-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Income Tax Appeal No.626 of 2003 WITH Income Tax Appeal (Lodging) No.421 of 2003 The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Appellant v/s. M/s.Sandoz Textiles & Trading Ltd. ... ... Respondent Mr.Ashok Kotangale for appellant. Mr.J.D. Mistry i/by Raj Darak for 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 : 21st November 2005 DATED : 21st November 2005 DATED : 21st November 2005 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Kotangale for the appellant in both the above matters. Mr.Mistry appears for the respondent. 2. The first question sought to be raised has already been decided in Joint Commissioner of Joint Commissioner of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vimal Fabrics Ltd. (ITA Nos.2064 Income Tax vs. Vimal Fabrics Ltd. (ITA Nos.2064 Income Tax vs. Vimal Fabrics Ltd. (ITA Nos.2064 to 2066 of 1999) to 2066 of 1999) to 2066 of 1999) decided on 22nd April 2002. That being so, the revenue cannot be allowed to agitate the same issue once again since the decision in Vimal Fabrics’s Vimal Fabrics’s Vimal Fabrics’s case case case (supra) has been accepted. 3. As far as the second issue which is sought to be raised is concerned, the same has -2- been decided in favour of the assessee in CIT vs. CIT vs. CIT vs. J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd. reported in 248 ITR J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd. reported in 248 ITR J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd. reported in 248 ITR 723 723 723. This being the position, no interference is called for. Both the Appeals are dismissed. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)