IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 62 & 63 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus HINDUSTAN FASHIONS LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR JP SHAH for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA Date of decision: 29/12/1999 ORAL COMMON JUDGEMENT (Per: Patel, J.) Rule. Mr. J.P.Shah waives service of rule. #. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We direct the tribunal to refer the following questions in respective Income Tax Applications. I.T.A.No.62/99: 1. "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the interpretation of section 80 HHC(3) given by the Tribunal to work out the deduction under section 80 HHC by ignoring the first two steps of section 80 HHC(3), if the result is loss is justified in law?" 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in holding that the word turnover should be taken to include only the net interest and not the gross interest like other receipts to work out relief under section 80HHC?" I.T.A. No.63/99: 1. "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the interpretation of section 80 HHC(3) given by the Tribunal to work out the deduction under section 80HHC by ignoring the first two steps of section 80 HHC(3), if the result is loss is justified in law?" Rule in both the applications is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. ***** pirzada/-