ORDER SHEET ITA NO.256 OF 2000 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction(Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE C.I.T.WEST BENGAL-I CALCUTTA Versus PEICO ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICAL LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 3rd June, 2015. MD.NIZAMUDDIN,ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT MR.J.P.KHAITAN,SR.ADVOCATE, MR.A.K.DEY, MR.P.BAG,ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT Court : appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2000 pertaining to assessment year 1988-89. Revenue has come up in appeal. following questions have been suggested; 2 i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in upholding order of CIT (Appeals) deleting addition of Rs.7,70,680/- and remanding same to Assessing Officer which was added by Assessing Officer relating to credit balance written back claimed as deduction by assesse ? ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in upholding order of CIT (Appeals) deleting addition of Rs.44,55,424/- on account of exchange loss ? iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in upholding order of CIT (Appeals) deleting addition of Rs.22,51,490/- claimed by assessee under Section 32 read with Section 43A of Income Tax Act, 1961, and remanding to Assessing Officer on said issue ? iv) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case ITAT was justified in law in upholding order of CIT (Appeals) deleting addition of Rs.56,12,555/- being provision for exchange loss added by Assessing Officer 3 in computing total income as per provision of section 115J of Income Tax Act, 1961 ? v) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case order of ITAT is perverse ? question nos.2, 3 and 4 are covered by judgment of Apex Court in case of C.I.T. Vs. Woodward Governor India P.Ltd. reported in (2009) 312 ITR 254(SC). question nos.2,3 and 4 are all answered in affirmative following aforesaid judgment. Since question no.1 is with respect to matter which has been remanded, we are not inclined to entertain that question. remand shall be carried out. We believe by this time it must have been carried out. question no.5 is of no use. appeal is thus disposed of. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb. C.I.T., West Bengal-I, Calcutta v. Peico Electronics & Electrical Ltd