(-1-) hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd... Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for Respondent. 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: 24TH MARCH, 2009 DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2009 DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the tribunal which has restored the issue to the file of A.O. to decide the same afresh in the light of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd. (2008) 297 ITR 77 (Delhi). On behalf of the revenue the learned counsel draws our attention to Para 7.2 of the order to contend that the benefit had already been granted to the assessee and therefore there was no question of restoring it back to the A.O. . On the other hand on behalf of the assessee, the learned counsel submits that considering the accounting practices additions have to be made at (-2-) three stages which are (1) Purchase of goods, (2) Sales of Goods and (3) Inventory. In the instant case, it is submitted that what has been allowed is only in the inventory and not in the case of purchase and sale considering that the appellant was following the non-inclusive method of accounting. Considering the above, in our opinion, the order does not require to be interfered with except to extend that the A.O. will follow the law in terms of Section 145A considering that the judgment of Delhi High Court did not deal with this issue. . With the above observations, appeal stands 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.)