The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai v. Bajaj Healthcare Private Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.255 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Bajaj Healthcare Private Limited..Respondent. Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.Mr.M. Subramanian with Mr.V.S. Hadade for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 11[th] January, 2011. 1.This appeal was admitted on 15[th] April 2009 on the following substantial questions of law : a)Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB in respect ov dividend from bank amounting to Rs.1,800/-, export benefits amounting to Rs.38,15,473/- and interest on term deposit amounting to Rs.30,510/- totaling to Rs.38,37,783/- even though the same are not derived from industrial undertaking and do not form part of eligible profits for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC in respect of profits from the business without reducing therefrom the profits of the business already allowed as deduction u/s.80IA(9) r/w. 80IB(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2.In so far as first question is concerned, learned counsel on both the sides state that the same has already been answered by this Court in the case of Liberty India V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3.In so far as second question is concerned, learned counsel on both the sides state that the same has already been answered by this Court in the case of Associated Capsules Private Limited V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Income Tax Appeal No.3036 of 2010) decided on 10th January 2011 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4.The Appeal is disposed off accordingly with a direction to the Tribunal to re-compute the deduction in the light of aforesaid decision of this Court. No order as to costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)