IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Income Tax Reference No.4 of 1996 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vidarbha Nagpur .vs. M/s Ballarpur Industries, New Delhi)Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. S.N. Bhattad ,Advocate for Applicant. Mr. K.P. Dewani, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : M.S. Sanklecha & Manish Pitale, JJ. DATED : July 13, 2017. 1. By this reference under Section 256 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal seeks our opinion on following questions of law:- (1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining deletion of Rs.2,09,68,300/- by CIT(A) on account of interest free loan given to Andhra Pradesh Rayons Limited? (2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in directing that deduction of royalty on Bamboo exploited, be allowed at rates other than those specified in 1968 and 1947 agreement drawn with Government of Maharashtra? (3) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law, having regard to provisions of section 40A(9) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in sustaining deletion of Rs.3,63,750/- by C.I.T. (A) on account of contribution made by assessee to various educational institutions not in capacity as employer? ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 09:26:42 ::: 2 ITR4 96.odt 2. Regarding question Nos. 1 and 2, it is agreed position between parties that these questions were subject of consideration by this Court in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1995 in which we have passed order today. Both question Nos. 1 and 2 as framed herein were answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of respondent-assessee and against applicant-revenue in Income Tax Reference No.3/1995. It is agreed position between parties that there is no change in facts and law and decision in I.T.R.No.3 of 1995 would govern two questions raised herein for our consideration. Accordingly question Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of respondent-assessee and against applicant- revenue. 3. Regarding question no.3, it is agreed position between parties that issue raised herein stands concluded against revenue and in favour of applicant-assessee by decision of this Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. .vs. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 501 and CIT .vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. -(2006) 284 ITR 679. Accordingly question no.3 as formulated is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of respondent-assessee and against applicant-revenue. 4. Reference disposed of in above terms. JUDGE JUDGE halwai ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2017 09:26:42 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industrie