JUDGMENT This appeal of Revenue challenges order passed on October 25, 2011, by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Income Tax Appeal No. 5485/Mum/2009 and for assessment year 2003-04. Two orders, namely, one of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated July 15, 2009, and that of Tribunal, according to Revenue, raise following three questions and which are termed as substantial questions of law: (5.1) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that loss incurred on sale of shares of Camelot wholly owned subsidiary was business loss when investment made in latter was not business asset but investment for obtaining enduring benefit? (5.2) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that cessation of sales tax liability not liable to be brought to tax under section 41(1)? (5.3) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in ordering deletion of interest leviable under section 234D on excess refund paid to company. interest under section 234D was brought into statute book with effect from June 1, 2003? question 5.2 above has been concluded by judgment and order passed by this court in batch of appeals, Income Tax Appeal No. 450 of 2013 (CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd. and other connected matters decided on December 5, 2014 [2014] 369 ITR 717 (Bom)). question stands answered against Revenue and in favour of assessee in terms of this judgment, as fairly conceded before us. So far as question 5.3 is concerned, it stands answered in terms of judgment dated December 12, 2012, in Income Tax Appeal No. 2012 of 2011 (CIT v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2013] 1 ITR-OL 198 (Bom)). question of law, which is identical to one framed at question 5.3 has been answered in favour of appellant-Revenue and against respondent-assessee. Remaining question 5.1 is stated to be substantial question of law. On that we have heard Mr. Pinto appearing on behalf of Revenue and Mr. Andhyarujina learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of assessee. facts necessary for that question are that assessee is engaged in business of manufacturing and trading of oral care products. In course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noted that assessee claimed deduction on account of loss on sale of shares held in Camelot Investment Pvt. Ltd. ("Camelot", in short) amounting to Rs. 5,50,00,000. assessee had made investment in 100 per cent. owned subsidiary Camelot as claimed for purely business reasons. stand of assessee that investment was made because and for purposes of business, loss on sale of such investment is required to be treated as business loss. assessee placed reliance, inter alia, on judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Patnaik and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 365 (SC) and of this court in case of CIT v. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [1979] 119 ITR 380 (Bom). alternative argument and which was canvassed without prejudice need not detain us. Commissioner and Tribunal concurrently found that Camelot was fully owned subsidiary of assessee and engaged in manufacturing of tooth brushes exclusively for sole client, namely, assessee. Shares purchased of Camelot were also sold by assessee to one Ramesh Sukharam Vaidya for consideration of Rs. 45,00,000. Assessing Officer held that sum of Rs. 5,50,00,000 which was invested by assessee in equity of Camelot on March 17, 2003, and which have been used to repay loan to assessee-company, amounting to Rs. 5.50 crores, before March 1, 2003, would demonstrate that purpose of investment was to give long-term enduring benefit to assessee. Merely because it was made in normal course of business, it cannot be termed as anything but long-term investment. This conclusion of Assessing Officer was challenged in appeal before first appellate authority and Commissioner concluded that main reason for setting up Camelot was to manufacture tooth brushes exclusively for assessee. Since assessee was relying on Camelot for manufacturing of tooth brushes to be traded by assessee, investment is nothing but measure of commercial expediency to further business objectives and primarily related to of commercial expediency to further business objectives and primarily related to business operations of assessee. At no point of time investment in Camelot was made with intention to realise any enhancement value thereof or to earn dividend income. investment was made to separately house integral part of business activity. In such circumstances, Commissioner relied upon above judgments and allowed appeal. He concluded that loss of Rs. 5.50 crores is business loss in hands of assessee. He set aside order of Assessing Officer. Revenue carried matter in appeal and Tribunal has dealt with this issue extensively. In paragraph 7 of its order, Tribunal has upheld conclusion of Commissioner and by giving additional reason. Upon perusal of this material, we are unable to agree with Mr. Pinto that question 5.1 reproduced above is substantial question of law. Given peculiar facts and circumstances and nature of investment so also being for commercial expediency, view taken by Commissioner and Tribunal concurrently cannot be termed as perverse. That view being imminently possible in given facts and circumstances. It does not raise any substantial question of law. appeal, is, therefore, partly allowed and in terms of judgment in case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra). appeal is dismissed to extent of other two questions. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.