U 34&35 o/o t8.l-L.2OOg Present: Ms. P.L. Bansal, Adv. for the Appellant. Dr. Rakesh Gupta and Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Advs. for the Respondent. + ITA No. L712009 ITA No. L812009 (Common Order) * Admit. Following question of law arises for determination in both these appeals. t. Whether ITAT was correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s B0-IA of the Act on verifying and finding that DEPB credit had arose from the export of goods manufactured by it? In fact, this very question relating to DEPB credit for the purpose of deduction under Section B0-IA came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Libefi fndia vs. Commissioner of fncome Tax- 3L7 ITR 2LB which has been decided in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. Counsel for the Respondent concedes to this legal J position. rTA 1.7/2009 & 18/2009 Page 1 of2 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ( Accordingly we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and allow these appeals. I#M SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. NOVEMBER 1.8, 2OO9 vnl<t / ? rTA 77/2009 & LB/2009 Page 2 of2