(1.) THIS order shall govern disposal of ITA No. 61 of 1999, CIT v. Agarwal Breweries Ltd. , ITA No. 24 of 2000, CIT v. Panjon (P) Ltd. , ITA No. 25 of 2000, CIT v. Panjon (P) Ltd. , ITA No. 22 of 2002, CIT v. Purti Pipes, ITA No. 23 of 2002, CIT v. Purti Pipes. In all these appeals the common questions of law are involved. Thus, they have been taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) TO appreciate the factual matrix, we are taking up the facts as have been mentioned in the aforesaid appeal. This appeal is at the instance of the Revenue under Section 260a of the IT Act, 1961 against the order dt. 13th Nov. , 1998 passed by the Tribunal holding that deductions under Section 80hh and Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961 are admissible before the set off of the carried forward profits and loss derived from new industrial undertaking. In all the matters, the Tribunal has held that the question involved is covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, parties being J. P. Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 123 (MP) [LQ/MPHC/1996/789] .

(3.) THIS and the connected appeals have been admitted on the following substantial question of law :

"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the deduction under Section 80- I is allowable from gross total income without deduction allowed under Section 80hh of IT Act, 1961 by following jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of J. P. Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) even though the said judgment is not accepted by the Revenue and SLP filed before the Honble Supreme Court is pending"

(4.) IN the matter of J. P. Tobacco Products (supra) this Court has been pleased to hold as under :

"sub-section (9) of Section 80hh, as it stood prior to insertion of Section 80- I by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, w. e. f. 1st April, 1981, originally included only Section 80j. Section 80j providing for deduction in respect of the profits and gains from newly established industrial undertakings or ships or hotel business in certain cases did not make any provision for reduction of the gross total income by the amount of deduction admissible to the assessee under Section 80hh. It was only by an amendment of the said Section 80j that the provision for reducing the gross total income by the amount of deduction under Section 80hh of the by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974, w. e. f. 1st April, 1974, was inserted. Section 80- I was inserted in its present form by the Finance (No. 2} Act, 1980, w. e. f. 1st April, 1981 and by the same Finance (No. 2) Act, Section 80hh (9) was amended and the words section 80- I or were inserted to make the said provision applicable to Section 80- I as well. However, no provision was made in Section 80- I provide for deduction of the gross total income by deduction allowed under Section 80hh for the purpose of allowing deduction under Section 80- I. It would, thus, be seen that when Section 80j already existed in Sub-section (9) of Section 80hh, an amendment was made in Section 80j in the year 1974 but no such provision was made in so far as Section 80- I was concerned. This clearly centra-indicates that Sub-section (9) of Section 80hh by itself meant that deduction allowed under Section 80hh is to be reduced from the gross total income for granting the benefit of Section 80j and, for that matter, of Section 80- I. It was provided in Section 80j itself by later amendment while no such provision was made in Section 80- I even though inserted on a later date. The provision of law, is, therefore, clear that in so far as the benefit of Section 80- I is concerned, it has to be granted on the gross total income and not on the income reduced by the amount allowed under Section 80hh. "

In the ultimate, the Division Bench has held that Tribunal was not right in holding that deduction under Section 80- I is to be allowed only on the balance of the income after deducting the relief granted a under Section 80hh from the gross total income.

(5.) REVENUE, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment filed SLP in the Supreme Court of India which came up for hearing before it on 21st July, 2000. The SLP was dismissed on the ground of delay as the delay was not condoned. Thus, the finding recorded by the Division Bench in the matter of J. P. Tobacco (supra) have now attained finality. A similar question came up for consideration before another Bench of the Supreme Court in yet another SLP which came to be considered on 12th Jan. , 2001. It was also dealing with special deduction: if such deduction is to be on gross amount. This question had arisen before the Supreme Court on account of an order passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in ITA No. 92 of 1999 decided on 2nd May, 2000, CIT v. Alpine Solvex (P) Ltd. . In the said case also the SLP was dismissed and findings of the Division Bench of the High Court, placing reliance on J. P. Tobacco (supra), held that both sections, i. e. , 80hh and 80-I are independent of each other, therefore, a new industrial unit can claim deductions under both the sections independently and it is not necessary that after taking deduction under Section 80hh on the reducing balance the benefit under Section 80- I is to be taken. Thus, in more than two cases the question involved has been answered against the Revenue which has also got the seal of approval by the Supreme Court as in both matters the SLP taken to the Supreme Court by the Revenue, have been dismissed. Thus, in the facts and features of the case, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in granting deductions under Section 80hh from the gross total income as also independently under Section 80-I of the. Thus, this question is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

(6.) THE appeals, therefore, stand dismissed.