I.T.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 20.8.2009 M/s Duggal Exports, through partner Mr. Subhash ..........Appellant Duggal, S/o Khushi Ram Versus CIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana, ..........Respondent Punjab CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh “SMD” Bench dated 26.11.2008 passed in ITA No. 467/Chandi/2008 for the assessment year 2003-04, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- 1. “That the ITAT was justified in law in holding that appellant was not entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB in respect of profits and gains arising on account of duty drawback and premium on DEPB which is intrinsically related/connected to the business profits of the industrial undertaking? 2. That the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in denying the claims of the appellant u/s 80IB of the I.T.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M) (2) Income Tax Act, 1961 by blindly relying upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Liberty India and other judgments which are distinguishable on facts itself. 3. That the ITAT is not justified in reversing the orders of CIT(A) by holding that deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not available on duty drawback and sale of replenishment licenses to the appellant which is against the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B. Des Raj Vs. CIT (SC).” 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of ITAT are perverse and against the evidences on record thus unsustainable in law.” 5. Whether the ITAT has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. Learned counsel for the assessee does not dispute that the matter is covered against the assessee by order of this Court dated 9.9.2008 in ITA No. 629 of 2007 (M/s Raj Oversease Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana). 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 20, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No I.T.A. No. 321 of 2009 (O&M) (3)