2020 (5) TMI 515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate for the applicant. Mr. Vivek Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel And Mr. Varun Issar, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondent. ORDER AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. In reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was finalised on 25.3.1986 and deduction under Section 80-HH of the Act of Rs. 1,18,346/- was allowed. Aggrieved of the assessment order, appeal was filed. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Jalandhar [for short, 'CIT (A)'] vide order dated 22.1.1987 allowed the appeal with regard to the issue of deduction under Section 80-HH of the Act. The matter was sent to the Assessing Officer to re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....owed. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the issue with regard to deduction under Section 80-HH of the Act was specifically decided by CIT (A) vide order dated 22.1.1987, hence the Assessing Officer could not have passed order under Section 154 of the Act for rectifying the mistake on the point which was subject matter in appeal. The contention raised is not well-founded. CIT (A) a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rofit earned from industrial activities was considered and deduction was allowed. There is no perversity in the order passed. Question No. 1 is answered against the assessee. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1985(155) ITR 120 upheld the order of the Assessing Off....