The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai City-Ix,Mumbai v. M/S.vital Organic Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 837 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income-tax,Mumbai City-IX,Mumbaivs. M/s.Vital Organic Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Respondent Mr.Vijay Kantharia with Mr.B.M. Chatterjee i/b.Mr.K.B. Rao for the Appellant. CORAM: R. M. LODHA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 15th September 2004 P.C. In the memo of appeal, two questions of law have been proposed which read thus: "(1)Whether on the facts & in thecircumstances of the case and in law theincome earned by assessee upon leasingout the plant and machinery even thoughthe business carried out by the assesseewas manufacturing and producingpharmaceutical products, would amount to‘Business income’ qualifying fordeduction u/s. 32AB of the I.T. Act,1961 or amount to "Income from othersources" not qualifying deduction u/s.32AB of the I.T. Act, 1961?(2)Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Tribunal wascorrect in law upholding the decision ofthe CIT(A) interalia by which theadditions of Rs.1,50,342/- made to thetotal income of the respondent company bythe Assessing Officer on account of Undervaluation of closing stock arising due tounutilized Modvat Credit?"2. In so far as question (1) is concerned, we find thatthe controversy stands answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. 1. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd., 231 ITR 308. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd., 261 ITR 275. 4. Thus, both the proposed questions stand answered by the judgement of the Supreme Court. 5. No substantial question of law arises. 6. Appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. LODHA, J.)(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)