RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed the present appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of the raising the following proposed substantial question of law : "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years is not to be reduced from the profits of the business computed for deduction under s. 80HHC ? 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that sales - tax, and Central Sales -tax be excluded from the total turnover of the assessee while computing deduction under s. 80HHC ? 3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that service charges of dyeing and knitting be excluded from the total turnover of the assessee while computing deduction under s. 80HHC -
(2.) AT the outset, Shri Vivek Sethi, advocate, learned counsel for the Revenue has very fairly stated that question No. 1 as raised by the Department has already been decided against the Revenue by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. (2007) 210 CTR (SC) 159 : (2007) 291 ITR 380 (SC), wherein it has been held as under : "Sec. 80AB of the IT Act, 1961, specifying that profits are those as determined for the purpose of the Act, will apply for determining profits from export business for the purposes of the deduction under s. 80HHC. In determining business profits for the deduction under s. 80HHC the unabsorbed business losses of earlier years under s. 72 should be set off." He has also conceded that the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been further followed by the Hon'ble conceded that question No. 2 has also been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by a judgment of this Court cited as CIT vs. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. (2006) 203 CTR (P&H) 397 : (2006) 154 Taxman 254 (P&H). He has also admitted that question No. 3 as raised by the Revenue also stands decided by this Court in CIT vs. Nahar against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the above stand taken by the learned counsel for the Revenue, no substantial question of law survives for determination of this Court. Hence this appeal is dismissed. ;