TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Mr. Aditya Vijay For Respondent : Mr. T.C. Jain JUDGMENT Per Hon ble Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the department. 2. This Court while admitting the appeal no.207/2009 on 04.05.2009 has framed the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that by grinding the soap stone, assessee is carrying out a manufacturing activity and is thus, entitled for deduction under Section 80IB of ₹ 57,74,951/- and ₹ 13,08,911/- ignoring the specific judgment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that by grinding the soap stone, assessee is carrying out a manufacturing activity and is thus, entitled for deduction under Section 80IB of ₹ 1,91,03,174/- ignoring the specific judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier General, reported in 242 ITR 655, wherein it has been held that such an activity is not a manufacturing activity? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in taking a view contrary to its own view taken by it earlier in the case of assessee in ITA No.233/JP/2007, wherein it has held that the activity of assessee of excavation and grinding of soap stone does not amount to processing? 2.3 This Court while admitting the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier in the case of M/s Golcha Mineral Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.233/JP/2007, wherein it has held that the activity of assessee of excavation and grinding of soap stone does not amount to processing? 2.5 This Court while admitting the appeal no.248/2011 on 10.07.2012 has framed the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that by grinding the soap stone, assessee is carrying out a manufacturing activity and is thus, entitled for deduction under Section 80IB of ₹ 56,79,234/- ignoring the specific judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier General, reported in 242 ITR 655, wherein it has been held that such an activity is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (vi) CIT vs. Shri Swasan Chemical (M) P Ltd. 300 ITR 115 (Mad) (vii) Tamilnadu Minerals P. Ltd. vs. CIT 349 ITR 695 (SC) at P.697 (viii) Aspinwall Co. vs. CIT 251 ITR 323 (Sco At P.328) (ix) CIT vs. Mallikarjun Georesocues Associates 341 ITR 581 (Uttrakhand) at p. 584 (x) CIT vs. Empire Poly yarn P Ltd. 320 ITR 665 (SC) at p. 667 (xi) CIT vs. Shri Swasan Chemical (M) P Ltd. 300 ITR 115 (Mad). 5. Therefore, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sesa Goa Ltd. 271 ITR 331 (supra), the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 6. The appeals stand dismissed. 7. A copy of this judgment be placed in each file. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
