Held that  the Tribunal had while framing direction for remit lost sight of the principal distinction between sections 80IA and 80IC and had also overlooked the fact that rule 18BBB as well as form 10CCB extended to more than one provision in the Act. It was intended to cater to varied enterprises and eligible businesses as envisaged in section 80-1, 80-IA, 80-IB or 80-IC. In the absence of section 80-IC requiring an agreement between the assessee and the Central or State Government or local authority or mandating such an agreement as being a mandatory precondition for claiming benefits, the Tribunal had erred in reading such a requirement in respect of an assessee claiming benefits under section 80-IC. That the Tribunal had examined the case of the assessee from the stand point of section 80-IA(8) and section 80-IA(10). This exercise undertaken by it for purposes of discerning abnormal profits and whether the assessee had shifted profit or expenditure to an eligible business was an issue which was neither canvassed, raised nor urged either before the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals). It also did not appear to have constituted a ground of appeal that was urged by the Department for the consideration of the Tribunal.  Tribunal erred in examining the issue not constituted grounds of appeal. Its observation in this regard were unwarranted and liable to be set aside.