9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was justified in holding that the interest received from the debtors of customers on delayed payment was income derived from the Industrial Undertaking and deduction u/s 80 HH of the IT Act was also admissible on the amount so earned ? (2) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. ITAT was legally justified in directing the A.O to recompute the allowable deduction in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in the case of J.P. Tobacco Products (P) Ltd Vs. C.I.T. reported in ITR 140 CTR 329 whereas provisions of sub-section (9) of Section 80 HH provide that where the assessee is entitled for deduction both u/s 80 HH and 80 I/80 J, the effect first is to be given to Section 80 HH of I.T. Act?" 3. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucky Laboratories Ltd [(2006) 284 ITR 435 (All). It was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the view taken by this Court in Lucky Laboratories Ltd (Supra) was in conformity with the views taken by the Bombay High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Gujarat High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, which were affirmed by the Supreme Court in Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Mandideep Engg. and Pkg. Ind. P. Ltd [(2007) 292 ITR 1 (S.C.). In the short but conclusive judgment, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "The point involved in the present case is whether sections 80 HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are independent of each other and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Raj.); CIT Vs. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 664 (MP); CIT v S.B. Oil Industries P Ltd [2005] 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT v. SKG Engineering P Ltd [2005] 119 DLT 673 and CIT v Lucky Laboratories Ltd [2006] 200 CTR 305 (All). Since the special leave petitions filed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court have been dismissed and the Department has not filed the special leave petitions against the judgments of different High Courts following the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The Department having accepted the view taken in those judgments cannot be permitted to take a contrary view in the present case involving the same point. Accordingly, the civil appeal is dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
