TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009, dt. 9th Oct., 2009, for the asst. yr. 2000-01, proposing following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the order of the Tribunal, apparently being non-specific and non-speaking, is liable to be set aside as such? (ii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of the learned CIT(A) that job work charges, derived from industrial activity, could be excluded from the eligible profits of the industrial undertaking, for computing the deduction under s. 80-IA/80-IB? (iii) Whether the job work charges, being part of the business profits, could be considered at par with brokerage, commission, interest, rent and other charges, under cl. (baa) of s. 80HHC(4C), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he shape of job work charges (Rs. 3,66,850); interest on fixed deposit (Rs. 8,96,859); sale of incentives (Rs. 10,00,328) and interest on income-tax refund (Rs. 57,981) from the income of Rs. 36,42,280 by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the aforesaid disallowances. The CIT(A) while concurring with the AO regarding exclusion of job work charges for calculating deduction under s. 80-IA/80-IB observed as under:- " ...The key ingredients for allowing deduction under s. 80-IA are that the income should be derived from industrial undertaking and the assessee should manufacture or produce an article or thing. The assessee has been found to be eligible for deduction under s. 80-IA in respect of its own production of goods. However, the appellant has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the claim of the assessee is that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80-IA as well as under s. 80HHC on the same amount. Necessary facts may be referred to. The assessee had claimed deduction under s. 80HHC amounting to Rs. 14,65,802 in the return of income filed on 2nd Nov., 2000. The AO held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80HHC on the balance amount which remained after allowing deduction under s. 80-IA. According to the AO such relief was in excess by Rs. 1,73,903. This was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal while affirming the aforesaid view had recorded as follows:- "8. As regards the issue involved in ground Nos. 7(i) to 7(iii) and 8(i) to 8(ii), in which the assessee has raised the issue regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n dispute with the support of various judgments mentioned in the impugned orders at paras 3.6 and 3.7 on pp. 12 and 13. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the assessee has also been discussed by the learned first appellate authority. We have also gone through the same and are of the considered opinion that recently this issue has been decided by the Tribunal, Special Bench 'C' New Delhi, in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Hindustan Mint and Agro Products (Pj Ltd. consisting of five Members, wherein they have discussed various case laws in details and held that deduction is to be allowed under any other provision of Chapter VI-A with the heading 'C' is to be reduced by amount of deduction allowed under s. 80-IB/80-IA of the Act and dec....