IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 62 OF 2000. TAX REFERENCE NO. 62 OF 2000. TAX REFERENCE NO. 62 OF 2000. M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. ... Applicant. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central I, Bombay. ... Respondent. Ms. V.B. Patel for the applicant. Shri A.N. Kotangale with D.A. Dubey i/b K.C.Sidhwa for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND A.S.AGUIAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND A.S.AGUIAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND A.S.AGUIAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 25.7.2005 : 25.7.2005 : 25.7.2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . By this reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80HHC excise duty ought to be included in the term ‘total turnover’? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the discounted value of 1/7th of the premium was an allowable deduction.? . Both the parties agreed that so far as first question which relates to deduction under section 80HHC is concerned, the same is covered by judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Sudarshan C.I.T. vs. Sudarshan C.I.T. vs. Sudarshan Chemicals Chemicals Chemicals Industries Industries Industries Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 769 (Bom.) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 769 (Bom.) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 769 (Bom.) wherein this Court ruled that excise duty ought not to be included for the purpose of computation of special deduction under section 80HHC. In this view of the matter, the question is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against revenue. . So far as second question is concerned, same is also covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Ltd. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (1997) 225 ITR 802. vs. C.I.T. (1997) 225 ITR 802. vs. C.I.T. (1997) 225 ITR 802. The said judgment has been followed by this Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. S.M. Holding and Finance P.Ltd.(2003) 264 ITR 370. Thus, for the reasons recorded therein, we answer second question in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. . Reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.S.AGUIAR, (A.S.AGUIAR, (A.S.AGUIAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, J.) J.) J.)