M.M.KUMAR,J. - (1.) THE revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') against the order dated 23.1.2009, passed by the Delhi Bench 'I' of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') relating to the assessment year 2001-02. The following questions of law have been sought to be raised:- "I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in allowing the expenditure as revenue in nature in respect of payment made to CRISIL amounting to Rs 1,39,932.00 and payment made for filing of compensation application in respect of new imported lacing machine amounting to Rs 31,000.00 even though these were capital expenditure and were not allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being capital in nature? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs 7,58,410.00 made by the Assessing Officer on account of staff welfare expenses disregarding the fact that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes? III. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the receipts of the assessee on account of unclaimed balances, profit on exchange fluctuations and Misc. income do not fall in clause (bba) of Explanation to section 80HHC? IV. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance out of vehicle and telephone expenses even though the assessee had failed to establish that the same were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes and the possibility of personal use cannot be ruled out and in contravention of the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Chitram and Co. (P) Ltd., 191 ITR 96 and CIT v. Madura Coats Ltd., 263 ITR 241?"
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the revenue-appellant at some length and are of the view that the matter is no longer res integra. In the case of the assessee-respondent, the revenue has filed ITA Nos. 288, 387 and 439 of 2009 raising similar questions of law and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals vide judgment dated 25.1.2011 rendered in ITA No. 387 of 2009, holding that no substantial question of law as claimed arises. In the instant appeal also learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) as upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore, for the sake of consistency the instant appeal is dismissed in terms of the Division Bench judgment, dated 25.1.2011, rendered in ITA No. 387 of 2009.;