IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2024 OF 2009 Time Technoplast Ltd. ... Appellant. V/s. The Income Tax Officer. ... Respondent. Sameer Dalal for the appellant. Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3rd November 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: “(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by simply following the Special Bench decision in the case of Vahid Paper Converters? (2) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances and in law, the Tribunal erred in reducing the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act with respect to Daman unit of the Appellant? (3) Whether on the facts and the circumstances and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the depreciation with respect to the Daman Unit of the appellant was to be compulsorily allowed and thrust upon while calculating profits for that unit? 2. Learned counsel for the respondent waives service. Taken up for hearing by consent of parties. 3. Learned counsel for both parties agree that all the three questions on which appeal is admitted should be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in view of the Full Bench Judgment dated 16th October, 2009 delivered in the case of Plastiblends India Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 4. In view of the above, all the three questions are answered in the 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.)