- (1.) THESE two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as was suggested by the learned counsel for the parties. They arise out of common order passed by the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench "B", Allahabad, in ITA Nos. 822 and 1597/All/1992 and relate to the asst. yrs. 1987 -88 and 1988 -89.
(2.) THE appellant, a company registered under the Companies Act, is engaged in the manufacturing activity of complete scooter seat. It claimed that it is an ancillary unit of LML Ltd., Kanpur, a manufacturer of scooters.
(3.) IN the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed deduction under ss. 80HH and 80 -I of the IT Act, 1961, but the said claim has been denied by the three authorities below on the ground that the condition of cl. (iv) of s. 80 -I(2) is not fulfilled in as much as the workers employed through contractor are not to be treated as the workers employed in the industrial undertaking. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the present appeals have been filed raising the following questions of law : "(i) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in denying the benefit of deduction under ss. 80HH and 80 -I on the ground that the condition of cl. (iv) is not fulfilled in as much as, workers employed through contractor have not been treated as the workers employed in the industrial undertaking ? (ii) Whether the view of the Tribunal denying the deduction under ss. 80HH and 80 -I is legally correct and based on relevant considerations Both the questions are essentially identical and the controversy centers round the interpretation of cl. (iv) of s. 80 -I (2) of the IT Act.;