N.S. Saini, A.M. - (1.) IN this appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned CIT has erred in his order under Section 263 of the INcome Tax Act in directing re-computation of the deduction available to the appellant under Section 80HHD by excluding lease rentals and interest income for calculating the said deduction under Section 80HHD(3).
(2.) That the learned CIT has erred in fact and law in ordering re-computation of the appellant's deduction under Section 80HHD in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of Section 80HHD as well as to clear analogous case-law in favour of the appellant as well as board circulars under Section 80HHC of the Act, which have not been distinguished or commented upon. That the learned CIT has erred on facts and in law in setting aside the order of the assessing officer to the extent of claim on account of repairs and replacement (Rs. 53.82 lakhs) and building maintenance (Rs. 31.91 lakhs) which has been restored to the file of the assessing officer to make further inquiries so as to find out which part of the expenditure is capital meriting disallowance.
(3.) THAT the learned CIT has erred on facts, in law, per record and in view of the detailed written submissions and material placed before the learned CIT which forms part of the assessment record, in holding that the order of the assessing officerwas erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue to the extent of the directions given to the assessing officer in the order under appeal.;