IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  14.08.2008 
.
 Present:        Ms P.L. Bansal, Advocate for the Appellant. 
 Ms Kavita Jha, Advocate  for the Respondent. 
.
 + ITA No.910/2008 
.
 This appeal pertains to the assessment year 2002-03 and is directed 
 against the order dated 7.12.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in 
 ITA No. 3989/Del/2005. 
 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that two issues are sought 
 to be raised in this appeal.  The first issue pertains to the increase in the 
 revenue liability on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation.  This issue 
 stands covered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by virtue of 
 the decision of this Court in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt Ltd: 294 ITR 
 451. 
.
 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the second issue 
 pertains to payment made to the Customs under protest and the deductibility of 
 the same under Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be 
 referred as ?the said Act?).  She submits that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 
 in rendering the impugned decision on this issue had followed its earlier 
 decision in respect of assessment year 1999-00.  An appeal had been preferred 
 against the said order for assessment year 1999-00 being ITA No. 761/107.  A 
 copy of the order dated 17.08.2007 passed in that appeal has been placed before 
 us.  We find that the issue raised therein is exactly the same as the one sought 
 to be raised here, namely, the claim of deduction under Section 43-B of the said 
 Act on the ground that it was required to make a Special Value Branch (SVB) 
 deposit with the Customs Authorities.  This Court after examining the order of 
 the Tribunal impugned in that appeal came to the conclusion that no fault could 
 be found with the view taken by the Tribunal primarily because the liability was 
 required to be discharged by the assessee on the payment and that the assessee 
 had no option but to make the payment.  This Court held that such payment 
 clearly fell within Section 43-B (a) of the said Act.  As such,  this Court 
 found that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal. 
.
 For the very same reason, we find that no substantial question of law 
 arises for our consideration.  The appeal is dismissed. 
.
.
 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 
.
.
.
 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 
 August 14, 2008 
 sb 
.