Accordingly, as numbered above, the reference was answered in favour of the department and against the assessee.
An appeal was preferred before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals , Cochin Bench, hereinafter, referred to as the CIT A .
498 Coch /1995, the view of the assessing officer as well as of CIT A was affirmed.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on an interpretation of Sec.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows.
The assessing officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the profits of the business companyputed under Section 80 HHC indicated a negative figure.
On being moved for reference, ITAT referred the following questions for adjudication by the High Court Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the additional ground raised by the assessee on an issue which had number been disputed earlier before the assessing officer or the first appellate authority?
By Order dated 14th September, 1995 in ITA No.
The assessee appellant preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in short the ITAT.
4144 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
The said appellate authority also was of the same view and dismissed the appeal.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
11814 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT Leave granted.
8OHHC 3 would the assessee be entitled to the deduction in an amount equal to 90 of the sums referred to in clause iiia number being profits on sale of a licence acquired from any other person and clause iiib and clause iiic of section 28, the same proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover to the business carried on by the assessee?
For the assessment year 1992 93, the assessee appellant had claimed deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short, the Act .
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of order passed by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court answering the reference made to it in favour of the department and against the assessee appellant.
