1 itxa1757-09 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1757 OF 2009 IPCA Laboratories Limited, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 13, Mumbai ..Respondent. Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the appellant. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. DATE : 11th January, 2011. P.C. : 1. This appeal was admitted on 15th September 2009 on the following substantial questions of law : a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in taking the view that the appellant was entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on the total income after excluding the deduction available under Section 80IB of the Act ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that the Appellant was entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on the gross total income without reducing it by the deduction allowed under Section 80IB of the Act ? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that the provisions of 2 itxa1757-09 Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA(9) had no application to section 80HHC of the Act and that the Appellant is entitled to full deduction under Sections 80HHC and 80IB of the Act, subject to its gross total income ? d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in taking the view that the Appellant was not entitled to the deduction of the Doctor’s Sponsorship Expenses in view of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act ? 2. In so far as first three questions are concerned, learned counsel on both the sides state that the aforesaid questions of law have 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 fourth question is concerned, learned counsel for the Appellant states that he is not pressing the same in view of the less tax effect. 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.)