1 ita2810.06.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2810 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, Pune ..Appellant. Vs. Finolex Cables Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr. S,N. Inamdar for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 11TH APRIL, 2011. P.C. 1. Two questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal. As regards the first question, the Counsel for the parties state that the first question is answered against the revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works, reported in (2007) 290 ITR 667 (SC). 2. The 2nd question reads thus : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether 2 ita2810.06.sxw the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that 90% of the 'net rent' remaining after allowing of set-off of rent paid against rent received be reduced from the business profit for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC?" 3. As regards the 2nd question, the Tribunal following the Delhi Special Bench decision in Lalsons Enterprises Vs. DCIT, (2004) 89 ITR 25 allowed the claim of the assessee. 5. The learned Counsel for the parties state that the Income Tax Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee by merely following the decision of Delhi Special Bench in the case of Lalsons Enterprises Vs. DCIT, (2004) 89 ITR 25 without actually going into the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in so far as it relates to the second question is concerned is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ITAT for de novo consideration on the second issue in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Asian Star Ltd. reported in 326 ITR 56. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)