1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1077 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Govind Rubber Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. J.S. Saluja for appellant. Mr. S.M. Shah for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 31ST JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard. Admit on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in law in holding that for the purpose of clause (viii) of Explanation to section 115JA, profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80 HHC should be calculated without giving set off of unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 32(2) of the income Tax Act ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in law in holding that provision of doubtful debt is not a provision in the nature of unascertained liability within the meaning of clause (c) of Explanation to section 115JA even though the assessee had added back this provision for the purpose of computation of its income under the Income Tax Act by following mercantile system of accounting ? 2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. Learned counsel for the parties argue that so far as the first 2 question is concerned, it is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. reported in [2009] 23 DTR (Bom) 1. In this view of the matter, for the reasons recorded in the said judgment, the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 3. So far as the second question is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. HCL Coment Systems & Services Ltd. reported in 305 ITR 409 and the same is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)