(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.1596 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant Vs. M/s.Zodiac Clothing Co. Ltd..Respondent Mr. A.D. Kango and Mr.P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant. Ms. Vasanti B. Patel, for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 27TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 27TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 27TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Matter not on Board. With the consent of parties taken on board. Heard forthwith. 2. The issue as framed is as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,was the Hon’ble 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?" (-2-) The learned Tribunal in para.4 of its judgment held that in the present case the income is not income in the nature of interest or other charges mentioned in clause (baa) but labour charges and as discussed in the present case is the operational income of the assessee. They followed the judgment of this Court in CIT vs. Bangalore Clothing Co. Ltd., 260 ITR 371 and two judgments of the Cochin Bench. Considering the judgment in Bangalore Clothing Co. Ltd. (supra) as also the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal) in favour of the assessee the question of law as framed would not arise and consequently appeal dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)