-1_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 3 of 1997 Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Mumbai : Applicant v/s Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai City I, Mumbai : Respondent Mr. S.J. Mehta Advocate for appellant Mr. P.S. Sahadevan Advocate for respondent Coram : Dr.S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date: 23.7.2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Both learned counsel for the appellant and respondent state that question which has been referred to this court reads as under :- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) with a decision to examine whether the provision for bonds of Rs.. 32,64,087 was within the statutory limit and whether it was correctly made by the assessee in the books of account on the basis of mercantile system of accounting followed by it when the assessee had also simultaneously claimed deduction on bonus amounting to -2_ Rs. 31,90,183 on the basis of actual payment?" 2. Both the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent categorically state that the above question of law has already been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by a judgment of our court in a case reported in 193 ITR 349, Commissioner of Income Tax vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.. 3. In view thereof the above question is answered in the negative and in favour of assessee and against revenue. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr.S. Radhakrishnan,J.)