Itxa/2662/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 Mumbai v. Essel Propack Ltd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2662 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02, the revenue has raised the following questions for our consideration :- (a)Whether on the facts and circumstnces of the case and in law, the ITAT is right directing the AO to include exchange gain in EEFC as part of business income for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC ?the ITAT is right directing the AO to include exchange gain in EEFC as part of business income for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80HHC ? (a)Whether on the facts and circumstnces of the case and in law, the ITAT is right in holding that 100% of net dividend income is to the ITAT is right in holding that 100% of net dividend income is to be excluded from computation of deduction u/s.80HHC whereas 100% of gross dividend income should have been excluded from the computation of deduction u/s.80HHC as such receipts have no nexus with the sale proceeds from export activities ? 2.So far question (a) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the issue raised herein is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this Court dated 31[st] March, 2010 in Income Tax Appel No.6997 of 2010 [CIT, Mumbai V/s. United Riceland Ltd.]. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain question (a) as proposed. 3. So far as question (b) is concerned, the same does not arise out of the order of the impugned order of the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-assessee had not pressed the ground with regard to the issue raised in question (b). In the circumstances, question (b) does not arise for consideration, as it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, question (b) cannot be entertained. 5.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)