(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1723 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant Vs. M/s.Teem Laboratories Ltd......Respondent Mr.R.G. Bhat with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Tribunal in respect of the assessment year 1994-95 by the impugned order held that the Revenue conceded that the matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Prithipal CIT vs. Prithipal CIT vs. Prithipal Singh & Co. 249 ITR 670 (S.C.) Singh & Co. 249 ITR 670 (S.C.) Singh & Co. 249 ITR 670 (S.C.) and that the Revenue had accepted before the High Court in CIT vs. CIT vs. CIT vs. Orient Synthetics Ltd. Orient Synthetics Ltd. Orient Synthetics Ltd. that the matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Corut as aforementioned. The Tribunal has noted that once Revenue takes a particular stand in the case one of the assessee in favour of the assessee it is not open to the Revenue to take another stand in so far as the case of another assessee. However, considering the pendency of the Revenue’s Application the Tribunal noted that if Review Application is allowed. Liberty was granted to (-2-) Revenue to move Miscellaneous Application for recall of the order. Considering the above in our opinion the Appeal as filed ought not to have been filed. Even otherwise the question as framed would not arise as the issue is left open for consideration in the review petition. In the light of that Appeal dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)