1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.524 OF 2007 Monsanto India Ltd. ...Appellant. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 8(2). ...Respondent. ..... Mr.J.B.Andhyarujina, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Pallavi Divekar for the Appellant. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 18th January, 2010. P.C.: With the consent of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal dated 18th October 2006, in so far as it pertains to Assessment Year 2001-02, is set aside. The appeal, in so far as it relates to the aforesaid year, is remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. -2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee has urged before us that (i) The assessee had not claimed depreciation while computing income in the regular assessment, under Chapter IV; 2 and (ii) No deduction under Chapter VIA was claimed by the assessee. Hence, according to Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee, the judgment of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Vahid Paper Converters vs. ITO, (2006) 98 ITD 165 and the judgment of the Full Bench in Plastiblends India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (2009) 318 ITR 352, would have no application. We express no view on the correctness of the rival contentions of the parties. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the judgment of the Special Bench in Vahid Paper Converters (supra) would be applicable. Since we are remanding the matter by consent, we keep the question open to be urged before and decided by the Tribunal. -3. In order to facilitate a fresh order on remand, the impugned order dated 18th October 2006, in so far as it pertains to Assessment Year 2001-02 is by consent, set aside. The appeal shall accordingly stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)