AGK 1 itxa3776-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3776 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 16, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.K. Girdharilal ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant. Mr.Paras S. Savla with Ms.Renu Chaudhari for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 6 August 2010. P.C. : 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29 January 2009 pertaining to assessment year 2003-2004. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in directing to include 90% of the labour charges amounting to Rs. 1,22,90,301/- in the profit of the business for the purpose of allowing deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act without appreciating the fact that such charges were only incidental to the business of the assessee and not directly connected with its export activity ?” AGK 2 itxa3776-09 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the Counsel for the assessee agreed in stating that the aforesaid question is covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of this Court dated 8 April 2010 in The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6 V/s. M/s.Dresser Rand India Private Limited (Income Tax Appeal No.2186 of 2009). In view of the agreed statement made by the Counsel on behalf of the Revenue and the assessee, the aforesaid question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)