IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.473 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.8.2009 M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd., through Shri Shammi Bansal son of Shri Raj Kumar Bansal, Director, Liberty Puram, G.T.Road, Karnal, Haryana. ......Appellant Vs. CIT., Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 13, Karnal. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.S.K.Mukhi, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Delay condoned subject to just exceptions. 2. Heard on merits. 3. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), against the orders dated 20.6.2008 of ITAT Delhi , Bench 'B' in I.T.A. No.2251 /DEL/2006 for the assessment year 2001-2002, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law: I.“That whether the ITAT was justified in law in holding that appellant was not entitled to the deduction u/s 80 IA in respect of profits and gains arising on account of duty drawback, DEPB and premium on sale of import license which is intrinsically related/connected to the business profits of ITA No.473 of 2009 [2] the industrial undertaking.” II.“That the income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in denying the claims of the appellant u/s 80-IA of the 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. III. “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 DEPB license and premium on sale of import licence to the appellant which is against the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B. Des Raj V. CIT (SC)”. IV.“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of ITAT are perverse and against the evidence on record thus unsustainable in law.” V.“Whether the ITAT has misdirected itself in being influenced by irrelevant ITA No.473 of 2009 [3] factors and applying erroneous criteria while deciding the issue of eligibility for claiming deduction under Section 80 -IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. Learned counsel for the assessee does not dispute that the matter is covered against the assessee by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Sterling Food, (1999) 237 ITR 579 and 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.). 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 24, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No