1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.786 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax- Mumbai City-16 ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Shreeji Exports ..Respondent. ..... Smt. Padma Divakar for the Appellant. Mr. Vipul B. Joshi with Mr. Sameer G. Dalal for the Respondent. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 22 April, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been admitted on the following two questions of law : “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not sustaining the addition of Rs.47,65,680/- as income from other sources? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to treat the interest of Rs.47,65,680/- as business 2 income and allow deduction u/s 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act?” 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee are agreed in stating that question (a) is covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of this Court dated 19 April 2010 in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Swani Spice Mills Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 1019 of 2007) and that question (b) is covered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of this Court dated 18/19 March 2010 in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asian Star Company Limited (ITA 200 of 2009). In view of the aforesaid statement, both the questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)