1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1104 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune. ...Appellant. Vs. Serum Institute of India Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.Atul K.Jasani for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. March 19, 2010. P.C. : The appeal by the Revenue was admitted by an order dated 25th September 2009, on the following question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in directing the AO to take into account the net interest for the purpose of clause (baa) of the Explanation to sub-section (4C) of section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas, as was held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Liberty Footwear Co. (2006) 287 ITR 339 (P& H), a plain reading of the words “receipts by way of interest” used in clause (baa) clearly shows that it is the amount of interest which is shown by the assessee on the receipt side and therefore, it is “gross interest received by the assessee”? Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Counsel 2 appearing on behalf of the Assessee agreed that the question would be covered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee by the judgment of this Court delivered today in CIT vs. Asian Star Co. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.200 of 2009). The question is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee for the reasons stated in the judgment. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)