9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ek Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel And Mr. Varun Issar, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent. ORDER AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. In reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Appellate Tribunal, hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HH of the Act of Rs. 1,18,346/- was allowed. Aggrieved of the assessment order, appeal was filed. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jalandhar [for short, 'CIT (A)'] vide order dated 22.1.1987 allowed the appeal with regard to the issue of deduction under Section 80-HH of the Act. The matter was sent to the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction under Section 80-HH of the Act in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with regard to deduction under Section 80-HH of the Act was specifically decided by CIT (A) vide order dated 22.1.1987, hence the Assessing Officer could not have passed order under Section 154 of the Act for rectifying the mistake on the point which was subject matter in appeal. The contention raised is not well-founded. CIT (A) allowed the appeal holding that deduction under Section 80-HH of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was allowed. There is no perversity in the order passed. Question No. 1 is answered against the assessee. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1985(155) ITR 120 upheld the order of the Assessing Officer reducing the unabsorbed brought forward loss from the profit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
