TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of Ms. Asha Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent/assessee were carrying out only processing of the iron ore and not carrying out extraction and processing of the iron ore cannot be accepted. Thus we find that the substantial questions of law proposed by the appellant would no longer survive for the reasons recorded in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Goa vs. Salgaonkar & Brothers (P.) Ltd., (2014 (4) TMI 1156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). - Decided in favour of assessee - TAX APPEALS NO. 18 & 19 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2016 - F.M. REIS AND NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. For The Appellant : Ms. Asha Desai, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, and Mr. Purushottam R. Karpe, Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) clearly point out that additional depreciation was allowed to the respondent for the previous Assessment Years by the ITAT on the ground that the respondent/assessee was carrying out activities of extraction, as well as processing of iron ore. The learned Counsel further points out that as such, it is late in the day for the appellant to now contend that the respondents were not carrying out extraction of iron ore and consequently, not doing any production activities. The learned Counsel further submits that this aspect is no longer res integra in view of the Judgment of this Court reported in [2014] 47 taxmann.com 21 (Bombay) in the case of Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court has observed at para 7, thus : 7. Considering the said observations, as it is not disputed by the appellant that the respondents are engaged in the business of processing of iron ore in the plant and generation of windmill energy which is held to be a manufacturing activity within the said provision of Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, the observations of the Apex Court in the decision cited supra, are thus clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. The ITAT in the impugned order dated 8th August, 2013 has rightly observed at para 8 thus : 8. We are of the opinion that the AO has examined the claim of assessee regarding additional depreciation on machinery and windmill and allowed the claim in the year u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
