1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 02.03.2015 Coram Honourable Mr. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and Honourable Mrs. JUSTICE S.VIMALA Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.357 & 358 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Appellant Vs. M/s. Colorplus Fashions Pvt. Ltd., C-10 Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600058 Respondent APPEAL under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 09.02.2007 in ITA. Nos.1652 & 1775/Mds/05 for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. For Appellant : Mr. T.Ravikumar Standing Counsel for Income Tax For Respondent : Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan COMMON JUDGMENT (The order of Court was made by R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Revenue has filed above Tax Case (Appeals) as against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, 2 dated 09.02.2007 in ITA. Nos.1652 & 1775/Mds/05 for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and same were admitted by this Court on following questions of law:- "1. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in allowing deduction under Section 80IB when assessee does not manufacture any goods by itself, but gets same manufactured by others on job work basis ? 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in allowing deducting under Section 80IB when assessee only does process of washing, pressing and packing which do not amount to manufacture? And 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of case, assessee who gets work done by job worker can claim to be industrial undertaking ?" 2. assessment in these cases relate to assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. assessee is engaged in manufacture and sale of readymade garments. Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While completing assessment, Assessing Officer denied benefit claimed under Sections 80IA/80IB of Income 3 Tax Act. Aggrieved by same, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following assessee's own case in respect of earlier assessment year, partly allowed appeals. Aggrieved by same, both Assessee and Revenue filed appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal answered issues in favour of assessee and partly allowed appeals filed by Revenue. Aggrieved by same, Revenue has filed present Tax Case Appeals raising above questions of law. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue fairly stated that issue involved in this case is squarely covered by decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore vs. M/s. Elgi Ultra Industries Limited, Coimbatore in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.451 of 2006 and 218 and 219 of 2007, dated 10.08.2012, reported in (2012) 210 TAXMAN 204 (Madras). 4. It is also pertinent to note that Tribunal followed earlier Tribunal's order, namely, M/s.Elgi Ultra Industries Limited, stated above and against that order Revenue filed appeal before this Court. In that matter, this Court answered question in 4 favour of assessee and allowed case. 5. In light of above, following above decision of this Court cited supra, questions of law raised herein are answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. Accordingly, both Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Index:Yes/No (R.S.,J.) (S.V.,J.) Internet:Yes/No 02.03.2015 sl To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench A, Chennai 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, Chennai 3.The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I(3), Chennai. R.SUDHAKAR,J. AND S.VIMALA,J. 5 Sl T.C.(A) Nos.357 & 358 of 2008 02.03.2015 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. M/s. Colorplus Fashions Pvt. Ltd