Itxa/747/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 v. M/S. Strides Arcolab Limited

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.2111 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Strides Arcolab Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02, following questions of law are raised for our consideration :- i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting disallowance u/s.43B being employee's contribution respectively to provident fund and ESI as the same were not deposited within the stipulated time ?law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting disallowance u/s.43B being employee's contribution respectively to provident fund and ESI as the same were not deposited within the stipulated time ? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed as the profits of the business as reduced by profits allowed as deduction under section 80IA/80IB ?law, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed as the profits of the business as reduced by profits allowed as deduction under section 80IA/80IB ? 2.Counsel for the parties state that so far as question (i) is concerned, the same is covered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue by the decision of of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (i). 3.So far as question (ii) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in [2011] 332 ITR 42. In the above view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain question (ii). 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)