:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.246 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.755 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. Swati Profiles Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta & P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.M.Shah for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. There is a delay of 198 days. Considering the cause shown delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) :2: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.755 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. Swati Profiles Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta & P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.S.M.Shah for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions of law. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest on short term deposits is to be included in the gross total income of the assessee for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s.80-I of the I.T.Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest on short term deposits is to be included in the gross total income of the assessee for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s. 80-I of the I.T.Act and ignoring the Supreme Court’s :3: decision in the case of CIT Vs. Pandian Chemicals (262 ITR 278) and directing the Assessing Officer to follow its own decision in the case of Lasor Laborities Ltd., Pune in ITA No.406/PN/1997 dated 15.9.1998 for annual year 1993-94? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income erred by the assessee to the extent of work done in factory premises, and on plant and machinery of Varsha Agroplast Pvt. Ltd. and using the manpower was profit derived from industrial undertaking owned by the assessee and provisions of section 81(I)(9) are not applicable in this case? . The learned Tribunal relied on the judgment in the case of Lasor Laboratories Ltd. Pune in ITA No.460/PN/1997 dated 15.9.1998 for the assessment year 1993-94. The grievance of the appellant assess is that they had relied upon the judgment in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd.VS. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 278. 2. To answer this questions No.1 and 2 therefore, it will have to be considered Whether the Tribunal ignored the judgment of the Supreme Court. We are concerned :4: with Section 80(I) of the Income Tax Act. The Judgment in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. is under Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act. At the highest the contention of the counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal could be that the ratio of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) be also made applicable to the cases, covered by Section 88(I) of the Act. This judgment therefore, cannot be said to conclude the issue of law by the Supreme Court in interpreting Section 80(I). 3. In so far as question-3 is concerned, the Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the provisions of Section 80-I(9) are not attracted. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Penwall India Ltd. 196 ITR 813. We have considered the provisions of Section 80-I(9). We concur with the judgment of the tribunal that on the facts of this case Section 80-I(9) would not be attracted.The Tribunal has discussed the same in Para-11 of the order. Considering the material before the A.O. we find no fault in the order of the Tribunal. . Considering the above, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for interference in the order passed by the ITAT. Considering the fact that the tax incidence is less than Rs.4.00 lakhs and the CBDT circular, the appeal ought not to have been filed. :5: 4. In view of above discussion, appeal is dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)