N. Kumar, J.@mdashThe appeal is preferred by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Tribunal.
2. The assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration in this appeal:
"1) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the assessee''s claim for deduction under Section 80IB of the Act is not hit by the exception provided in Section 80IB(2)(iii) read with Schedule 11 (Item 25) to the Income Tax Act as polyutherim foam used by the assessee in the manufacture of automobile seats results in commercially different product than that mentioned in the 11th Schedule?
2) Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB of the Act in respect of a product manufactured by it which is listed in the 11th Schedule to the Income Tax Act?"
3. Infact, similar questions arose for consideration before this Court in the case of the assessee itself for the earlier period and this Court by its order dated 25.2.2014 in ITA. No. 623/2007 has answered the said substantial questions of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, in this appeal also, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
4. However, it is submitted that the assessee has preferred an appeal against the said judgment of this Court before the Hon''ble Apex Court and it is pending consideration. In the event of the assessee succeeding in the appeal before the Hon''ble Apex Court, then the Assessing Authority shall pass consequential order in terms of Section 260(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
