1 IT APPEAL NO.2740-09 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.377 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-20 ..Appellant Vs. Shri Laxminarayan Agarwal ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. K. Gopal a/w Mr. Jitendra Singh for the Respondent CORAM : V C DAGA AND R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 20th September, 2010 P.C. Perused Appeal. Heard learned Counsel for the Revenue and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2 So far as the first question relating to the value of closing and opening stock is concerned, the same is covered by order of this Court passed in Income Tax Appeal No.2740 of 2009 dated 20th September 2010. In that view of the matter, the Appeal on this question is liable to be rejected. 3 So far as the second question is concerned, it revolves around Section 80HHC read with Section 28 (iii) (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the matter should be remanded back for consideration afresh, in the light of the Judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals reported in 2010 Taxman-Tax Reports (Volume 192), 435 (Bombay). The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the issue involved in the said 2 IT APPEAL NO.2740-09 Judgment of the Kalpataru Colours referred to in above has no bearing on the issue involved in this Appeal. However the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has no objection for remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. However, we agree on joint submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. It is open to the Tribunal to consider the issue afresh and decide the matter on its own merits as expeditiously as possible .All rival contentions revolving around the issue are kept open. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [V C DAGA, J]