TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the common order dated 8.11.2004 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh in ITA No.460/Chandi/1998 for the assessment year 1994-95 and ITA No.285/Chandi/1999 for the asessment year 1994-95. 2. According to the revenue, the order of the Tribunal give rise to the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the ITAT was correct in law in setting aside order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the CIT directing the AO not to ignore loss on export of trading goods for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Act disregarding the fact that the law has been settled by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer to recompute the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act after taking into consideration net result of both activities i.e. manufacturing and trading and not that only profit of one activity i.e manufacturing is to be considered and losses of the other activities i.e. trading are to be ignored. 5. The assessee feeling aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana passed under Section 263(1) of the Act, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after relying upon the decision of this Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with the view taken by the Assessing Officer by exercising his powers under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 80HHC (1)and (3) of the Act, 1961, means a positive profit and the deduction can be permitted only if there is a positive profit in the export of both self manufactured goods as well as trading goods and if there is a loss in either of the two then that loss has to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the profits. On the basis of above authoritative judgments, Mr. Sanjiv Bansal has further argued that in view of the above said settled proposition of law on the merits of the case, the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained and therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 (1) of the Act was legal and correct and the Assessing Officer's order under Section 143 (3) of the Act was co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m was one of the possible views allowable in accordance with law, the Assessing Officer had decided the issue on the basis of one of the possible views, the order can neither be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate has argued that in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT v. Max India Ltd.'s case (supra), these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. We find no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Firstly, it is not in dispute that when the order of the Commissioner was passed there were two views on the word "profits" in that section and....