JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. S Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. RP Agarwalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R Goenka, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short hereinafter called “the Tribunal”), Guwahati in ITA No.45/Gau/2009 arising out of the assessment year 2006-07. The appeal was admitted for final hearing on 10.4.2013 on the following two substantial questions of law;- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of transport subsidy, insurance subsidy, power subsidy and central excise refund would go on to reduce the expenses incurred under that particular head and the resultant profits and gains of the business of Industrial Undertaking would be eligible for deduction under Section 80 IB of the Income tax Act, 1961? 2. If the answer to question No.1 is in the negative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the transport subsidy, insurance subsidy, power subsidy and interest subsidy are inter linked, inter-laced and having a direct nexus with the manufacturing activities of the assessee, which are inseparable from the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of transportation of purchase as well as sales of the business of the assessee are allowable for deduction under Section 80 IB?” We need not burden our order by narrating the facts in detail because learned counsel appearing for the parties brought to our notice that this very question was the subject matter of two appeals being Case Nos. ITA 7/2010 and 16/2011 and the Division Bench by its order dated 29.5.2013 while passing the common order dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant and in consequence, affirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. Since the questions involved in the appeal and the one which were the subject matter of the ITA No.7/2010 are identical and therefore, this appeal must also meet the same fate as that of one of ITA No.7/2010. Since the questions involved in the appeal and the one which were the subject matter of the ITA No.7/2010 are identical and therefore, this appeal must also meet the same fate as that of one of ITA No.7/2010. Accordingly and in the light of the foregoing, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench in their order dated 29.5.2013 passed in Case Nos. ITA 7/2010 and 16/2011. A copy of the order dated 29.5.2013 be kept in the file and be treated as part of the file.