((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.339 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax-24 Mumbai. Appellant versus M/s.Kewalkiran Enterprises Respondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.235 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax-24 Mumbai. Appellant versus M/s.Kewalkiran Enterprises Respondent Mr.R.Asdkan, APP for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND A.A.KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 12th August 2008 PC : 1. Both the appeals raise same questions. Therefore, they are being disposed off by common order. 2. Following questions are framed. a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-IA of ((-2-)) the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too without appreciating that the addition on similar point in earlier years were upheld by the CIT(A). b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the claim for deduction under section 80IA ignoring the facts that almost the entire manufacturing activity of "Jeans" was carried out at Goregaon in Mumbai, which is not an industrially backward area and only the finishing process on the "Jeans" was carried on at Daman a notified backward area in Union Territory? c) Whether the learned ITA(A) Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ‘J’ justified in non-considering the reliance placed on record by way of various citations in support of the case of the Department for deduction under section 80-IA of the said Act as per the Assessing Officer’s decision? d) Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the submissions of the representative of the Appellant in view of the issue covered by their own Tribunal decision in the Assessee’s case for year 1998-1999. 3. Essentially the question is whether the jeans manufactured by assessee were being manufactured in Daman (Backward area) or in State of Maharashtra? 4. Had they been manufactured at Daman (Backward area), they would have been entitled to get benefits under section 80(i)(a) of the Income Tax Act. This benefit would not be available to them if the jeans are manufactured at Mumbai. ((-3-)) 5. Essentially this is a question of fact and the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the manufacturing took place at Damn. Therefore, no question of law arises. 6. Appeal is dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.)