2018 (4) TMI 1286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal is correct in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed in terms of Section 263 of the Act without considering the grounds challenging the assumption of jurisdiction to pass the said revision order? ii. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the provisions of Section 80 HHC (4B) of the Act would mandate exclusion of the deduction allowed under Section 80 IB of the Act while quantifying the deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act? iii. Whether the Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench under identical circumstances would not applicable to the present case in view of non-consideration of the scope of Section 80 HHC (4B) of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....upreme Court to show that the matter is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Be that as it may, the first question of law we are required to consider is whether the Tribunal is correct in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax passed in terms of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) without considering the grounds challenging the assumption of jurisdiction to pass the revision order. 7. Question nos.2 and 3 are on the claim for deduction under Sections 80 HHC (4B) and 80 IB of the Act, which should await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Full Bench. However, in the instant case, the first questi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed on 29.12.2002, much prior to the decision in SCM Creations (supra), which was rendered in the year 2008, and the decision in the case of General Optics (Asia) Ltd. (supra), which was rendered in the year 2009. The assessing officer interpreted the provisions and passed the order of assessment. The view taken by the assessing officer is clearly supported by the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of J.P.Tobacco Products (P) Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1998) 229 ITR 0123 and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in (2001) 248 ITR 0029. 10. In J.P.Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (supra), it was held that for the purpos....