The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19,Mumbai v. M/S. Avon Health Care

srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1207 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-19,Mumbai ...Appellant Versus M/s. Avon Health Care ...Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant.Mr.Keshav Bhujle for respondent. CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. March 21, 2012. P.C. 1.This appeal by the Revenue arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30 July 2010; the Assessment Year to which the appeal relates being 2006-07. The following questions of law have been framed by the Revenue: (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the activity of production of perfumed hair oil 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 and does not spring forth any distinct commodity since properties are inherently unchanged and so also in commercial sense and does not qualify 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.Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed on record an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 23 January 2012 dismissing an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order of the ITAT for AY 2004-05 where the same questions of law were raised. The order for AY 2004-05, it is common ground, has been followed by the Tribunal in the impugned order for AY 2006-07. In view of the fact that the order for AY 2004-05 has attained finality upon the dismissal of the appeal by this Court (Income Tax Appeal No.1004 of 2011 decided on 23 January 2012), the present appeal will not raise any substantial question of law and accordingly is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)