1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.93 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-20. ...Appellant. Vs. M/s.Advance Technology Devices. ...Respondent. .... Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. April 9, 2010. P.C. : The appeal has been admitted on 22nd July 2008 on the questions as framed in the Memo of Appeal. The following questions have been formulated in the appeal by the Revenue: “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the interest income as business income for the purpose of deduction u/s.80HHC. (b) Whether the ITAT was right in not appreciating Supreme Court’s decision in the cases of M/s.Tuticorin Alkali & Chemical Fertilizer Ltd. (227 ITR 172 (SC) and M/s.Coromandal Cement Ltd. (234 ITR 412 (SC) wherein it was held that whatever interest paid by the assessee should be treated as Business Expenditure and whatever interest earned by the assessee should be treated as income from other sources. Interest netting is not allowed.” 2 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states that the issues which are sought to be espoused by the Revenue are covered against the Revenue by the judgment in CIT vs. Punit Commercial Ltd., (2000) 245 ITR 550. Moreover, the issue of netting has not been raised before the Tribunal as would be evident from paragraph 5 of the impugned order and, therefore, would not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Although, the question has been raised in the Memo of Appeal, it would not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In view of the statement which has been made before the Court and for the reasons aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)