9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) dated 27th September, 2004. 2. The only ground of appeal taken by the revenue is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing deduction under section 80-IB on the amount of duty drawback of ₹ 84,802 3. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee filed before us copy of the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Anand International, Pan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the issue is covered by the decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of CIT v. Jameel Leathers 246 ITR 97 and CIT v. Vishwa Nathan Co. 261 ITR 737. In reply, the counsel of the assessee stated that both these decisions have taken into consideration the decision by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elied on the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ritesh Industries Ltd. [2005] 142 Taxman 551 wherein it was held that duty drawback cannot be regarded as profit or gain derived from an industrial undertaking so as to entitle the assessee deduction under section 80-I. Hence, it was his submission that the assessee was not entitled to deduction. 5. We have heard the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 . In our considered opinion, therefore, the issue stands decided by the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anand International, Panipat (supra) wherein similar facts of the case it was held that deduction under section 80-IB was allowable on duty drawback as it has a direct link with the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
