2003 (1) TMI 645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der 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. That the ld. Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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, relief was allowed to the assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....just 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 covered in favour of the assessee by th....