The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V, Pune 411 044 v. Kinetic Motors Co.ltd., Pune-411 012

ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1170 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V,Pune 411 044. Vs.Kinetic Motors Co.Ltd., Pune-411 012. ....Appellant ....Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, advocate for appellant. Mr. S.N.Inamdar, advocate for respondent. CORAM:- J.P.DEVADHAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- FEBRUARY 8, 2011. P.C. 1.Two questions of law are raised by the Revenue in this appeal, which read as follows: “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Hon.’ble ITAT erred in allowing the expenditure incurred on advertisement of 1[st] death anniversary of the Chairman of the Company, which is purely personal in nature. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT has erred in allowing the payment of royalty paid to Honda Motors Co. Ltd. for technical knowhow.” 2.As regards first question of law is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact in paragraph-6 of its Judgment to the effect that the assessee had incurred expenditure to commemorate 1st and 2nd death anniversary of its founder Director and Chairman Shri H.C.Firodia. For the reasons stated in paragraph-6 of the affidavit, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the Tribunal in allowing the expenditure incurred by the company on the advertisement. Accordingly, the first question cannot be said to be question of law arising out of the impugned order. 3.As regards second question is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the Revenue in assessee's own case being ITXA No.1240 of 2000 has been dismissed by this Court on 2[nd] May, 2009. Hence the second question cannot be entertained. 4.In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)