & Company : Respondent Mr. D.K. Kamwal for AppellantMr. B.V. Jhaveri for Respondent Coram : Dr. S. RadhakrishnanS.J. Kathawalla, JJ.Date : 8.9.2008 P.C.1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellantand the learned counsel for the respondent. The above appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. A) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, and in law, theHon’ble ITAT was right in upholding the orderof the CIT(A) directing the A.O.to delete theinflation in purchases of Rs. 3,27,285/-?B) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theHon’ble Tribunal was justified in upholdingthe CIT(a)’s order deleting the disallowanceof rent of Rs. 12,00,000/- paid by M/s.Brihad Bhartiya Samaj? c)(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theHon’ble Tribunal was right in upholding theorder of the CIT(A) rejecting the addition ofRs. 7,00,000/- on account of unproved legalcharges paid to M/s. Firdosh & Co. Advocates& Solicitors? (ii) Should not the I.T.A.T. have hpheld, without prejudice to the above contention,atleast the addition to the extent of thedisallowance specified u/s. 40A(3)? does not survive and said question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 3.As far as question no.B is concerned the sameis a finding of fact as apparent from ITAT order inparagraph 5 wherein ITAT has concurred with thefinding of fact given by CIT. agreed that the said question does not arise at allout of the impugned order passed by the ITAT. Hence the appeal is devoid of merits and stands disposed of accordingly. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)