It Is Agreed Between Counsel For The Parties That The Issue Arising In Question (A) Stands Covered In Favour Of The Respondent-Assessee And Against The Revenue v. Dcit, Reported In 332 Itr Page 42. We Find That The Tribunal In The Impugned Order Has Followed The Decision Of This Court In The Matter

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-10..Appellantversus M/s. Aarti Industries ..Respondent -------- Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. ............. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 24[th] January, 2013 P.C.: In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02, the following questions of law have been raised for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT is correct in holding that the deduction under Section 80 IA do not have to be reduced from the profits of the business of the undertakingwhilecomputingthe deduction u/s 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act. b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified deleting the addition of provident fund and ESIC payments that were made after the due date as prescribed in the Act. c) Whether on the facts and Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the company was eligible to weighted deduction u/s 35 (2AB) even though it did not fulfill the conditions as required by the said section. 2Regarding question (a): It is agreed between Counsel for the parties that the issue arising in question (a) stands covered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this court in the matter of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, reported in 332 ITR page 42. We find that the Tribunal in the impugned order has followed the decision of this court in the matter of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). Consequently, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, question (a) does not arise for consideration by this court. 3Regarding question (b): The Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising in this question stand settled in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 319 ITR page 306. We find that the Tribunal has also followed the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Alom Extrusion Ltd (Supra) while allowing the respondent-assessee's appeal. In view of the above, we do not entertain the proposed question (b) as formulated by the revenue. 4Regarding question (c): The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment for assessment year 2001-02 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) denied the benefit of deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. According to him, the conditions laid down therein had not been satisfied by the respondent-assessee. 5In first appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (the CIT(A)) allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. This was on the ground that according to him the respondent had infact incurred expenditure for setting up an inhouse R & D facilities. The mere fact that the approval letter by the prescribed authority was issued later i.e. on 06.07.2001 should not deprive the respondent of the benefit particularly as the approval letter mentioned the date and the year for which the approval is granted. 6The revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 30.03.2012 dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal held that the respondent-assessee had incurred expenses in respect of inhouse R & D facilities. Further, the certificate/approval letter from the relevant authorities was issued on 06.07.2001 stating that the approval is granted up to 31.03.2003. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and held that the respondent-assessee is entitled to 6The revenue carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 30.03.2012 dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal held that the respondent-assessee had incurred expenses in respect of inhouse R & D facilities. Further, the certificate/approval letter from the relevant authorities was issued on 06.07.2001 stating that the approval is granted up to 31.03.2003. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and held that the respondent-assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. 7We note that the finding of the Tribunal, granting the benefit of Section 35(2AB) of the Act, is a factual finding. This is for the reason that the Tribunal records and upholds the finding of the CIT(A) that the respondent-assessee had incurred expenditure for setting up inhouse R & D facilities. Further, the approval letter from the prescribed authorities also certified that such expenditurewasincurred.Oncesucha certificate/approval letter has been issued by the prescribed authorities it must follow that the explanation provided under Section 35(2AB) of the Act has been satisfied. 8We find that the order of the Tribunal is essentially based on a finding of fact. The revenue has not been able to show that the same is perverse. Consequently, no occasion to entertain question (c) can arise. no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)