- (1.) THE appellant in present case has approached this Court by raising the following substantial questions of law : "6(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the service charges, i.e., dyeing receipts and knitting receipts were liable to be included in the 'total turnover' while working out deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act ? (ii) Whether the decision of the Tribunal holding that the service charges, i.e., dyeing charges and knitting receipts received by the assessee -company was liable to be included in the 'total turnover' while working out deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act is contrary to the principles of natural justice and judicial discipline and judicial propriety ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in taking a view contrary to the view taken in the decision rendered by the same Bench in another group company case Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. and the assessee's own case and the decisions rendered by Kerala High Court in the case K. Rajinderanathan Nair ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not allowing deduction under s. 80M of the Act to the assessee -company in respect of income distributed by PNB Mutual Fund which partakes the same character as was in their hand and exempt under s. 80M of the Act ? (v) Whether, on a correct and proper interpretation of the provisions of s. 80 -IA of the Act and application thereof to the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal legally correct in holding that the claim of deduction under s. 80 - IA in respect of interest income derived from its business, made by the appellant was not sustainable ? (vi) Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law and as well as on facts in holding that the appellant was not entitled to deduction under s. 80 -IA of the Act claimed by the assessee? (vii) Whether the finding returned and recorded by the Tribunal while holding that appellant was not entitled to deduction under s. 80 -IA by wrongly applying the earlier decision given in C.O. No. 130/Chd/1993 for asst. yr. 1990 -91 which was in respect of s. 80 -IA of the Act ? (viii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has misdirected itself in law and as well as on facts in holding that donation of Rs. 10,000 given by the appellant to the institution recognized by IT Exemption Certificate No. 681 under r. 6, was not allowable as a deduction under s. 35 of the Act, which pertain to expenditure on scientific research -
(2.) AS far as question Nos. 6(i) to (iii) are concerned, counsel for the appellant states that for the asst. yr. 1992 -93, the appellant had moved an application under s. 254(2) of the IT Act (for short 'the Act') before the Tribunal for rectification of the order and the same has already been accepted. He further states that as per his information, the Department has accepted that order and no further appeal has been filed in that case. The counsel for the appellant submits that at this stage, he does not press these questions and he may be given liberty to move an application under s. 254(2) of the Act before the Tribunal. The counsel for the Revenue does not have any objection to the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant as regards question Nos. 6(i) to (iii) are concerned.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , we permit the appellant to move an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. As regards issue raised in question Nos. 6(i) to (iii) are concerned, if any such application is moved, the same shall be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law. As far as question at serial No. 6(iv) is concerned, reliance is placed on CIT vs. Puja Investments (P) Ltd. (2005) 272 ITR 606 (P&H).;