Ita/98/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Ludhiana v. M/S Bicycle Wheels (India)

ITA No. 98 of 2002 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT QORKR PUNJAB AND HARYANA.AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 98 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana ....... Appellant +",%-% M/s Bicycle Wheels (India) ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant.for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), against the order dated1.11.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (A), in ITA No. 1193/Chandi/94, for the assessment years1993-94, raising the tollowing substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law inholding that sale of scrap in India is not a part oftotal turnover of the respondent firm for the purposesof calculation of deduction u/s SOHHC (11) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in ignoring sale ofscrap 1n computing total turnover, when such) ITA No. 98 of 2002 (O&M) -)- generation was a bye-product of manufacturingprocess? (111) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of thecase, a bye-product in a Manutacturing Process isnot eligible for being considered in computation oftotal turnover for computing 80HHC deduction? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted thatin view of circular No21/2015 dated 10.12.0015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, asthe tax effect involved is less than |=a20 lacs. However, he prays thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, Clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. The legalissue aS Claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated in anappropriate case. (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE 25.04.2016TEe M (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGEH