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 dismissed the appeals preferred by the revenue and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee. 2. These appeals were admitted by this court for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: Tax Appeal Nos. 60 of 2009, 62 of 2009 and 64 of 2009: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80-I on the Ankleshwar unit and u/s. 80-IA on the Surat unit, when the Assessing Officer had disallowed the said claim on the ground that the assessee was not an industrial undertaking referred to in section 80-I and 80-IA and that it did not manufacture or produce any article or thing?" Tax Appeal No. 888 of 2010: "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order made by the CIT(A) and thereby allowing the assessee's claim under section 80-I and 80-IA of the Act? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order made by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the disallowance of depreciation on assets leased to Rajasthan State Electricity Board? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the order made by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,29,491/- being interest on unpaid purchase price of plant and machinery acquired on differed payment basis? Tax Appeal No. 85 of 2009: "Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the industrial undertaking, both in relation to Ankleshwar unit and Surat unit, is carrying on such an activity which entitles the assessee to deduction under sections 80-I and 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, respectively?" Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2014: "(A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in reversing the order made by the CIT(A) and thereby allowing the assessee's claim under section 80-I and 80-IA of the Act?" Tax Appeal No. 1059 of 2011: (1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,03,18,552/- made on account of claim under section 80-I and 80-IA? 14,03,18,552/- made on account of claim under section 80-I and 80-IA? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,65,352/- on unpaid purchase price of plant and machinery acquired? 3. For the purpose of considering the case, we discuss the facts in Tax Appeal No. 60 of 2009. The assessee filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer made certain disallowances. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax which was partly allowed. Against that order of Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal which was dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has contended that the Assessing Officer, while framing assessment, in regard to disallowance of deduction under sections 80-I and 80-IA of the Act, has given his findings in the order as under: "The entire discussion regarding deduction u/s. 80-I and 80-IA may be summed up as follows: (i) The assessee is not an industrial undertaking referred to in section 80-I or 80-IA. (ii) Without prejudice to the above the business of the assessee was formed by splitting up of another business already in existence therefore, the condition of clause (i) of sub-section (2) of both section is not fulfilled. (iii) The assessee does not manufacture or produce any article or thing and therefore the condition at clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of both the sections was not fulfilled. (iv) Processing does not amount to manufacture or production in view of analysis of these words by various courts. Therefore, the processing of gas if at all by the assessee cannot be treated as manufacture or production. (v) Distribution of gas on the argument that it was another form of power does not by itself make the assessee eligible for deduction u/s. 80-I (or 80-IA) in the similar manner as the agents distributing the gas in the cylinders are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80-Iin respect of profit derived from the gas distribution business. Accordingly, the deduction u/s. 80-I and 80-IA claimed in the return is disallowed. For 80-I Rs. 1,71,79,493/- and for 80-IA Rs. Accordingly, the deduction u/s. 80-I and 80-IA claimed in the return is disallowed. For 80-I Rs. 1,71,79,493/- and for 80-IA Rs. 48,24,798/- is disallowed respectively." 4.1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in paragraph No. 3 of his order, observed as follows: "Regarding the first ground the appellant relied on the submissions made by the representative and the advocate Shri J.P. Shah during the appellate hearing for A.Y. 1993-94. The claim of allowability of deduction u/s. 80-I and 80-IA has been discussed in detail in the appellate order for A.Y. 1993-94. It is held that the activity of the appellant of procuring and distribution of gas cannot be held as manufacturing or production of article or thing. For the reasons mentioned in the appellate order No. CIT(A)/VIII/131/96-97 dtd. 1.3.2002, the claim of the appellate for deduction u/s. 80-I/80-IA on its activities of distribution of natural gas is disallowed." 4.2 However, the learned counsel for the revenue has contended that the Tribunal has wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee and thus the order of the Tribunal is bad in law. "2.7(vii) After examining the issue from various angles now keeping in view all that discussion we return back to main issue whether the assessee engaged in producing any article or thing. The natural gas is a product of oil extraction activity. This occurs in natural form along with other fossils fuel. As such the gas in this natural is crude and cannot be used by industrial or domestic consumers. The gas is supplied by Gas Authority of India (GAIL) as it is extracted by ONGC from oil wells. At assessee, company's stage the process of making as consumable for industrial or domestic purpose takes place such process is a highly technical, controlled and regulated process as the gas is very inflammable and hazardous. For this purpose the plant is maintained as per American National Standard Institute and British Standard. The crude gas is as such distributable but the same cannot be put to industrial commercial use. This is evident from the fact that GAIL supplies crude gas without making it decontaminated odorized suitable for consumption. For this purpose the plant is maintained as per American National Standard Institute and British Standard. The crude gas is as such distributable but the same cannot be put to industrial commercial use. This is evident from the fact that GAIL supplies crude gas without making it decontaminated odorized suitable for consumption. The assessee company is processing gas for receiving chemical and physical impurities such as water, dust particles and oil, odorizing and optimally pressuring through filtration and depressurizing that makes the raw gas an unsaleable commodity which has distinct functional attributes. Thus the assessee company is engaged in producing the decontaminated odorized and optimally pressurized gas with the help of high precision instruments, in rigid atmospheric and pressure conditions which are of great importance in ensuring the final quality of the gas which has to confirm the quality standards. At every stage of process, there have to be rigid quality standards and even a very minute variations or defect could render the gas totally worthless. It, therefore, follows that the assessee company is an industrial undertaking engaged in producing the decontaminated, odorized and optimally pressurized gas satisfied the condition of producing article or thing for being entitled to deduction u/s. 80-I/80-IA". 4.3 The learned counsel for the revenue has contended that there is no alteration in the initial product which has been used. The learned counsel for the revenue has further contended that the assessee does not manufacture any article or thing. In this regard reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tara Agencies reported in (2007) 292 ITR 444 (SC) particularly, paragraph Nos. 13 to 26 which are extracted below: "13. The term manufacture has been defined in section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Parts (i) and (ii) of section 2(f) read as under:- 2(f). 'Manufacture' includes any process- (i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; and (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture. 14. Clause (f) gives an inclusive definition of the term 'manufacture'. 'Manufacture' includes any process- (i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; and (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture. 14. Clause (f) gives an inclusive definition of the term 'manufacture'. According to the dictionary, the term 'manufacture' means a process which results in an alteration or change in the goods which are subjected to the process of manufacturing leading to the production of a commercially new article. In determining what constitutes 'manufacture' no hard and fast rule can be applied and each case must be decided on its own facts having regard to the context in which the term is used in the provision under consideration. 15. The term 'manufacture' has been defined by the Black Law Dictionary (5th Edition) as under:- "Manufacture: The process or operation of making goods or any material produced by hand, by machinery or by other agency; anything made from raw materials by the hand, by machinery, or by art. The production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities, properties or combinations, whether by hand labor or machine." 16. The word 'manufacture' has been defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol. 29 p. 23 as under:- "Manufacture has been defined as a manner of adapting natural materials by the hands of man or by man-made devices or machinery and as the making of an article or material by physical labour or applied power"; but the practice is to accept as "manufacture" a wider range of industrial activities than such a definition would suggest. It includes articles made in situ as well as articles made in a factory." 17. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has defined the term "manufacture" a century ago in Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn. v. United States (1907) 52 L Ed. 336. The definition has been followed in subsequent American, English and Indian cases. The definition reads as under: "Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture, and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary. There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge, 'having a distinctive name, character or use'." PRODUCTION 18. The definition reads as under: "Manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture, and yet every change in an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary. There must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge, 'having a distinctive name, character or use'." PRODUCTION 18. In Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition), the term production has been defined as under: "Production. Process or act of producing. That which is produced or made; i.e. goods. Fruit of labor, as the productions of the earth, comprehending all vegetables and fruits; the productions of intellect, or genius, as poems and prose compositions; the productions or art, as manufactures of every kind." 19. The term "produce", as defined in the New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition), is as follows: "Produce, To bring forth into existence; to bring about; to cause or effect, esp. intellectually or creatively; to give birth to; to bear, furnish, yield; to make accrue; to bring about the performance of, as a movie or play; to extend, as a line.