Income-tax Appeal No.522 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.522 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.1.2011 The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal ...Appellant Versus M/s Spartan Trends Inc. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . 1. This order will dispose of ITAs No.522 of 2010 and 678 of 2010 as it is stated that questions involved in both the appeals are same. 2. ITA No.522 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 4.12.2009 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'I', New Delhi in I.T.A. No.1710/Del/2007 for the assessment year 2004-05 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80 HHC on the face value of DEPB in the case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view of proviso (ii), (iii) and (iv) inserted by the taxation Income-tax Appeal No.522 of 2010 -2- **** law (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 01.4.1998? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in 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 (iib)? 3. 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. 4. Since we find that the matter is covered by earlier orders of this Court, we dispose of these appeals 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 31,2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge