Commissioner of Income Tax vs National Lamination Industries

D.A. Mehta, J.—It is an accepted position between the parties that though orders of admission are made on different dates, the following common question has been formulated as a substantial question of law:

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal right in holding that assessee is engaged in manufacturing article or thing and is entitled to deduction u/s 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 though assessee failed to fulfill the condition laid down u/s 80-IB(2)(ii) of the Act?

It is also an accepted position between the parties that reference to Clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 80-IB is erroneous and the correct clause should be Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 80-IB.

It is not necessary to enter into any discussion on merits of the controversy in light of the order of even date made in Tax Appeal No. 363 of 2008 in case of CIT v. Alfa Lamination wherein, this Court has held that no substantial question of law arises in the facts of the case. The same order shall apply to all these appeals considering the fact that the Tribunals order is common in relation to most of the appeals, while in some of the appeals, a different common order of Tribunal has been made following this earlier order, wherein, majority opinion has been recorded.

In light of the fact that the court has come to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arises, it is not necessary to render any answer to the question formulated and the appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Registry is directed to keep the copy of this judgment in each matter.