IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2002 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Versus M/S PHIL CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. ... Respondent Ms. A. Dessai, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate with Mr. J. Supekar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- D. G. KARNIK & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 30th August, 2010 P.C. Heard both learned counsels for the parties. 2. Vide Order dated 8.7.2002 this appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in holding that the depreciation under section 32 of the I.T Act cannot be allowed unless it is claimed by Assessee particularly in view of clarificatory explanation-5 to section 32 which is effective retrospectively?" 3. In our view matter is covered by the decision of the full bench in case of Plastiblends India Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The full bench held that quantum of deduction allowable under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act has to be determined by computing the total income from the business after taking into consideration all deductions allowable under section 30 to 43D of the Income Tax Act. The full bench has further held that whether the assessee had claimed the deductions allowable under section 30 to 43D of the Income Tax Act or not, the quantum of deduction under section 80-IA has to be determined on the total income computed after deducting all deductions allowable under section 30 to 43D of the Act. 4. In view of the decision of the full bench the question is answered against the respondent/assessee and in favour of the appellant. The ITAT was not justified in holding that the depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowed unless it was claimed by the assessee. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The Order of ITAT is set aside and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is restored. D. G. KARNIK, J. F. M. REIS, J. vn