1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2122 OF 2009 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2302 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Indo Biotech Foods Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. J.S. Saluja for appellant. Mr. S.J. Mehta for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused appeals. 2. The view taken by the Tribunal is in consonance with the view taken by this Court. The relevant judgments are quoted in the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the revenue in order to distinguish the said judgments relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Prithviraj Bhoorchand reported in [2006] 152 Taxman 372 (Guj) and another Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of R & P Exports V/s. CIT reported in [2005] 146 Taxman 404 (ALL) with which we do not concur. 2 3. The Tribunal has taken a view similar to the one taken by this Court CIT V/s. Hari Synthetic Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. reported in [1986] 26 Taxman 540 (Bom) and CIT V/s. Ormerods (I) (P) Ltd. reported in [1989] 42 Taxman 081 (Bom), referred in its order with which we agree. 4. So far as another appeal is concerned, the said matter was restored back to AO to decide the assessee's claim on depreciation on additions made to the fixed assets afresh. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in the appeals. Both the appeals are dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)