" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.11 of 2013 DATE: 18.06.2013 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Sab Nife Power System Ltd., Hyderabad. … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI I.T.T.A. No.11 of 2013 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal in relation to the assessment year 2002-03 is sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: “A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the profits considered for deduction under Section 80-IA and 80-IB of the Act could also be included in gross profit for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, in spite of the mandate given out in Section 801A-(9) of the Act” B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that income accrued to the assessee on account of foreign exchange fluctuations could be considered as income derived from exports for the purposes of grant of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act? C) (i) Whether the appellate Tribunal is justified in not holding that interest income, which partakes the character of income from other sources, cannot be considered for the purposes of grant of deduction in terms of Section 80IA of the Act? (ii) In any event without prejudice to the above, whether the appellate Tribunal is justified in not holding that it is only the net interest after setoff of out-go that could be considered for grant of such deduction?” We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order. It is appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads as follows: “On identical issue for the assessment year 2002-03 in ITA.No.1269/Hyd/2005 for assessment year 2002-03, we have allowed the grounds raised by the assessee vide para 8 above. For the same reasons we allow these grounds too. Grounds 4 and 4.1 to 4.3 pertain to reduction of the amount of deduction allowed in terms of sub-section (9) of Section 80IA and sub-section (13) of Section 80IB from the eligible profits for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC. Identical issue had come up for consideration before us for the assessment year 2002-03 in ITA No.1269/Hyd/05 in assessee’s own case and vide para 7 of this order we have allowed the grounds raised by the assessee.” In this appeal, following the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal on which reliance was placed, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot challenge the impugned order without challenging the earlier orders. It is true that principle of res judicata does not apply, but the question of estoppel certainly applies in a matter of this nature. Therefore, we do not think that this appeal should be admitted and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 18.06.2013 ES "
Mehul