1 itxa3957-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3957 OF 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus Eurotex Industries & Exports Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr.Pankaj R. Toprani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ. DATE : 9th September, 2011. P.C. : 1. By consent, order dated 4th August 2011 is recalled and the appeal is taken up for admission. Heard. Admit on the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that Turnover of Unit II of the assessee company is not to be included in Total Turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Income-tax Act ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction u/s.80HHC is to be computed in accordance with the decision of the Special Bench in M/s.Topman Exports (ITA No.5769/M/2006) ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the entire amount received on sale of DEPB entitlement does not represent profit chargeable u/s.28(iiid) of 2 itxa3957-10 the Income Tax Act ? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profit referred to in section 28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act requires an artificial cost to be interpolated ? (e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in diaallowing set-off of interest cost attributable to earning dividend against the dividend income earned by the Assessee Company for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s.80M of the Income Tax Act ? 2. As regard questions (b) to (d) are concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said questions are already answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals reported in 328 ITR 451. Accordingly, questions (b) to (d) are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3. As regards question (e) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar question raised in the assessee’s own case being Income Tax Appeal No.793 of 2008 (CIT V/s. M/s.Eurotex Industries) has been dismissed by this Court on 22nd September 2008. Question (e), therefore, cannot be entertained. 4. The appeal is admitted on question (a). Mr.Pankaj Toprani waives service on behalf of the respondent. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)