Year 2005-06 On The Following Suggested Questions Of Law v. Accordingly, We Dismiss The Appeal. Miscellaneous Petitions Pending, If Any,Shall Also Stand Closed. No Order As To Costs

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.289 of 2014 Date: 23.04.2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Hyderabad .....Appellant AND M/s Aquamall Water Solutions Pvt. Limited,Hyderabad ...Respondent HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A.No.289 of 2014 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta ) This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 15[th] July 2013 in relation to the assessment year 2005-06 on the following suggested questions of law: (i) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, thelearned Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee, claiming tobe a manufacture of water purifiers, is entitled for deduction underSection 80IC whereas in reality the assessee is merely assembledthe product without any major value addition? (ii) Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case,the learned Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessee, claimingto be a manufacture of water purifiers, is entitled for deduction underSection 80IC considering that the definition of ‘manufacture’ wasinserted in the Act with effect from 01-04-2009 only and, therefore,becomes inapplicable to Assessment Year 2008-09 and years earlierto it? We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have gonethrough the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. It appears that the learned Tribunal, after considering the definition of‘manufacture’ inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961, has found that the assemblyof various parts and components may tantamount to manufacture if new productemerges, which is movable and marketable. The learned Tribunal, on identicalfactual issue, has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecase of Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Private Limited Vs. CCE (1988 938 E.L.T.566). Therefore, the learned Tribunal has come to a fact-finding that the assesseeis engaged in the manufacture of water purifiers and, therefore, entitled fordeduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We do not find anyreason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learnedTribunal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J