The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai v. M/S.finoric Chemicals P. Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.575 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 9, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Finoric Chemicals P. Limited..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant.Mr.M. Subramaniam with Mr.H.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] September 2008 on the following substantial question of law. a)Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing to substitute the deduction under Section 80IA and under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the Section 80IA(9) is providing for the exclusion of the Income on which deduction has been claimed, from further deduction under any other section in Chapter VI-A ? b)Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in set aside the issue regarding the exclusion of 90% of interest income from the profit of the business while calculating the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act and directing the assessing officer to decide the issue in the light of the decision of Lalson Enterprises 89 ITD 25? 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 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. 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 Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Asian Star Company reported in 326 ITR 56 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 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.)