IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2001 Roha Dyechem Private Limited ..Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent Mr.Rajesh Shah for appellant. Mr.B.M.Chatterjee for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 21st 21st 21st July 2008 July 2008 July 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. While admitting present appeal the following substantial question of law was framed on 29th July, 2004. "Whether on the facts and inthe circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining an addition of Rs.2,14,614/- to the income of the Appellant on the basis set out in its order? 3. Both the learned Counsel categorically state that the said question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by this Court in Income Tax Appeal Nos.46 and 47 of 1999 decided on 28th June, 2005. (Roha Dyechem Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax). Accordingly, in view of the said judgment, we answer the question raised above in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It may be noted here that the learned Counsel for the revenue agrees to the same. (S.J (S.J (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)