M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income-Taxrange 3 (1), Mumbai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2007 M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. .. Appellant VERSUS The Additional Commissioner of Income-TaxRange 3 (1), Mumbai.. Respondent …. Ms. Vasanti Patel for Appellant. …. CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.DATE : 29[th] JUNE, 2018 P.C. :- This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was admitted on numerous questions of law. Thelearned Counsel for the appellant on instructions presses onlythe following substantial questions of law:- “(b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the ITAT was justified in holding that the profits eligible fordeduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the said units shouldbe computed after deducting depreciation allowance underSection 32 despite the fact that the Act does not provide amethod to work such depreciation?” 2.Ms. Patel learned Counsel appearing for theappellant very fairly states that, the substantial question raisedfor consideration stands concluded in favour of the respondent-revenue, and against the appellant-assesse by the decision ofthe Apex Court in Plastiblends India Ltd. Vs. AdditionalCommissioner of Income-Tax and Anr. [(2017) 398 ITR 568 (SC)]. 3. In the above view, the appeal is dismissed. [SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.] [M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]