Covered By A Judgment Of This Court In Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. Meera Jadhav

Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2021.11.1710:32:13+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1959 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -19 V/s. ….Appellant K. P. Sanghvi & Sons …Respondent ---- Mr. Sham Walve for AppellantMr. Madhur Agrawal i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Respondent ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ DATED : 15[th] NOVEMBER 2021 P.C. : 1Appellant is impugning an order dated 29[th] September 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai. 2Revenue has proposed in the appeal four questions of law but Mr. Walve states only the following two questions of law need to be considered namely 6.2 and 6.3, which read as under: “6.2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law,Mark of Market Losses on the date of balance sheet in respect ofunexpired foreign exchange forward contract was in the nature of acontingent or notional loss, not eligible for deduction u/s 37 of theI.T. Act, 1961 ? 6.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in alw, theHon’ble ITAT has erred in allowing the additional depreciation ofRs.29,38,884/- ?” 3As regards the first question, Mr. Walve states that it is already covered by a judgment of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax-16 Vs. D. Chetan & Co.1 4As regards the second question, ITAT has come to a finding of factrelying on a judgment of the Tribunal in Flawless Diamond (India) Ltd Vs.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5(1)2 to conclude thatbusiness of manufacturing of cutting and polishing of diamonds amounts tomanufacturing or production of article and thing as envisaged for thepurpose of claiming additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iiia) of theAct. Revenue is unable to show that this finding of fact is perverse in anymanner. 5Moreover, Gujarat High Court in M/s J. B. Enterprise Vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax unreported judgment dated 9[th] April 2018 inR/Tax Appeal 862 of 2007 has concurred with the view of FlawlessDiamond (India) (supra) to hold that business of manufacturing of cuttingand polishing of diamonds amounts to manufacturing or production ofarticle and thing as envisaged for the purpose of claiming additionaldepreciation under Section 32(1)(iiia) of the Act. We respectively concurwith the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court. 6In our view, therefore, the ITAT has not committed any perversity orapplied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts andcircumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide theissue at hand, then, we do not think that questions as pressed raises anysubstantial questions of law. 1(2016) 75 Taxmann 300 (Bombay) 2(2014) 45 Taxmann.com 67 (Mumbai-Trib) 7 The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)