(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.28 OF 1991 (R.A. No.1202/Bom/1989) The Commissioner of Income-tax...Applicant Vs. Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd.Respondents Mr. A.S. Rao for the Applicant Mr.P.J. Pardiwala with Mr. Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Rajesh Poojari i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the Respondent. WITH INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.28 OF 1991 (R.A. No.1137/Bom/1989) Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd.Respondents Vs. The Commissioner of Income-tax...Applicant Mr.P.J. Pardiwala with Mr. Nishant Thakkar & Mr. Rajesh Poojari i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the Applicant. Mr. A.S. Rao for the Respondent CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2007 DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2007 DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . These are two references, one at the instance of the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessee. In so far as the reference at the instance of Revenue is concerned, the amount is less than Rs.4.00 lakhs. In the light (-2-) of the CBDT Scheme, reference is returned unanswered. 2. In so far as reference at the instance of the assessee is concerned, in so far as the question No.1 is concerned, the parties agree that the same is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1994 ITR 294. In the light of that the said issue is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 3. In so far as question No.2 is concerned learned Counsel for the assessee on instructions states that the said issue may be returned unanswered and in view of the smallness of the amount involved. 4. In the light of what we have stated above references are answered accordingly. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)