TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced by deductions under sections 80-I and 80G which are allowed to the assessee. Therefore, the contention of the learned DR that a substantial question of law or a question of law arises has no merits. Even on merits, the assessee's case has merits and was rightly allowed by the CIT(A) as aforesaid. Thus, the appeal is to be rejected. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. - HON'BLE R.P. GARG, VICE PRESIDENT AND D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : D.R. Adhia, DR For the Respondent : M.N. Manvar, CA ORDER R.P. Garg, Vice-President. 1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2001-02. 2. The addition disputed in this appeal is R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue in that case was that Rs. 2 lakhs limit was increased by Circular dated 27-3-2000 and prior to that, the limit was only Rs. 50,000/- and the contention of the revenue was that the new limit would not be applicable to the old references. The High Court rejected the said contention of the revenue:- One fails to understand how the revenue can contend that so far as new cases are concerned, the circular issued by the Board is binding on them and in compliance with the said instructions, they do not file references if the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. But the same approach is not adopted with respect to the old referred cases even if the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. In our view, there is no logic behind this approach. This co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s within the monetary limit of tax effect prescribed in the Board's Circular dated 24-10-2005. 6. The contention of the learned DR that the case of the assessee is covered by the exception has also no force inasmuch as the said exception reads as under:- 3. The Board has also decided that in cases involving substantial question of law of importance as well as in cases where the same question of law will repeatedly arise, either in the case concerned or in similar cases, should be separately considered on merits without being hindered by the monetary limits. 7. In the present case, the dispute is whether section 80HHC deduction is to be allowed without excluding the deductions allowed under sections 80-I and 80G of the Act. Section 80HHC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section shall be further increased by the amount which bears to ninety per cent of any sum referred to in clause (iiia) (not being profits on sale of a license acquired from any other person), and clauses (iiib) and (iiic) of section 28, the same proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee. 8. The profits of the business which is the starting point for computing deduction under sub-section (3) of section 80HHC is defined in Explanation (baa) below sub-section (4C) as under:- (baa) 'profits of the business' means the profits of the business as computed under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession' as reduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
