IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.89 OF 2002 The C.I.T. City-V ..Appellant Versus M/s.Audco India Ltd., ..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani with Ms.Heena Doshi for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 4.2.2008 PC 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions of law :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the excise duty is not includible in the total turnover for the purpose of deduction u/s.80HHC of the Income-tax Act ?" (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that commission amounting to Rs.56,54,765/- is allowable even though the payee company : 2 : did not render any services to the assessee company ?" 2. In so far as question no.1 is concerned, the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court reported in 290 ITR 667. That view has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT V/s. CIT V/s. CIT V/s. Catapharma (India) P.Ltd., Catapharma (India) P.Ltd., Catapharma (India) P.Ltd., reported in 292 ITR 641 (SC) against the revenue. 3. In so far as question no.2 is concerned, Commissioner Appeal has found in favour of the assessee. Being aggrieved, revenue preferred an appeal against the said finding which can be seen from paragraph-21 of the judgment of ITAT. Learned ITAT in paragraph-25 has concurred with the finding of CIT. Considering the above, 2nd question would not arise. Consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)