bgp bgp bgp 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 ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1113 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.1113 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.1113 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.Prerna Textiles Industries Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the above Appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law. a. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was correct in holding that in the previous year relevant to A.Y.1996-97, both the units, Unit-I and Unit-II of the assessee were simultaneously working and hence the new factory in Unit-II was also eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the IT Act? b. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was correct in cognizing the Statement given by Shri.S.N.Sharma, the General Manager of the factory in Unit-II who categorically stated that most of the old machines of Unit-I at Ringawadi, Daman were shifted to Unit-II at Dunetta, Daman in the months of October and November, 1995 and only then the business of Unit-II had commenced. The statement of Shri.S.N.Sharma was also corroborated by the other employees of the assessee. c. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was correct in directing the Asessing Officer to allow the deduction u/s.80IA on the profits and gains of Unit-I without reducing the profit by the amount of deduction u/s.80 HHA? :2: 2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr.Ashok Kumar fairly concedes that the question No.(c) is covered by our judgment in the case of Commissioner of Commissioner of Commissioner of Income Income Income Tax Vs. Nima Specific Family Trust 248 ITR 29 Tax Vs. Nima Specific Family Trust 248 ITR 29 Tax Vs. Nima Specific Family Trust 248 ITR 29, in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 3. As far as question No.(a) & (b) are concerned, we find from the order passed by the Tribunal especially in Paragraph No.7 that the Tribunal has categorically observed that the Department had allowed the claim of the assessee in all subsequent years also lends credibility to the claim of the assessee. In view of the same, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the order of the CIT(A) does not suffer with any infirmity. 4. Over and above, it may also be noted that the Tribunal has passed a common order with regard to Appeal filed by the Assessee as well as by the Revenue. The Tribunal has, in its order dated 22nd September, 2005 categorically observed that the Assessee’s Appeal has been partly allowed as well as the Appeal filed by the Revenue was also partly allowed. However, the Appellant-Revenue has chosen not to challenge the order partly allowing the Appeal of the Assessee. The present Appeal is only with regard to partly disallowing the Appeal of the Revenue. :3: 5. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above Appeal. The Appeal stands dismissed. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)