PARAMOUNT IMPEX Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PASSED by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh 'A' Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal), in ITA No. 467/Chd/2006, in respect of asst. yr. 2003 -04. It is claimed that the following substantial questions of law would arise for determination of this Court : I. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that appellant was not entitled to the deduction under s. 80 -IB in respect of profits and gains arising on account of duty drawback which is intrinsically related/connected to the business profits of the industrial undertaking ? II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in denying the claims of the appellant under s. 80 -IB of the IT Act, 1961 by blindly relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Liberty India and other judgments which are distinguishable on facts itself ? III. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of Tribunal are perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law ? IV. Whether, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under s. 80 -IB of the IT Act, 1961 ?

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the assessee appellant and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that no question of law, much less a substantive question of law warranting admission of the appeal, would arise, inasmuch as, the matter is not res integra. We have already rejected appeals bearing ITA Nos. 278 and 279 of 2007 in the case of rightly allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue by following the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sterling Foods (1999) 153 CTR (SC) 439 : (1999) 237 ITR 579 (SC) which is fully applicable to the instant appeal. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. In view of the above, this appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed.