The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., Sangrur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.78 of 1999Date of decision: 2.7.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., Sangrur. -----Applicant. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Krishan Mehta, Sr. Standing Counselfor the applicant.for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocatefor the respondent.for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Following questions of law have been referred for opinionof this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arisingout of order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.8.1996 in I.T.A. No.1224/Chandi/90 for the assessment year 1986-87:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law inquestioning the order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act by overlookingthe Supreme Court decision in the case of Camby ElectricSupply Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 113 I.T.R. 84 by whichthe controversy stood settled?case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law inquestioning the order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act by overlookingthe Supreme Court decision in the case of Camby ElectricSupply Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 113 I.T.R. 84 by whichthe controversy stood settled? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law inholding that no deduction u/s 32A/32AB be made from thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law inholding that no deduction u/s 32A/32AB be made from the profits while working out deduction u/s 80 HH of the I.T.Act?” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that as far asquestion No.1 is concerned, the same is covered against the assesseeby Full Bench judgment of this Court inCommissioner of Income Tatv. Smt. Aruna Luthra[2001] 252 ITR 76 and question No.2 is alsocovered against the assessee by order of this Court in the case of theassessee itself in Commissioner of Income Tatv. SangrurVanaspati Mills Ltd.[2009] 311 ITR 345. 4. Accordingly, both the questions are answered in favour ofthe revenue and against the assessee. 5. The reference is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 02, 2010ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE