1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2261 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax -10 Mumbai ..Appellant. Vs. M/s.Chromatic India Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Ms Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant. Mr. R. Muralidharan i/b Dhru & Co. for the Respondent. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. 4th January, 2010. P.C. : 1. The following questions of law have been framed in the Appeal by the Revenue : "a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding that it is not obligatory on the part of the assessee to prove that debt written off is a bad debt for the purpose of allowance under Section 36(1)(vii)? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding that in the changed circumstances of law after the amendment to Section 80HHC (w.e.f. 1.4.1989) through the Taxation 2 Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005, it is correct on the part of the assessee to claim deduction under Section 80 HHC on export incentives viz., DEPB and duty draw back license, without the examination of the assessee to satisfy the necessary conditions laid out in the third and fourth proviso to sub-section (3) of section 80HHC?" 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has stated that the first question is concluded against the Revenue by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) v. Oman International Bank - (2009) 313 ITR 128 (Bom). Insofar as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded in paragraph 22 of the judgment that the revenue filed an additional ground. The Tribunal has, however, observed that no argument was advanced in support of the submission on behalf of the Revenue. In the circumstances, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed. (DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)