IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  16.012.2010 
.
 Present:       Ms. P.L. Bansal, Adv. for the Revenue. 
 None for the assessee. 
.
.
.
 +ITA No.522/2009 
.
 Nobody appears on behalf of the assessee even on second call.  We 
 may point out that the matter came up for hearing yesterday, i.e., 15.012.2010. 
 Learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue had made a submission that the 
 questions of law proposed in this appeal are covered by two judgments, viz., one 
 by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Vs. 
 Commissioner of Income Tax [317 ITR 218] and other by the judgment of this Court 
 in the case of M/s Great Eastern Exports?Vs.?The Commissioner of Income Tax in 
 ITA No.267 of 2008 (decided on 29.011.2010). 
 Learned counsel for the respondent assessee had sought some time 
 to look into the aforesaid aspect.  However, as aforesaid, counsel for the 
 respondent has not appeared today.  In these circumstances, we proceed with the 
 matter in the absence of learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 
 The following substantial questions arise for consideration: 
 ?a)       Whether the ITAT was correct in law in allowing deduction under 
 Section 80IA of the Act to the assessee on the amount of `74,33,234 being export 
 incentives received by the assessee by way of advance license in respect of 
 exports made from Laminated Glass Unit-I? 
.
 b)       Whether export incentive received by the assessee can be said to be the 
 income derived from the business of industrial undertaking or it is attributable 
 to the business of industrial undertaking? 
.
 c)        Whether ITAT was correct in law in allowing netting off of interest 
 paid by the assessee against interest received from subsidiary company and 
 thereby allowing deduction under Section 80IA and 80HHC of the Act to the 
 assessee on the amount of interest received? 
.
 d)       Whether ITAT was correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer not 
 to reduce amount of profit allowed to the assessee as deduction under Section 
 80IA of the Act from the profits of the business while computing deduction under 
 Section 80HHC of the Act?? 
.
 Question (a) is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in 
 the case of Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [317 ITR 218] in favour 
 of the Revenue and Question (c) is covered against the Revenue by the same 
 judgment as AO attributed it to the business activity.    Question (b) and (d) 
 are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Great Eastern 
 Exports?Vs.?The Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.267 of 2008 (decided on 
 29.011.2010 in favour of the Revenue 
 Therefore, the Questions (a), (b) and (d) are decided in favour of 
 the Revenue and Question (c) is decided in favour of the assessee. 
 This appeal is allowed partly. 
.
 A.K. SIKRI, J. 
.
 SURESH KAIT, J. 
 DECEMBER 16, 2010 
 pmc 
.
.
 #54