ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No. 308 of 2005 C.I.T. KOLKATA IV Versus MCLEOD RUSSEL (INDIA) LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 6th April, 2015. Mr. A.G. Gutgutia,Adv. for Appellant Mr.Siddhartha Das, Adv. Mr. Asim Chowdhury, Adv. for Respondent Court : appeal was presented on 27.7. 2005 which was taken up for hearing in presence of learned Advocate appearing for assessee after notice. following two questions have been suggested by revenue. (i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, learned Tribunal was justified in law in directing Assessing Officer to allow 100% depreciation of Vivro Fluid Bed Drver, thereby disregarding concurrent finding from lower authorities to effect that 25% of depreciation was allowable ? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, learned Tribunal was justified in law in restoring issue to file of Assessing Officer with direction that export turnover for purpose of computing deduction under 80 HHC will have to be taken at gross figure inclusive of brokerage and commission allowed to foreign agent and not at net figure of inward remittance following its earlier order for assessment year 199293? 2 There is consensus between learned Advocates for parties that both questions are now covered by earlier judgment of this Court to which one of us (Girish Chandra Gupta, J.) was party in case of assessee itself reported in (2014) 361 ITR 663 (Kol). In that view of matter, question No.1 is answered in affirmative in favour of assessee. Question No.2 is answered in negative in favour of revenue. appeal is thus disposed of. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) km C.I.T. Kolkata-IV v. Mcleod Russel (India) Ltd