2017 (6) TMI 407

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appeal of the department. 2. This Court while admitting the appeal no.207/2009 on 04.05.2009 has framed the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that by grinding the soap stone, assessee is carrying out a manufacturing activity and is thus, entitled for deduction under Section 80IB of Rs. 57,74,951/- and Rs. 13,08,911/- ignoring the specific judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier General, reported in 242 ITR 655, wherein it has been held that such an activity is not a manufacturing activity? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in taking a view contrary to its own view taken by it earlier in the ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh Court in the case of Premier General, reported in 242 ITR 655, wherein it has been held that such an activity is not a manufacturing activity? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in taking a view contrary to its own view taken by it earlier in the case of assessee in ITA No.233/JP/2007, wherein it has held that the activity of assessee of excavation and grinding of soap stone does not amount to processing?" 2.3 This Court while admitting the appeal no.96/2010 on 24.11.2010 has framed the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that by grinding the soap stone, assessee is carrying out a manufacturing activity and is thus,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that by grinding the soap stone, assessee is carrying out a manufacturing activity and is thus, entitled for deduction under Section 80IB of Rs. 56,79,234/- ignoring the specific judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premier General, reported in 242 ITR 655, wherein it has been held that such an activity is not a manufacturing activity? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in taking a view contrary to its own view taken by it earlier in the case of assessee in ITA No.233/JP/2007, wherein it has held that the activity of assessee of excavation and grinding of soap st....