IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.804 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.1.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Liberty Enterprises. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 16.2.2010 in I.T.A. No.4760/DEL/2009 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80HHC on theface value of DEPB in the case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view of proviso (ii), (iii) and (iv) inserted by the taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified allowing deduction u/s 80 HHC in respect of entire DEPB amount by incorporating the same in the computation of business profit u/s 28(iiib)? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in placing reliance upon the decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s Topman Exports Vs. ITO (209)-TOIL- 531-ITAT dated 11.08.2009 despite the fact that the decision of the Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of Topman Export, supra has been reversed by the decision I.T.A. No.804 of 2010 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals-TIOL-482-HC Mum.?” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter is covered in favour of the revenue by orders of this Court dated 16.8.2010 in I.T.A. No.301 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings and I.T.A. No.299 of 2010 CIT v. F.C. Sondhi, wherein after noticing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals 2010 (42) DTR 193, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 3. Since we find that the matter is covered by earlier orders of this Court, we dispose of this appeal in same terms. For this purpose, we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the respondent, but we give liberty to the respondent to move this Court if they have any grievance against this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 13, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2