TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under sections 80-HH and 80-I on the gross total income – Decided against the Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 36 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : A. N. Mahajan, A. Kumar, B. J. Agarwal, C. S. C. ,D. Awasthi, G. Krishna, R. K. Upadhyay, S.Chopra For the Respondent : R. S. Agarwal ORDER 1. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra for the appellant-department. Shri Bhoopesh Jain and Sri R.S. Agarwal appears for the respondent-assessee. 2. This appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest received from the debtors of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of J.P. Tobacco Products P Ltd Vs. C.I.T (1997) 140 CTR 329. In that case, it was held that the provision of law is clear that in so far as benefit of section 80 I is concerned, it has to be granted on the gross total income and not on the income reduced by the amount allowed u/s 80 HH. It was, therefore, held that for purposes of computing relief u/s 80 I, relief granted u/s 80 HH cannot be deducted from the gross total income. Respectfully, following the above decision, we direct the A.O. to recompute the allowable deduction on the above basis." 5. We find that the question Nos. (1) and (2) are covered by decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucky Laboratories Ltd [(2006) 284 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd in I.T.A. No. 92 of 1999 decided on May 2, 2000. Special leave petition against this decision was dismissed by this court on January 12, 2001 (see [2001] 247 ITR (St.) 36). This view has been followed repeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against which no special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the Department has accepted the view taken in these judgments. See CIT v. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in [2001] 248 ITR 29 (Bom); CIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. Ltd [2001] 251 ITR 587 (Raj.); CIT Vs. Amod Stamping [2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj.); CIT Vs. Mittal Appliances P Ltd [2004] 270 ITR 65 (MP); CIT Vs. Rochiram and Sons [2004] 271 ITR 444 (Raj.); CIT Vs. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 664 (MP); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
