IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2210 OF 2008 The CIT-20 )..Appellant Vs. Shri Kripashankar Chaturvedi )..Respondent ---- Mr.R.Ashokan with Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant. Mr.Harnansingh Khalse for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 18.03.2009. P.C. 1. The substantial question of law as enumerated in paragraph-4 of this appeal is as under :- (a) The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of Sec.44AD and other provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and other provisions and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in upholding the Order of CIT (a) and directing the A.O. to take the net profit at 6% of the gross labour contact receipts ? 2. The said question was also raised in Income-tax Appeal No.1076 of 2007. The impugned order of ITAT also refers to its order which was the subject matter of challenge in Income-tax Appeal No.1076/2007. We have given reasons while : 2 : dismissing Income-tax Appeal No.1076/2007 which is dismissed by a separate order passed today. For the same reasons we find that there is no substance in this appeal. The question as framed does not arise and appeal stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)