AGK 1 itxa3713-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3713 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – III, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Nitco Tiles Limited, Mumbai – 400 021 ..Respondent. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant. Ms.Beena Pillai i/by Mr.Niraj Punmiya for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 6 August 2010. P.C. : 1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28 November 2008 and pertains to assessment year 2001-2002. As regards the first question, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states that there is a pure finding of fact by the Tribunal on the question of suppression of sales. In view of the statement made on behalf of the Revenue, no substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court as regards the first question. AGK 2 itxa3713-09 2. The appeal is admitted on the second question of law raised in the appeal, which is as follows : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in directing that the provisions of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC were not to be applied in respect of labour charges received by the assessee, despite there being no direct nexus between labour charges receipt and export business of the assessee ?” 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Counsel for the assessee are agreed in stating that the aforesaid question shall be concluded against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of this Court dated 8 April 2010 in The Commissioner of Income Tax – 6 V/s. M/s.Dresser Rand India Private Limited (Income Tax Appeal No.2186 of 2009). In view of the agreed statement made by the Counsel on behalf of the Revenue and the assessee, the aforesaid question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)