On appeal by the assesseee the CIT (A) directed deletion of the notional interest in respect of advance made to the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, which was added by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue challenged the order before the Appellate Tribunal . The Tribunal by an order dated July 31, 2006 set aside the findings of the Assessing Officer in so far as it granted the relief with regard to depreciation and notional interest and the matter was remitted to the AO to consider the controversy afresh. After remand, the Assessing Officer passed an order on December 15, 2009. The Assessing Officer disallowed 100 per cent. depreciation on pollution control equipment amounting to Rs. 4,93,00,000. The Assessing Officer also taxed the notional income on the amount of loan advanced to the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. The order was the subject matter of challenge before the CIT (A) The CIT(A)   held that the original order remanding the assessment was passed only to examine two issues, viz., depreciation and notional interest. It was further held that since there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, the order giving effect to the findings of the Tribunal was not barred by limitation under section 153(2A). However the Tribunal held that the order was barred by limitation. On appeal by the revenue the Court held that   it was evident that the order of remand had been issued with a view to give effect to the findings of the Tribunal. Neither had the order of assessment been set aside nor had the AO been directed to carry out fresh assessment. In other words, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was a remand on a limited issue. Therefore, the provisions of S.  153(3) applied to the facts of the case and the Tribunal therefore, committed an error of law in holding that the order passed by the CIT (A) was passed under section 153(2A). The order was not barred by limitation.( AY.1996-97)