9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for the reduction of claim under section 80-I from Rs. 83,91,322 to Rs. 70,26,952. 2. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on the facts while rejecting the assessee s contention that no adjustment in the relief claimed under section 80-I could be made in view of the order of Hon ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Appellant s own case of assessment year 1990-91. 3. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in upholding the action of reducing the claim under section 80HHC from Rs. 7,31,998 to Rs. 6,09,951. 4. That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on the facts while upholding the disallowance of Rs.98,284 under section 43B. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units and the market price on total supply was only Rs.7,050 for assessment year 1990-91 and Rs. 42,302 for assessment year 1991-92. The facts and circumstances in the assessment year are the same as were in the assessment year 1990-91. The assessee placed before us, at page 1 of the paper book, a comparative chart showing value involved for the quantity in rupees and submitted that during the year the difference was only of Rs. 1,62,175 in the assessment year 1990-91. In the assessment year 1990-91 the difference was .0053%, in assessment year 1991-92 the difference was .0261% while in the assessment year the difference is .0714%. 3.3 Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that in the assessment year 1990-91, rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer directing him to adjust profits under section 80-I to the difference to the extent of .0261% as was allowed by the Tribunal in the assessment year 1991-92 and in case the difference is more than .0261%, the relief to the assessee under section 80-I should be reduced by the difference in excess of .0261%. This dispose off grounds No. 1 2. 4. Ground No. 3 relates to the Computation of deduction under section 80HHC. While computing the deduction the Assessing Officer included CST and ST in the turn over when the assessee was following the system of accounting by which CST and ST are being accounted for in a separate account. 4.1 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records. We find that this issue is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee, no disallowance can be made in the hands of the company. 5.3 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee and delete the addition of Rs. 9,061. 6. Ground No. 6 relates to upholding the disallowance of proportionate premium payable on redemption of debenture as revenue expenditure. 6.1 Both the parties agreed that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 802 . In ITA No. 264/96. In the case of Malwa Cotton Spg. Mills ( supra ) this Tribunal has taken a view that deduction in respect of proportionate premium payable on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
