1 itxa2818-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2818 OF 2010 Navneet Publications (India) Ltd. ..Appellant. V/s. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents. Dr. K. Shivram with Ajay Singh for the appellant. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondents. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATED : 22ND JUNE, 2011 P.C. :- 1. The appeal is admitted on the four questions of law, which read thus :- (1) Whether the appellate Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the employees contribution to PF and ESIC of Rs.6,239/- and employers contribution towards PF and ESIC of Rs.12,528/- u/s. 43B of the Act (2) Whether the deduction as computed u/s.80IB should be reduced from the eligible profit and gains of business before deduction u/s.80HHC can be computed ? (3) Whether Section 80HHC is a separate code within itself and deduction is to be mandatorily worked out as per the provisions of section 80HHC itself and that nothing contained in clause (9) of section 80IA can be read to amend the provisions of section 80 HHC ? (4) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that export 2 itxa2818-10 incentive are not profit derived from the business of the undertaking and therefore, not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act ? 2. By consent, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. So far as the first first question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC). Accordingly, the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. As regards second and third questions are concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said questions are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Lokmat Newspapers P. Ltd. reported in [2010] 322 ITR 43 (Bom). Accordingly, the second and third questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. Counsel for the assessee states that he has instructions not to press the fourth question. Accordingly, the fourth question is not answered. 6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs. (SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)