ITA No. 811 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 811 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.1.2011 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnal ....Appellant. Versus M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “E”, New Delhi in ITA No. 1066/DEL/2009 dated 11.2.2010, for the assessment year 2003-04, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80HHC on the face value of DEPB in the case where turnover exceeds Rs.10 crores in view of proviso (ii), (iii) and (iv) inserted by the taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80HHC in respect of entire DEPB ITA No. 811 of 2010 -2- amount by incorporating the same in the computation of business profit u/s 28(iiib)? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was justified in placing reliance upon the decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Special Bench, Mumbi in the case of M/s Topman Exports Vs. ITO (209)-TOIL-531-ITAT dated 11.08.2009 despite the fact that the decision of the Mumbai ITAT Special Bench in the case of Tompan Export, supra has been reversed by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemical, 2010-TIOL- 482-HC-Mum?” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter is covered in favour of the revenue by orders of this Court dated 16.8.2010 in ITA No. 301 of 2010 (CIT v. M/s Victor Forgings) and ITA No. 299 of 2010 (CIT v. F.C. Sondhi) wherein after noticing the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals, 2010 (42) DTR 193, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 3. Since we find that the matter is covered by earlier orders of this Court, we dispose of this appeal in same terms. For this purpose, we have not considered it necessary to issue notice to the respondent, but we give liberty to the respondent to move this Court if they have any grievance against this order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 14, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE