IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 61 OF 1996 The Commissioner of Income-tax-, ... Appellant. V/s. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. ... Respondent. Dhananjay Athawale for the appellant. H.Toor i/b. Cr.Bayley & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 9th June 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Tribunal has forwarded statement of case and referred following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the A.O. in making adjustment to the book profit u/s. 115-J of a sum of Rs.641.44 lakh being differential depreciation arising out of retrospective change in the method of charging depreciation? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the CIT(A) upholding the action of the A.O. in allowing set off of Rs.585.83 lakh, being lower of loss excluding depreciation and that of depreciation while calculating book profit u/s. 115-J of the Act as against the assessee s claim for set off of Rs.613.58 lakh? 3. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee brought to our notice Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kinetic Motor Co.Ltd. v. Deputy C.I.T. (2003) 262 ITR 330; wherein the question referred herein is answered. It is not necessary to state the facts of the present case. Both parties agree that following the said judgment reference be disposed of. 4. In the above view of the matter, we answer question No.1 in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. So far as question No.2 is concerned, the said question is consequential. It is, therefore not necessary to answer the said question. 6. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)