IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax, having office at Aayakar Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa. . Appellant Versus Zuari Industries Ltd., having office at Jaikisan Bhawan, Zuarinagar, Goa 403 726. . Respondent Ms. Amira Razaq, Standing Counsel for Appellant. Mr. Parikshit Sawant, Advocate for Respondent. Coram:- M.S. SONAK & C.V. BHADANG, JJ. RESERVED ON: 22nd November, 2019 PRONOUNCED ON: 2nd January, 2020 (Signed judgment is pronounced by M.S. Sonak, J. as per clause (i) of Rule 1 of Chapter XI of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules as C.V. Bhadang, J. is sitting at Mumbai.) JUDGMENT: (Per C.V. Bhadang, J.) On 18th April, 2012 this Appeal was Admitted on following substantial question of law: (I) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was justified in holding that amount of Rs.88,63,750/- paid to Texmaco, as deferred revenue expenditure allowing TXA No. 34/2012 2 payment to be amortized for period of eight years ? 2. Similar question arose in connected Appeal being TXA NO. 51/2008. parties agree that decision in TXA No. 51/2008 shall govern issue in present Appeal also. In TXA 51/2008, which is disposed by judgment of even date, we have answered point no. (I) against appellant and in favour of assessee, while point no. (II) has been answered in favour of appellant and against assessee. said decision would govern present Appeal also. 3. For reasons mentioned in judgment in TXA No. 51/2008, we pass following order: Appeal is partly allowed. impugned order passed by ITAT to extent of issue no. (II) above, is hereby set aside. order passed by AO on aforesaid issue, as confirmed by CIT (Appeals) is hereby restored. In circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. C. V. BHADANG, J. M. S. SONAK, J EV Commissioner of Income-tax, Goa v. Zuari Industries Ltd