Tax Appeal v. Shaiv Distilleries Pvt. Ltd

mukund 1 txa 67.15 dt.4.10.18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO.67 OF 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji …Appellant Versus Shaiv Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Standing Counsel for the Appellant.Mr. V.P.Thali, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram : N.M. Jamdar & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. Date : 4 October 2018. P.C.: The learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant-Revenue submitted that a group of matters bearing Tax AppealNos.17 of 2010, 15 of 2010, 22 of 2011 and 60 of 2012 raisingidentical issue was disposed of by an order dated 9 August 2018. Thelearned Standing Counsel points out that the present Appeal iscovered by the order passed on 9 August 2018. On 9 August 2018,the following order was passed:- “Challenging the order passed by ITAT,Panaji Bench, Panaji, these appeals havebeen filed by the Revenue. The Appeals,were admitted on following substantialquestion of law:- mukund 2 txa 67.15 dt.4.10.18 “Whether the blending and the bottling ascarried out by the Respondent-assessee,amounts to manufacture or productionwithin the ambit of those terms underSection 80IB of the Income Tax Act?”carried out by the Respondent-assessee,amounts to manufacture or productionwithin the ambit of those terms underSection 80IB of the Income Tax Act?” 2. The learned Counsel for the partiessubmitted that the above question of lawwhich has been framed has been consideredand decided by the Division Bench ofMadras High Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinbros& Co.1 and against the said Judgmentpassed by the Madras High Court CivilAppeal No.6115 of 2012 has beendismissed by the Supreme Court.submitted that the above question of lawwhich has been framed has been consideredand decided by the Division Bench ofMadras High Court in the case ofCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vinbros& Co.1 and against the said Judgmentpassed by the Madras High Court CivilAppeal No.6115 of 2012 has beendismissed by the Supreme Court. 4.In the circumstances, they submitthat question involved is squarely decidedagainst the revenue and as such theseappeals be dismissed.that question involved is squarely decidedagainst the revenue and as such theseappeals be dismissed. 5. We accordingly dismiss these appeals.” ” 2.In view of this position, the Appeal is dismissed. Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.N.M.Jamdar,J.