Itxa/1214/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 v. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.263 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Tripathi with A.K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 1997-98, following questions have been raised for our consideration :- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of CIT(A), confirming the disallowances of Rs.9,35,20,000/- being the amount of claim for deduction u/s.80HH, 80I/80IA towards LPG Bottling Plant ?law, the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of CIT(A), confirming the disallowances of Rs.9,35,20,000/- being the amount of claim for deduction u/s.80HH, 80I/80IA towards LPG Bottling Plant ? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that bottling of the gas into gas cylinders as a production activity for the purpose S. 80HH, 80I /80IA ignoring the fact that no new product comes into existence in this process ? 2.The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee by following its decision in the respondent-assessee's case for the earlier assessment years i.e. 1992-93 to 1995-96. The counsel for the revenue states that the revenue had preferred appeals against the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 being Income Tax Appeal Nos.2131 of 2012 to 2135 of 2012. This Court by a comon order dated 7[th] March, 2013 did not entertain the revenue's appeals in respect of the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96. For the reasons stated in our order dated 7[th ]March, 2013 in respect of questions identical to ones raised herein, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 3.In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)