In this appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act v. M/s T & I Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5 of 2009

heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Insofar as the first question is concerned, we are of the view that the substant ial question of law does arise. Learned counsel for the Revenue has drawn our attention to the decision in Comm issioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., (2011) I GLR 275, where a simi lar question of law relating to transport subsidy was raised. In that decision, the question was answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against t he assessee. Following the decision rendered in Meghalya Steels Ltd., this question of law is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Insofar as the second question of law urged by the Revenue is concerned, the adm itted position is that in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s T & I Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5 of 2009, decided on 7.5 .2009, no substantial question of law arises. Under these circumstances, we reject this appeal insofar as the second question of law proposed by the Revenue is concerned. The appeal is disposed of on the terms mentioned above.