(1.) THE question of law raised in the present appeal is : "whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the kist amount payable by the assessee to the state Government which has not been actually paid cannot be disallowed under Section 43b of the Act in view of the judgment of this hon'ble court ?"
(2.) SRI M. V. Seshachala, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants, fairly concedes that the issue raised in these appeals has been answered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Sri Balaji and Co. [2000] 246 ITR 750, wherein it has been held that (page 761) :
(3.) IN the above view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.