IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Income Tax Appeal No. 112 of 2002 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs. M/.s Kehmi Filaments Ltd. ..Respondents Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.S.S.Shetty for respondents. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 21st 21st 21st July 2008 July 2008 July 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. In the present appeal the following substantial question of law has been raised. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in holding that the activities of texturising and twisting the yarn is a process of manufacturing of articles or things within the meaning of section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. Both the learned Counsel state that the very same question was considered by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1393 of 2000 decided by the Division Bench on 27th February, 2008 in the matter of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay Vs. M/s Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt.Ltd. wherein this Court has clearly answered the said question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, in the present appeal also the question of law has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue for the same reasons. The income tax appeal is disposed of accordingly. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (DR.S.RADHAAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (DR.S.RADHAAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (DR.S.RADHAAKRISHNAN J.)