IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 19. 
 . 
         ITA 588/2006  
 . 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX      ..... Appellant 
 Through Ms.P.L.Bansal with 
 Mr.Vishnu Sharma, Advocates. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA P.LT      ..... Respondent 
 Through Mr.Ajay Vohra, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN 
 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                               27.11.2006 
 Admit. 
 Following substantial questions of  law arise for consideration: 
 ?1.       Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the disallowance made by 
 the Assessing Officer out of administrative expenses paid by the assessee to 
 M/s. SBCH on the ground that the order passed by ITAT for assessment year 1998- 
 . 
 . 
 1999 and 1999-2000 was applicable to the present year also despite the fact that 
 the facts are distinguishable? 
 . 
 2.       Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that while computing 
 deduction under Section 80HHC(3)(b) only those indirect cost which are 
 attributable to the exports are to be excluded from the turnover derived from 
 export of trading goods? 
 . 
 . 
 3.       Whether ITAT was correct in law in holding that 90% of royalty income 
 is not to be excluded from the profits of the business as per Explanation (baa) 
 while computing deduction under Section 80HHC ? 
 . 
 4.       Whether ITAT was  correct in law in deleting the interest charged by 
 Assessing Officer under Section 234-D of the Act holding that the provisions are 
 not applicable to the present year as the assessment order was passed before 
 01.06.2003? 
 . 
 Appellant is directed to file the Paper books within three months as per rules. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 S. MURALIDHAR, J 
 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 
 dn 
 . 
 102