TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-3-2004 - Judge(s) : DEEPAK VERMA., UMA NATH SINGH. JUDGMENT This order shall govern the disposal of I.T.A. No. 61 of 1999 (CIT v. Agarwal Breweries Ltd.), I.T.A. No. 24 of 2000 (CIT v. Panjon (P.) Ltd.), I.T.A. No. 25 of 2000 (CIT v. Panjon (P.) Ltd.), I.T.A. No. 22 of 2002 (CIT v. Purti Pipes) and I.T.A. No. 23 of 2002 (CIT v. Purti Pipes). In all these appeals common questions of law are involved. Thus, they have been taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. To appreciate the factual matrix, we are taking up the facts as have been mentioned in the aforesaid appeal. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated Novembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stablished industrial undertakings or ships or hotel business in certain cases did not make any provision for reduction of the gross total income by the amount of deduction admissible to the assessee under section 80HH. It was only by an amendment of the said section 80J that the provision for reducing the gross total income by the amount of deduction under section 80HH of the Act by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974, with effect from April 1, 1974, was inserted. Section 80-I was inserted in its present form by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with effect from April 1, 1981, and by the same Finance (No. 2) Act, section 80HH(9) was amended and the words 'section 80-I or' were inserted to make the said provision applicable to section 80-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as dismissed on the ground of delay as the delay was not condoned. Thus, the findings recorded by the Division Bench in the matter of J.P. Tobacco [1978] 229 ITR 123 have now attained finality. A similar question came up for consideration before another Bench of the Supreme Court in yet another special leave petition which came to be considered on January 12, 2001. It was also dealing with special deduction: if such deduction is to be on gross amount". This question had arisen before the Supreme Court on account of an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in I.T.A. No. 92 of 1999 decided on May 2, 2000 (CIT v. Alpine Solvex (P.) Ltd.). In the said case also the special leave petition was dismissed and findings of the Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
