1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.576 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-7. ...Appellant. Vs. M/s.Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr.Suresh Kumar and Mr.D.K.Kamwal for the Appellant. Ms.Vasanti B.Patel for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. March 19, 2010. P.C. : The appeal by the Revenue was admitted by an order dated 11th September 2008, on the following question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal right in holding that 90% of net receipts in respect of labour charges are to be reduced instead of 90% of the gross receipts for the purpose of arriving at the profits of the business for computing deduction u/s.80HHC ignoring clause (baa) of explanation to section 80HHC?” The order of the Tribunal which is impugned in these proceedings, is the common order for Assessment Years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The appeal by the Revenue 2 pertains to Assessment Year 1994-95. During the course of the hearing, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that the appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 were dismissed by the Division Bench on 27th February 2008. The same question of law was framed in this appeal. Since the appeals involving the very same question have been dismissed by the Division Bench on 27th February 2008 and there is nothing before the Court to indicate that the order of the Division Bench has been set aside by the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate for this Court to take any other view, inconsistent with the view already taken. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated in the order dated 27th February 2008, the appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)