1 itxa4197-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4197 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1 ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. F.V. Irani i/b. A.K. Jasani for respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Three questions are raised by the revenue in this appeal, which read thus:- i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the CIT(A) order holding that the revised claim of the assessee for deduction u/s.80HHC of Rs. 2,45,51,913/- based on the recomputation of 'indirect cost' was allowable ? ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the CIT(A) order holding that the ITAT's decision in case of M/s.Mangalya Trading & Investment Ltd. (ITA No.4696/M. 1997 dated 09-02-1999) was applicable to the facts of the assessee's case ? 2 itxa4197-09 iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing assessee's appeal with regard to charging of interest u/s.234B of the Act without considering the submission that liability to interest u/s.234B of the Act has to be considered in light of total income as determined by the AO on regular assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act without giving effect to the order of CIT(A) and order of ITAT ? 2. As regards question (i) & (ii) are concerned, counsel for the revenue fairly states that similar questions raised in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1998-99 in Income Tax Appeal No.3930 of 2009 [The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1 V/s. M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd.] decided on 01/02/2011 has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Therefore, the first two questions cannot be entertained as no substantial questions of law arises. 3. As regards the third question is concerned, the Tribunal has modified the interest u/s. 234B of the Income Tax Act on the basis of the total income computed as per the appellate order of the Tribunal. No fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal as it is in consonance with Section 234B(4) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)