IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2412 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Ingersoll-Rand (India)Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Sureshkumar, A.P.P. for the Appellant. Mr. V. Murlidharan i/by M/s. Chitnis & Co. for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following six questions "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the disallowance made by the AO for warranty amounting to Rs.2.48 Crores on account of replacement of shares and accessories on machineries which were under warranty? (b) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that provision made for meeting liability on account of replacement of spares and accessories of Rs.2.48 Crores/admissible deductions? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in holding the income from services rendered and sundry income as part of business profits and hence, entitled to deduction u/s. 80 HHC in respect of such income when it has no nexus with the business for which deduction u/s. 80 HHC is claimed? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in directing the AO to follow its own order for AY 1997-98 wherein the AO had included the income from services rendered and sundry income in business profits, whereas in the AY 1999-90, the AO had excluded such income from the business profits? (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is right in treating the "sundry income" consisting of writing back of customer credit balance, insurance claim, as not having an element of turnover, and, therefore, excluding the same from the total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 80 HHC of the Act? (f) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in relying on its own decision for AY 1993-94 and directing the AO to adjust the loss of one unit against the profits made by the other unit while computing the deduction u/s. 80-IA, when it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (266 ITR 521) that profit of one industrial unit should be adjusted against the loss incurred in another unit of the assessee while computing the deduction under Chapter VIA?" The counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the questions (a) and (b) are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court dated 15.2.2011 in Tax Appeal No. 2410 of 2009 (C.I.T. Vs. Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd. As regards questions (c), (d), (e) and (f) are concerned, it is seen that the Tribunal has remanded the matter for de-novo consideration. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( SMT.R.P, SONDURBALDOTA,, J. ) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)