9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es tax set off involves is not a substantial question of law – The Tribunal has considered the grievance of the assessee that the AO excluded from the total turnover excise duty and recovery of distribution costs credited to the distribution expenses while computing its eligible deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act – Decided against revenue. Adjustment of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estions of law are as follows: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the disallowances of ₹ 4,95,323/on account of sales tax setoff u/s 43B? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude from total turnover the distributi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.) was a party. We dealt with an identical issue and which is referred in questions (a) and (b) reproduced above. We followed the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Geoffery Manners Co. Ltd. in Income Tax Application No.10 of 2002 decided on 13th December, 2005. Both sides fairly conceded that questions (a) and (b) reproduced above stand a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1988-89 and in the case of the very Assessee. It confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in relation to the deduction under section 80HH. However, it proceeded to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in relation to section 80I. The same question and in identical circumstances was raised in the case of this very Assessee in Income Tax Appeal No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
