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 NO.937 OF 2008 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 in this appeal, which read thus: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction on account of the payment of royalty to Honda Motors Co. Ltd., for technical know how even though such payment does not benefit the assessee and thus not made in business interest and commercial expediency ? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in allowing the depreciation @ 40% on trucks owned by the assessee Company, even though the assessee company is not in the business of running them on hire ?” 2.As regards first question of law is concerned, Counsel for both sides 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 first question cannot be entertained. 3.As regards second question of law is concerned, Counsel for both sides state that similar question raised in the assessee’s own case being ITXAL No. 1169 of 2006 has been dismissed by us today. For the reasons stated therein, second question raised by the revenue cannot be entertained. 4.Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)