IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2003 TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2003 TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2003 K.Mohan & Co (Exports) (Regd) ..Appellant Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) Circle 29 (1) Mumbai . Respondent Mr.P.J.Pardiwalla with Mr.A.K.Jasani for Appellant Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and A.V.Nirgude, A.V.Nirgude, A.V.Nirgude, JJ JJ JJ DATE DATE DATE : : : 14th July, 2008 14th July, 2008 14th July, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and heard learned counsel Mr.Sahadevan for the revenue. The above Appeal was admitted on the following question of law : " Heard. The following substantial question of law arises in this appeal :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the stand of the Assessing Officer that in computing deduction under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the amount of Rs.23,97,976/- being the service charges earned, commission and brokerage, profit on share trading and the vyaj badla received by the appellant ought to be excluded in arriving at the figure of profits of the business ? " 2. Both the learned counsel for the appellant and the revenue categorically state that as in the instant case it pertains to Assessment year 1989-90, the view taken by this Court in K.K.Doshi & Co vs Commissioner of Income Tax has been specifically overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (2008) 297 ITR 38 (SC) especially in the light of the CBDT Circular No.621 dated 19.12.1991 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the amendment in question with regard to section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance Act (No.2) of 1991 would be prospective in nature with effect from 1.4.1992 and not retrospective in nature. In view thereof, the aforesaid question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. { A.V.Nirgude, J } A.V.Nirgude, J } A.V.Nirgude, J } { Dr.S.Radhakrishnan,J } Dr.S.Radhakrishnan,J } Dr.S.Radhakrishnan,J }