AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Admit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial question is framed for consideration:
Whether the income tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expansion of the production capacity of the petitioners unit would not constitute setting up of an industrial undertaking eligible for the benefits of deduction under sections 80HH and 80I of the income tax Act, 1961?
Filing of paper books is dispensed with.
Learned counsel for the assessee submits that in this appeal, which pertains to the assessment year 1993-94, reliance has been placed by the income tax Appellate Tribunal (''Tribunal'') on earlier orders relevant to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. He says that an appeal was, preferred against those orders, and the appeals are pending in this Court but the Tribunal has not taken note of the pendency of the appeals.
That apart, learned counsel for the assessee submits that in subsequent assessment years, the Tribunal has taken a decision in favour of the assessee and copies of those orders have been placed on record.
On 23-10-2007 we had granted time to learned counsel for the revenue to check up the correct position and file a reply in this regard. No reply has been filed by the revenue. Under the circumstances, we presume that what the Assessee says is correct.
It is, therefore, ordered that recovery of tax is stayed against the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1993-94 pursuant to the order dated 23-2-2006 passed by the Tribunal.
Application stands disposed of. Order be given Dasti.