IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Mumbai ..Appellant vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. Jehangir Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Atul Jasani for respondent. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 13 JANUARY 2020 P.C.:- Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. Leave to amend figure mentioned in substantial question of law (a). Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-verification is dispensed with. 3. Appellant Revenue has challenged order dated 27 May 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal Nos.4445/Mum/2013 and 4418/Mum/2013. 1/3 38. itxa 741-17.doc 4. following questions of law have been framed as substantial questions of law in this Appeal which pertains to Assessment Year 2007-2008 :- a) Whether, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble Tribunal justified in holding that revenue share of license fees of Rs.2,77,77,90,896/- is revenue expenditure allowable as deduction under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 ? b) Whether, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Hon ble Tribunal justified in holding that addition made on account of disallowance of interest expenditure towards interest free loan to subsidiary ? 5. order passed in Respondent Assessee s own case for Assessment Year 2006-07 is placed on record wherein Court observed as under :- 3. We notice that Revenue has raised two more questions which are as followes :- (i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal justified in holding that revenue share of licence fees of Rs.1,42,30,76,399/- is revenue expenditure allowable as deduction u/S. 37(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal justified in holding that addition made on account of disallowance of interest expenditure towards interest free loan to subsidiary ? 2/3 38. itxa 741-17.doc 4. Question No.(i) is covered against Revenue by order dated 11.4.2016 passed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1551 of 2013 involving this very assessee. Without recording separate reasons, therefore, this question is not considered. 5. Question No.(ii) is covered by virtue of decision of Supreme Court in case of S.A. Builders Ltd Vs. CIT (Appeals), Chandigarh. Hence, this question is also not entertained. 6. Though Appeal was admitted on different question of law, questions of law raised in this Appeal have been considered and held against Appellant Revenue following decision mentioned in above quoted passage. 7. In these circumstances, there is no substantial question of law in this Appeal. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Rane Date: 2020.01.15 17:21:56 +0530 3/3 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-14, Mumbai v. Idea Cellular Limited