2009 (11) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it claimed certain deduction including the deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) amounting to Rs. 7,44,639 contending that the undertaking is situate in Belgaum, which is treated as a backward area under notification No. S. O. 165(E) datedDecember 19, 1986. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the said contention by contending thatBelgaumtaluk has been excluded for the purpose of benefit under section 80HH of the Act and accordingly, passed an order of assessment onMarch 29, 1996. Being aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee preferred I. T. A. No. 41/BGM/96-97 on the file of the Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Belgaum, and the appellate authority by orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Belgaum, holding that Belgaum is a backward area as per the notification dated December 19, 1986, is contrary to law and perverse and arbitrary as to call for interference in this appeal ?"   4. We answer the aforesaid substantial question of law in the negative against the Revenue for the following reasons.   5. The fact that the assessee is having manufacturing unit inBelgaum, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the assessees of backward areas, who are entitled to claim benefit under section 80HH of the Act have been notified by Notification No. S. O. 165(E), da....