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 Appeal No.266 of 2001. Income Tax Appeal No.266 of 2001. Income Tax Appeal No.266 of 2001. The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Mumbai City, IV versus M/s. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.B.M.Chatterjee with Ms. P.P.Bhosale & Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant Mr. Percy Pardiwala with Mr.Mohan Salian & Mr. B. Das i/b. Gagrat & Co for the respondent Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite, JJ. R.S.Mohite, JJ. R.S.Mohite, JJ. Dated : 11th Dec., 2007 Dated : 11th Dec., 2007 Dated : 11th Dec., 2007 P.C. 1. The question of law is as framed in para 5 of the appeal memo. Revenue had preferred Income Tax Appeal No.960/2000 in respect of the Order arising from the appeal filed by the assessee for the Assessment year 1985-86. That appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.6.2005. 2. Revenue had also preferred an appeal for the assessment year 1985-86. Tribunal noted that considering the orders in favour of the assessee for the earlier assessment years, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed the same by order dated 13.12.2000. This -2- appeal is preferred in respect of the said order. 3. Considering that the subject matter is the same and as the appeal by the Revenue against the order in favour of the assesse has been dismissed, nothing survives in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed. (F.I.Rebello, (F.I.Rebello, (F.I.Rebello, J.) J.) J.) (R.S.Mohite, J.) (R.S.Mohite, J.) (R.S.Mohite, J.)