TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tistical purposes - IT Appeal Nos. 319 & 320 (Chd.) of 2012 - - - Dated:- 11-5-2012 - H.L. Karwa, T.R. Sood, JJ. Sudhir Sehgal for the Appellant. N.K. Saini for the Respondent. ORDER H.L. Karwa, Vice-President These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana dated 13.9.2011 relating to assessment years 2000-01 2001-02. 2. In these appeals, the assessee has taken the following common grounds:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue of deduction u/s 80HHC has erred in upholding and in not considering that the Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction in following the order of Bombay High Court against specific direction of Hon'ble Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed on 19.3.2007 in which the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80HHC on the grounds that assessee does not fulfil the conditions mentioned in the 3rd provision to section 80HHC and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,50,02,250/-. The assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) Ludhiana who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee further filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 31.8.2009 in ITA No. 5/Chandi/2008 remanded the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same by following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Topman Exports v. ITO [2009] 33 SOT 337/[2010] 124 ITD 1 and in the case of Kalapatru Colours Chemicals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court was filed before us. Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports ( supra ) and compute the deduction u/s 80HHC on DEPB/DFRC licenses in this case as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. We find substance in the above submissions of Shri Sudhir Sehgal and, therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issue to Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same afresh keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to allow deduction u/s 80HHC in respect of this income also in view of the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of ACIT. v. D.K. Knitwear , order dated 22.8.2005. 9. The assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 3 1.8.2009 in ITA No. 346/Chandi/2008 set aside the issue to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same by following the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Topman Exports ( supra ) in the case of Kalapatru Colours Chemicals ( supra ). However, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment vide order dated 27.12.2010 wherein he has again refused to grant deduction u/s 80HHC as claimed by the assessee in its return of income. On appeal, the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
