IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA No. 263/2002 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel for Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S TRIVENI ENGG. and INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Respondent Through Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vivek Bansal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO ORDER 24.09.2014 substantial question of law, which arises for consideration in this appeal, relating to Assessment Year 1990-91 reads as under:- Whether Tribunal (ITAT) and CIT (A) have erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,11,280/-, being amount collected by assessee towards Molasses Storage Fund ? aforesaid issue is covered against appellant-Revenue and in favour of respondent-assessee by decision dated 17th May, 2007 in respondent-assessee s own case in ITR No. 165/1990. In said decision, Delhi High Court followed view taken by Madras High Court in CIT versus New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Limited, (2000) 244 ITR 738 and it was noted that SLP filed by Revenue stands dismissed by Supreme Court in decision reported as CIT versus New Horizon Sugar Mills (P) Limited, (2004) 269 ITR 397. Revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing fact or ground why said decision should not be applied. appeal is accordingly dismissed recording that question of law has been answered in favour of respondent- assessee and against appellant-Revenue. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 VKR $ 31 Commissioner of Income-tax-VI v. Triveni Engg. And Industries Limited