IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3128 OF 2005 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1332 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Roha Dyechem Ltd. ..Respondent. Ms. A.D.Kango with P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.Rajesh Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. There is delay of 41 days in preferring the appeal. There is affidavit in support. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1332 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s. Roha Dyechem Ltd. ..Respondent. Ms. A.D.Kango with P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.Rajesh Shah for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 6TH FEBRUARY,2008. PC : 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on the following questions of law. A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in confirming the decision of the learned CIT(A) in allowing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on the so called new industrial unit whereas the assessing officer had rightly held that no new industrial unit had come into existence and it was a case of expansion of the existing unit and therefore deduction was rightly allowed u/s.80-I and not u/s. 80IA of the Act? B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Sales Tax and Excise Duty is to be included in the total turnover of the assessee, for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act? 2. In so far as Question A is concerned, it is based on the finding of fact. In fact, it is concurrent finding. Considering that, the question of law as framed wound not arise. 3. In so far as Question-B is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of this court in the case of CIT Vs. Catapharma reported in 272 ITR 641 ( Bom). Consequently, the question of law as framed would not arise. Hence, appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)