1 itxal-1898-09++ sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL(LOD) NO.1898 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL(LOD) NO.1899 OF 2009 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4620 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Kirti Stationers Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr. S.E. Dastur with Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, senior Advocates with Madhur Agarwal with A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1. The assessment years involved in the above appeals are AY 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2003-04. 2. The common question of law raised in all these appeals is, whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the production of 'glue & lead' and 'sharpener blades' constitute manufacture and accordingly allow deduction under Section 80IA of the Act even though the assessee has used machinery which were transferred from other units in violation 2 itxal-1898-09++ of the conditions laid down under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act ? 3. The first contention as to whether the production of the items in question constitute manufacture or not has been considered by us in the assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.4925 of 2010 today i.e. 26/9/2011 wherein it is held that the production of the articles in question amount to manufacture and hence the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The second contention of the revenue that the unit in question is established by transferring the machinery from other units in violation of the conditions laid down under Section 80IA of the Act is without any merit, because, in the assessee's own case for AY 2001-02, the CIT(A) has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee was not formed by splitting or reconstruction of the existing unit and thus, there was no violation of Section 80IA of the Act. Admittedly, the revenue has not challenged the said decision of CIT(A) for AY 2001-02. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the argument of the revenue that the unit in question has been formed in violation of the provisions contained in Section 80IA of the Act. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)