IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 ITA.No. 335 of 2002 ( ) ======================= (AGAINST ORDER DATED 21/03/2002 IN ITA.83/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH) APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT: ================================== 1 THES COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT: ======================== 1 M/S. PARRY AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD., BRISTOW ROAD, COCHIN - 03. BY ADV.SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.ANIL D. NAIR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ITA NO.335/2002 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28/03/96. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 05/12/96. ANNEXURE-C : COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21/03/2002. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... I.T.A. No.335 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. In the Writ Appeal filed by the Revenue two questions are raised for our decision. 2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue and learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. So far as the first issue i.e. on depreciation is concerned, the same stands decided against the Revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Doom Dooma India Ltd., reported in 310 ITR 392. Following the said decision, we answer the first question pertaining to depreciation against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. So far as the second issue i.e. computation of eligible export profit for deduction under Section 80HHC is concerned, ITA No.335/2002 2 we notice the Tribunal has just followed their order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 1989-90. It is seen that this decision of the Tribunal was reversed by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parry Agro Industries Ltd., reported in 257 ITR 41. We, therefore, allow revenue's appeal on this issue by vacating the order of the Tribunal and directing the Assessing Officer to recompute eligible deduction under Section 80HHC following the Division Bench judgment above referred. Sd/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg