1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.96 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Ashutosh A. Kela ..Respondent. Mr.D.K. Kamwal for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 3rd February, 2010 P.C. : 1. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in not following the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad Special Bench in the case of Vahid Paper Convertors Vs. ITR 98 ITD 165 (2006) wherein it was held that “Depreciations and other deductions falling within SS 30 to 43A will have to be deducted before making any deduction under Chapter VI-A. The logic behind the deductibility of depreciation while computing the eligible profits for Chapter VIA, is that if the depreciation is not reduced while computing the income, the assessee would claim on gross amount of income and that would amount to making more deductions than what he is entitled to ?” 2. When the appeal was placed for hearing, we had noted in our order dated 4th January 2010 that the record does not indicate that the respondent had 2 been served. The revenue was directed to serve a copy of the paper book on the respondent and hamdust was granted. The notice was also to indicate that the appeal would be taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage. Accordingly, on 13th January 2010 the Prothonotary & Senior Master, High Court, Mumbai addressed a communication to the respondent. The counsel for the revenue has stated that the respondent has been served and has produced an acknowledgment of receipt dated 25th January 2010. None appears for the respondent. The learned counsel for the revenue states that an affidavit of service has been filed. 3. The only question of law as noted above is covered in favour of the revenue by the judgment of the Full Bench in Plastiblends India Limited V/s. ACIT (2009) 318 ITR 352 (Bom) (FB). In the circumstances, the Appeal would have to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The question of law stands answered in terms of the judgment of the Full Bench in Plastiblends (supra). There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)