JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of these appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the appellant-revenue has challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal has partially decided the appeal in favour of the assessee by reversing the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 2. This court, while admitting the appeals, framed the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s. 80-I of the Act, 1961, in respect of profit of plant No. 4 claimed during the year for the first time? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80-I of the Act, 1961 in respect of the income derived on sole of packing scrap and not out of any scrap resulting from the processing of milk?" 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 24.10.2002 disclosing total income at Nil. The return was processed and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer by his order dated 28.11.2005 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act at total income of Rs. 37,74,78,500/-. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer has made certain disallowances. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who by his order dated 21.12.2006 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), both the assessee and the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record, passed the order as aforesaid. Hence the revenue is before us. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue Mr. Sudhir Mehta has contended that the Tribunal has committed error in reversing the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as conversion of milk into milk powder does not constitute manufacture of article or things as milk power is nothing but milk in the powder form. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to benefit under section 80-I of the Act. Sudhir Mehta has contended that the Tribunal has committed error in reversing the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as conversion of milk into milk powder does not constitute manufacture of article or things as milk power is nothing but milk in the powder form. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to benefit under section 80-I of the Act. He has further contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-I of the Act in respect of the income derived on sale of packing scrap and not out of any scrap resulting from the processing of milk. In that view of the matter, he contended that the order of the Tribunal is required to be disturbed. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has contended that so far as the first question whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80-I of the Act in respect of profit of plant No. 4 claimed during the year for the first time is concerned, this issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (2001) 251 ITR 323 (SC) where at page 326 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has described nine processes, which reads as under: "It was noticed that the Tribunal had inspected the factory premises to have a first-hand knowledge of the operations carried on by the assessee -company. The inspection was made by the Tribunal in the presence of both the parties through their representatives. The factual observation of the Tribunal as a result of the inspection found that the following nine processes are involved in curing of coffee: (1) Receipt of coffee from the estates; (2) Storage of coffee in covered godowns; (3) Drying of coffee to the required standards prescribed by the coffee board in drying yards; (4) Hulling/pealing/polishing; (5) Grading of coffee mechanically; (6) Colour sorting; (7) Garbling and manual grading; (8) Out-turning of garbled coffee; and (9) Bulking. The Tribunal also found that to deal with the nine processes, the assessee has the factory area where godowns for storage of uncured/clean coffee, coffee drying yards, machine rooms, garbling sheds, etc., are located." Further while concluding at page 327, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "The word "manufacture" has not been defined in the Act. The Tribunal also found that to deal with the nine processes, the assessee has the factory area where godowns for storage of uncured/clean coffee, coffee drying yards, machine rooms, garbling sheds, etc., are located." Further while concluding at page 327, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "The word "manufacture" has not been defined in the Act. In the absence of a definition of the word "manufacture" it has to be given a meaning as is understood in common parlance. It is to be understood as meaning the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand labour or machines. If the change made in the article results in a new and different article then it would amount to a manufacturing activity." "Adverting to the facts of the present case, the assessee after plucking or receiving the raw coffee berries makes it undergo nine processes to give it the shape of coffee beans. The net product is absolutely different and separate from the input. The change made in the article results in a new and different article which is recognised in the trade as a new and distinct commodity. The coffee beans have an independent identity distinct from the raw material from which it was manufactured. A distinct change comes about in the finished product. The submission of learned counsel for the Revenue that the assessee was doing only the processing work and was not involved in the manufacture and producing of a new article cannot be accepted. The process is a manufacturing process when it brings out a complete transformation in the original article so as to produce a commercially different article or commodity. That process itself may consist of several processes. The different processes are integrally connected which results in the production of a commercially different article. If a commercially different article or commodity results after processing then it would be a manufacturing activity. The assessee after processing the raw berries converts them into coffee beans which is a commercially different commodity. Conversion of the raw berry into coffee beans would be a manufacturing activity." 6. If a commercially different article or commodity results after processing then it would be a manufacturing activity. The assessee after processing the raw berries converts them into coffee beans which is a commercially different commodity. Conversion of the raw berry into coffee beans would be a manufacturing activity." 6. He has further relied on the decision of this court in the case of New Nandi Seeds Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) XVIII reported in (2015) 230 Taxman 196 (Guj.) where this court has held as follows: "Where bajra seeds after treatment with poisonous chemicals got rendered unfit for human consumption and was a different article or thing than raw bajra fit for human consumption, said activity would be an activity of manufacturing." 7. So far as the second question whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-I of the Act in respect of income derived on sale of packing scrap and not out of any scrap resulting from the processing of milk is concerned, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nirma Ltd., reported in (2015) 55 taxmann.com 125 (Gujarat) where it is held as follows: "When certain profit is to be excluded from claim of deduction under sections 80-HH, 80-I and 80-HHC, it is not gross profit but net thereof, that is, gross profit minus expenditure incurred for earning such profit, which should be excluded. Income on account of sale of various items of scrap is to be included for purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80-IA and 80-HH. Interest from business debtors is to be included for purpose of calculation of deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-HHC. Expenditure in connection with expansion of existing business would be allowed as revenue expenditure." 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal and perused the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the issues are squarely covered by the decisions referred to above. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, all these appeals fail and are dismissed.