The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai v. Avon Health Care

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1004 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Avon Health Care..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Keshav B Bhujle & Mr.P V Bhujle for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &A.R. Joshi, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 23[rd] January 2012 1.The Revenue has raised following substantial questions of law. a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity of production of perfume hair by using coconut and mineral oil is manufacturing activity and entitled for deduction under Section 80IB when the same is merely blending a few types of oil perfume into the final product does not spring forth any distinct commodity since properties are inherently unchanged and so also in commercial sense and does not quality as manufacturing ? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee’s unit is not set up by splitting up or reconstruction of existing business carried on by M/s.Beta Cosmetics and entitled to deduction under Section 80IB ? 2.As regards first question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Beta Cosmetics, Income Tax Appeal No.5759 of 2010 has been dismissed by this Court on 30[th] November 2011. For the reasons stated therein, the first question cannot be entertained. 3.As regards second question is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in para-3 of its order is that the assessee is an independent new entity and that the new industrial unit has been set up by installing new plant and machinery at new premises and the assessee had also employed altogether new staff. In our opinion the second question is based on finding of fact and, hence, the same cannot be entertained. 4.In this view of the matter, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.R. Joshi, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)