IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.307 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.7.2009 M/s Duggal Exports. -----Appellant. Vs. C.I.T., Ludhiana. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 26.11.2008 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh “SMD” Bench in I.T.A. No.468/CHANDI/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “I. 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 instrinsically related/connected I.T.A. No.307 of 2009 to the business profits of the industrial undertaking. II. That the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in denying the claims of the appellant u/s 80IB 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 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). IV. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings of ITAT are perverse and against the evidences on record thus sustainable in law. V. 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. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act in respect of export incentives, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, relying upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. Sterling Foods (1999) 237 ITR 579. The CIT(A) upheld the said order, referring to judgments of this Court in Liberty India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 2 I.T.A. No.307 of 2009 293 ITR 520 and Five Star Rugs v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 293 ITR 553. The Tribunal upheld the same. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute that the matter is covered against him by earlier judgments of this Court including judgment in I.T.A. No.629 of 2007 M/s Raj Overseas v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal decided on 9.9.2008. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 17, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3