The Commissioner Of Income Tax—8 v. F.d.c. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1116 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax—8. Vs. ...Appellant. F.D.C. Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. .....CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. April 9, 2010. P.C. : An affidavit of service dated 25[th] March 2010 has been filed. The assessee has been served. No appearance has been filed. The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law, in remitting back the issue to the A.O. for verification and to exclude 90% of the net interest in case the assessee is able to establish the nexus between the interest received and the interest payments without appreciating the fact that the netting of interest is not permissible u/s.80HHC. b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the refund of sales tax has to be treated as eligible for forming part of the profits of business for the purpose of deduction u/s.80HHC.” Both the questions are not res integra, but are covered in favour of the Revenue by the decisions of this Court. The first question is covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18th/19[th] March 2010 in CIT vs.Asian Star Co.Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal 200 of 2009). The second question of law is covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 8[th] April 2010 in CIT vs. Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal 2186 of 2009). In view of the aforesaid, both the questions of law shall stand answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)