-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.826 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-20 : Appellant v/s M/s. Madhusudan Sales Corporation : Respondent Mr. R. Asokan for Appellant Mr. B.K. Bahl partner of respondent present in person Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 18.9.2008 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.K. Bahl the partner of respondent’s partnership firm. The respondent’s partnership firm consists of two partners namely B.K. Bahl and his wife Mrs. Bahl who is personally present in court and she has authorised Mr. Bahl to appear on her behalf. . We have perused the judgment and order of the Tribunal dt. 28.12.2007. In the above Appeal the appellant is seeking to raise the following question of law. "The Substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of sec. 80 IB and -2- other provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal right in allowing the claim of deductions u/s. 80IB as claimed by the assessee though it is not engaged in any manufacturing activity." . The above issue whether the respondent is a manufacturing unit has been considered in detail by CIT(A) who in his order has categorically given a finding that the respondent is a manufacturing unit. ITAT has fully concurred with the finding of CIT(A). There is absolutely no question of law involved in the above. It is a mere finding of fact. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)