ITA 35/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUTUM B.K. SINGH In this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue has r aised the following substantial questions of law: - 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that transport subsidy received by the Respondent is allowa ble for computation of deduction u/s 80 IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was j ustified and correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 80IB read with Section 80IA (7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not a mandatory condition b ut only directory? Notice was issued to the assessee on 3.12.2010 but the A/D card has not yet come back. On 24.1.2011, since sufficient time had elapsed, it was deemed that service was effected on the assessee and the matter was accordingly listed for today. Today also there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee. We have, therefore, heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Insofar as the first question is concerned, we are of the view that the substant ial question of law does arise. Learned counsel for the Revenue has drawn our attention to the decision in Comm issioner of Income Tax vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd., (2011) I GLR 275, where a simi lar question of law relating to transport subsidy was raised. In that decision, the question was answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against t he assessee. Following the decision rendered in Meghalya Steels Ltd., this question of law is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Insofar as the second question of law urged by the Revenue is concerned, the adm itted position is that in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s T & I Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5 of 2009, decided on 7.5 .2009, no substantial question of law arises. Under these circumstances, we reject this appeal insofar as the second question of law proposed by the Revenue is concerned. The appeal is disposed of on the terms mentioned above.