TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80J of the IT Act? 2. The assessment year involved in the tax case is for the year 1978-79. The assessee duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding counsel for the income-tax placed reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in Tax Case No. 1410 of 1982 dt. 19th Jan., 1996 (wherein one of us was a party) in the assessee's own case for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and the Bench, following a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Budharaja Co. (1993) 114 CTR (SC) 420: (1993) 204 ITR 412(SC) : TC 25R.185, answered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see should be regarded as an industrial company, and entitled to the relief under s. 80J of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal, for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the question should be answered in favour of the assessee. 5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The earlier order of the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1976-77, as already see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to accept the contention of Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee for the reason that the decision of this Court in Tax Case No. 1410 of 1982 was rendered on the same facts found by the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1978-79. Since there are no new facts and no materials which have come into existence warranting us to take a different view, it is not possible to refer the matter to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
