IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2006 M.s.Insotherm Glass Systems. ... Appellant. V/s. The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax and another. ... Respondent. Dr.K.Shivram with Ajay R. Singh for the appellant. B.M.Chatterjee with P.S.Sahadevan and Ms.Anuradha Mane for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3rd November 2009. P.C. : Heard. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in thrusting the depreciation u/s. 32 of Rs.7,97,510/- when the same is not claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in reducing the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act by thrusting the depreciation under section 32 on the Appellant? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in not following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mahindra Mills reported in 243 ITR 56 and various other subsequent decisions of High Courts? 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Appeal is taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 4. Learned counsel for both parties agree that the aforesaid questions should be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee for the reasons recorded in Full Bench judgment of this Court dated 16th October, 2009 delivered in ITXA No.1282/2007 in the case of Plastiblends India Limited v. Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 5. In view of the above, all the questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)