The first ground is that the assessee was engaged in the business of civil companystruction and was number carrying on any manufacturing activity.
Hence the Tribunal rejected the assessees claim.
The second ground for rejecting the claim was that the claim was number based on facts on record.
In paragraphs 19 21 of its order dated 20.6.2002 the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the assessee on two grounds.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Even before the Tribunal the assessee had number placed any material to show how the assessee is entitled to such deduction.
8 9 of 2003.
By the impugned judgment the High Court has agreed with the view of the Tribunal.
Hence, the claim was number allowable in view of the judgment of this Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja Co., 1993 204 ITR 412.
It claimed for deduction under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was raised as an additional ground before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
KATJU, MARKANDEY J. Leave granted.
The appellant assessee is a companypany engaged in the business of civil companystruction.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.7.2004 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA Nos.
Whether the assessee fulfilled those companyditions for claiming the deduction or number required examination into facts which were number on record.
The deduction under Section 32AB was number automatic and was subject to various companyditions laid down in that provision.
