IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2002 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2002 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO. 44 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City-III ... Applicant. V/s. Rheinbraun Consulting Gmbh, Mumbai. ... Respondent. B.M.Chatterjee with Mrs.P.P.Bhosale for the applicant. H.Toor i/b. Cr.Bayley & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ. and V.C.DAGA, JJ. and V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATED : 11th June 2007. DATED : 11th June 2007. DATED : 11th June 2007. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application the applicant- Revenue is seeking reference with regard to question of law for the assessment year 1986-87. We have perused the order dated 30th November, 1995. In para-3 of the said order the Tribunal has observed as under: "The learned D.R. has not been able to furnish any material to show how the situation in the years under consideration is different from assessment years 1984-85 and 1982-83 and 1983-84 for which no reference applications have been filed by the revenue." 3. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the applicant- Revenue has not sought reference with regard to assessment years 1982-83; 1983-84; and 1984-85. It is, therefore, clear that for the three aforesaid years the department seems to have accepted the case of the assessee. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application. We do not find any erroneous or illegal approach in the impugned order. 4. Application is, therefore, rejected. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)