Itxa/741/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -9, Mumbai v. M/S Multi Flex Lami Prints Ltd. , Mumbai

itxa741-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.741 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Multi Flex Lamints Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1. Two questions of law raised by the revenue in this appeal read thus:- (A)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the process of slitting and pouching of LPPF (Laminated and Printed Packaging Film) can be termed as “manufacturing activity” and thereby entitled assessee a deduction under Section 80IB ?process of slitting and pouching of LPPF (Laminated and Printed Packaging Film) can be termed as “manufacturing activity” and thereby entitled assessee a deduction under Section 80IB ? (B)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law to remit the matter back for adjudication to A.O. disregarding the fact that A.O. while invoking the provisions of Section 80IA(8) of the Income Tax Act had also Tribunal was right in law to remit the matter back for adjudication to A.O. disregarding the fact that A.O. while invoking the provisions of Section 80IA(8) of the Income Tax Act had also estimated the correct transfer of profit from Mahad to Silvassa unit. There was no need to readjudicating the issue afresh ? 2.As regards question (A) is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of India Cine Agencies V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxi reported in (2009) 308 I.T.R. 98 while considering a similar question has held that cutting of jumbo rolls of photographic films into marketable sizes would constitute 'manufacture' for the purpose of deduction under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the light of the aforesaid decision, in our opinion, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT in holding that the process of slitting and pouching of lamininated and printed packaging film constitute manufacture and thereby entitled to deduction under Section 80IB. Accordingly, the first question cannot be entertained. 3.As regards the second question is concerned, since the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the ITAT for fresh consideration in accordance with law, we do not see any reason to entertain the second question. 4.The appeal is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)