IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.78 of 1999 Date of decision: 2.7.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Applicant. Vs. M/s Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd., Sangrur. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Krishan Mehta, Sr. Standing Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.8.1996 in I.T.A. No.1224/Chandi/90 for the assessment year 1986-87:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in questioning the order u/s 154 of the I.T. Act by overlooking the Supreme Court decision in the case of Camby Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 113 I.T.R. 84 by which the controversy stood settled? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that no deduction u/s 32A/32AB be made from the I.T.R. No.78 of1999 profits while working out deduction u/s 80 HH of the I.T. Act?” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that as far as question No.1 is concerned, the same is covered against the assessee by Full Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tat v. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 and question No.2 is also covered against the assessee by order of this Court in the case of the assessee itself in Commissioner of Income Tat v. Sangrur Vanaspati Mills Ltd. [2009] 311 ITR 345. 4. Accordingly, both the questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 5. The reference is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 02, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2