9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act as per the provision of Section 80 HHC (1A) read with Section 80 HHC (3A) read with clause (baa) of explanation of Section 80 HHC of the Act, as the respondent is a supporting manufacturer, and allowed deduction of ₹ 1,40,49,120/- under Section 80 HHC of the Act, instead of ₹ 7,19,78,869/-, as claimed by the assessee – held that - upheld the claim of the assessee under Section 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A), directing the A.O to allow deduction u/s 80 HHC on export incentives, received by the assessee, as a supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case of direct exporter?" In the present case, the assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from the manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to the deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act, as supporting manufacturer in the same manner, as in the case of direct exporter. The said decision of the CIT (A) has been upheld by the ITAT vide order dated 31.8.2007, against which the instant appeal has been filed, raising the aforesaid substantial question of law. After hearing counsel for the appellant, we find that in ITA No. 296 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts (2007) 290 ITR 323 (SC), and upheld the claim of the assessee under Section 80 HHC of the Act as a supporting manufacturer at par with the direct exporter. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the above, no substantial question of law survives for our determination. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
