-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Income Tax Application No.4 of 2002 W I T H Income Tax Application No.5 of 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-VIII. .. .. Applicant v/s. M/s.Chheda Jewellery Marg. .. .. Respondent Mr.Ashok Kontangale for applicant. Mr.K. Shivram for the respondent. (In both matters) ---- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 29th November 2005 DATED : 29th November 2005 DATED : 29th November 2005 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Kontangale in support of both the above Applications. Mr.Shivram appears for the respondent. 2. In the facts of the present case, it is not necessary to go into the question which is sought to be raised since the tax effect is too small in both these Applications. This Court in CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. CIT vs. Camco Colour Co. reported in (2002) 254 (2002) 254 (2002) 254 ITR 565(Bom) ITR 565(Bom) ITR 565(Bom) has rejected application on similar grounds. Both the Applications are, therefore, dismissed. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) -2- (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)