The Commissioner of Income-tax-4, v. Sunflag Filamenta Ltd - 2015-LL-0304-113

Citation	2015-LL-0304-113
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax-4,
Respondent Name	Sunflag Filamenta Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	04/03/2015
Assessment Year	2000-01
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	question of law • tax deduction
Bot Summary:	2 The Revenue has formulated the following questions of law for our consideration: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT has erred in holding that texturing and twisting of yarn constitute manufacturing and hence eligible for tax deduction u/s. 80IB of the I. T. Act, 1961 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case that ITAT was correct in dismissing the appeal following the decision in CIT v/s. Pithawa Engineering 276 ITR 519, Bombay, ignoring the fact that the notional tax effect is Rs.13,36,024/ and also the said question of law is repeatedly arising in several cases S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 12:49:14 ::: itxa-749-2008 3 It is an agreed position between the parties that Question No. namely whether activities of texturing and twisting of yarn constituted manufacture stands covered against Revenue in favour of the Respondent Assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CTI v/s. We may point out that the impugned order of the Tribunal while dismissing the Revenue's appeal indicated that the issue stands covered in favour of the Assessee by its decision in the Assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 1997 98 rendered on 6th February, 2004. In that decision, the Tribunal dismissed Respondent's appeal by following its decision in ITA No.1324/MUM/2000 in Emptee Poly Yarn Ltd. It is the aforesaid view of the Tribunal that has been confirmed by the Apex Court in Emptee Poly Yard. 4 In view of Question No. being covered in favour of the Respondent Assessee, the issue raised in Question No.(b) becomes academic.

itxa-749-2008 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax 4 .. Appellant. V/s. M/s. Sunflag Filamenta Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sham V. Walve, for Appellant. Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b. PDS Legal, for Respondent. CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 4th MARCH, 2015. P.C: This Appeal under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges order dated 9 th October, 2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2000 01. 2 Revenue has formulated following questions of law for our consideration: (a) Whether on facts and circumstances of case and in law, ITAT has erred in holding that texturing and twisting of yarn constitute manufacturing and hence eligible for tax deduction u/s. 80IB of I. T. Act, 1961? (b) Whether on facts and circumstances of case that ITAT was correct in dismissing appeal following decision in CIT v/s. Pithawa Engineering 276 ITR 519, Bombay, ignoring fact that notional tax effect is Rs.13,36,024/ and also said question of law is repeatedly arising in several cases? S.R.JOSHI 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 12:49:14 ::: itxa-749-2008 3 It is agreed position between parties that Question No. (a) namely whether activities of texturing and twisting of yarn constituted manufacture stands covered against Revenue in favour of Respondent Assessee by decision of Supreme Court in matter of CTI v/s. Emptee Poly Yarn (P) Ltd. 320 ITR 665. We may point out that impugned order of Tribunal while dismissing Revenue's appeal indicated that issue stands covered in favour of Assessee by its decision in Assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1997 98 rendered on 6th February, 2004. In that decision, Tribunal dismissed Respondent's appeal by following its decision in ITA No.1324/MUM/2000 in Emptee Poly Yarn (P) Ltd. It is aforesaid view of Tribunal that has been confirmed by Apex Court in Emptee Poly Yard (supra). 4 In view of Question No. (a) being covered in favour of Respondent Assessee, issue raised in Question No.(b) becomes academic. 5 Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (G.S.KULKARNI,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) S.R.JOSHI 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2020 12:49:14 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax-4, v. Sunflag Filamenta Ltd

Metadata

Judgment