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 REFERENCE NO. 435 OF 1995 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay .. Applicant V/s. M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., Bombay .. Respondent Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. S.V. Bharucha for the Applicant Mr. S.J. Mehta for the Respondent CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 28.02.2005 DATED : 28.02.2005 DATED : 28.02.2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent. The following question is referred:- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,06,104/- on account of revaluation of finished goods by adding the excise duty paid on such goods by holding that excise duty payable is not includible in the closing stock?" 2. Both the learned counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent states that the question involved in the above is squarely covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 275 (SC) 275 (SC) 275 (SC). In view thereof, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)