(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.160 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant Vs. Excel Industries Ltd...............Respondent Mr. A.D. Kango with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant Mrs. Vasanti B. Patel, for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. R.S.MOHITE,JJ. DATED: 5TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 5TH FEBRUARY,2008 DATED: 5TH FEBRUARY,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Question (a) reads as under:- "a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance under Rule 6B when the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Indian Rayon Ltd. (231 ITR 26) is in favour of the revenue?" It is the contention of Revenue that the Tribunal ought to have answered the question in their favour relying on the judgment in 275 ITR 226. That judgment was considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. West Commissioner of Income Tax vs. West Commissioner of Income Tax vs. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., 250 ITR 506. Coast Paper Mills Ltd., 250 ITR 506. Coast Paper Mills Ltd., 250 ITR 506. The learned (-2-) Division Bench noted that on facts, the Tribunal has found ample material to show that the assessee incurred expenditure but it did not incur such expenditure as and by way of advertising its products. The Tribunal in para.3 of its order has noted that all the articles in question did not have any logo or advertisement value. Considering that in our opinion the matter would be squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.(supra) and accordingly the question as framed would not arise. 2. The question (b) as framed reads as under:- "a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance on account of rent of guest house by relying on 177 ITR 124, when the later decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ocean Carriers P. Ltd. (211 ITR 357) is in favour of the revenue?" The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr., 278 ITR 546 Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr., 278 ITR 546 Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr., 278 ITR 546 (.C.). (.C.). (.C.). The question is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue. (-3-) 3. Question (c) reads as under:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing deduction u/s.80I in respect of Unit No.VI located at Bhavnagar by holding it to be integrated independent unit when it was not a new unit but merely expansion of the existing capacity? The Tribunal in para.23 of its order has recorded a finding of fact. That being the case no question of law arises. 4. Question No.d) reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance of investment allowance on data processing equipment when the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Shroff Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (238 ITR 1018)." (-4-) We find from the record that the question was answered in favour of the assessee for the assessment year 1986-87. Nothing has been brought to our attention that the Revenue has challenged the same by way of an Appeal before this Court. Even otherwise we find that the judgment in 238 ITR 1018 was considered by another coordinate Bench of this Court in 250 ITR 136. In that case the Court noted the contention of the assessee that it was carrying on business as business consultant and in the light of that the matter was remanded for recording a finding that the assessee company which was in the business of data processing could be said to have been engaged in the manufacture of articles or things with the help of the computer. In the case before us for the assessment year 1986-87 the Tribunal recorded a finding that data processing equipments have been installed in the factory premises and it has been used for aiding manufacturing process. Considering the above the question as framed also would not arise. 5. Question (e) reads as under:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in directing that deduction u/s.80HH be recomputed without setting off (-5-) of the losses of other unit?" Our attention is invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Madras vs. Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd., (Central) Madras vs. Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd., (Central) Madras vs. Canara Workshops Pvt. Ltd., 161 ITR 320. 161 ITR 320. 161 ITR 320. This judgment, therefore, squarely covered the facts of this case and consequently that question also would not arrive. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts Appeal accordingly disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)