Start Of Picture Text -----<Br> v. Concerned, The Issues Stand Concluded By The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.128 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income-tax,City-6, Mumbai. v/s. M/s.Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd. .. Appellant .. Respondent Mr.R.Asokan i/by Mr.H.D.Rathod for appellant. CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED:17thDecember, 2004 P.C. In the memo of appeal, two questions of law have been proposed viz. (i)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunalwas right in law in holding that theamount of Rs.17,00,000/- received byits assessee on surrender of tenancyrights would not fall within thepurview of section 10(3) nor wouldcapital gains which arise in case oftransfer of assets whose cost ofacquisition could not be computed fallunder the head "Income from other sources"? addition of Rs.9,47,774/- made by theAssessing Officer to the closing stockon account of unutilised ModvatCredit?2. In so far as proposed question No.(ii) isconcerned, it stands now concluded by the judgmentof the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner ofIncome Tax v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co.Ltd., 249ITR 265.3. As regards proposed question No. (i), the saidquestion stands concluded by the Division Benchjudgment of this court in the case of CadellWeaving Mill Co.Pvt.Ltd. (249 ITR 265). Thelearned Counsel for the revenue submits that thesaid judgment is under challenge before the SupremeCourt.4. Even if that be so, in so far as we are concerned, the issues stand concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this court. 5. No substantial question of law arises.Dismissed. (R.M.LODHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)