1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2229 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8. ...Appellant. Vs. M/s.Sun Jewels India Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.Anil C.Mishra i/b.PKD Legal for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. April 9, 2010. P.C. : Two questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in the Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: “(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Tribunal was justified in law, in upholding the CIT(A)’s order of deleting the addition of Rs. 13,53,077/- in respect of payments made by the assessee beyond the due date towards employer’s and employees’ contribution of Provident Fund, Labour Welfare Fund and Employees Pension Fund, which were paid beyond the due date provided under the relevant statutes; (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in directing the AO to include labour charges of Rs.70,25,300/- and sale of scrap of Rs.3,18,000/- in the profit as well as the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act.” 2 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states that the first question of law is covered against the Revenue by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9th October 2009 in CIT vs. WMI Cranes Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal 1155 of 2007). In the circumstances, in view of the statement made, the first question has not raised any substantial question of law. In so far as the second question is concerned, by consent, the order of the Tribunal on this issue, is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 8th April 2010 in CIT vs. Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No.2186 of 2009). The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)