- v.i. To bring forth or yield appropriate offspring, products, or consequences." 20. This Court in Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax & Sales Tax, Central, Zone, Ernakulam v. M/s. Palampadam Plantations Ltd., AIR 1969 SC 930 had considered the meaning of the term 'produce' used in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The expression used was 'the person who sells goods produced by him by manufacture, agriculture, horticulture or otherwise'. 21. The expression 'produced' was given a wider meaning than the word 'manufacture' pointing out that the word 'produced' will include an activity of manufacturing the materials by applying human endeavour on some existing raw material, but the word 'produce' may include securing certain produce from natural elements, for example, by growing plants on soil, or by operating mines and the like or for example, by milching the cow the milkman produce milk though he has not applied any process on any raw material for the purpose of bringing into existence the thing known as milk. 22. The word 'production' or 'produce', when used in juxtaposition with the word 'manufacture' takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. 22. The word 'production' or 'produce', when used in juxtaposition with the word 'manufacture' takes in bringing into existence new goods by a process which may or may not amount to manufacture. It also takes in all the by-products, intermediate products and residual products which emerge in the course of manufacture of goods. PROCESS: 23. According to Oxford Dictionary one of the meanings of the word 'process' is "a continuous and regular action or succession of actions taking place or carried on in a definite manner and leading to the accomplishment of some result." 24. In Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, the term 'process' has been defined as under: 'Process: 1. a series of operations performed during manufacture, etc. 2. a series of stages which a product, etc. passes through, resulting in the development or transformation of it.' 25. In Collins Cobuild English Dictionary, the term 'process' has been defined as under: 'A process is series of actions which are carried out in order to achieve a particular result. A process is a series of things which happen naturally and result in a biological or chemical change. When raw materials or foods are processed, they are treated chemically or industrially before they are used or sold.' 26. The term 'process' as defined in the New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language [Deluxe Encyclopedia Edition] is as under: 'Process, To treat or prepare by some particular process; to convert, as an agricultural commodity, into marketable form by some special treatment; Produced or treated by some artificial means; as, process sugar; of or pertaining to photographic reproduction that involves photo-engraving or photomechanical means; relating to special effects obtained in motion pictures through the use of special filming techniques.' 4.4 The learned counsel for the revenue has therefore contended that the assessee does not carry out any manufacturing or production activity and therefore, it is not liable for any excise duty. In that view of the matter, the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80-I and 80-IA of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee Mr. In that view of the matter, the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 80-I and 80-IA of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Shah has taken us through the order of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee for the year under consideration relying on its order in the assessee's own case for the previous year i.e. 1993-94. He has contended that the order of the Tribunal for the previous year is accepted by the revenue and therefore, it will not be open for the revenue to challenge the order of the Tribunal for the year under consideration. He has 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) 55 taxmann.com 19 (Gujarat) where this court relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v. CIT, (2001) 251 ITR 323 has held in paragraph Nos. 9.1 and 9.2 as under: "9.1 In our view, when the product is to be disposed of immediately even that the product is not fit for human consumption. If it is required to be preserved, it seems to be a manufacturing process, and therefore, in our view, the finding of the Tribunal is misconceived and required to be reversed and the view taken in the subsequent year is accepted. 9.2 We have also gone through the letter, from which, it is clear that more than 10 employees are working there, which fulfills the condition, and therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit under section 80-IA of the I.T. Act. In the premise, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed." 5.1 In view of above, the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that the decision of the Tribunal is required to be upheld. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and gone through the evidence on record. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and gone through the evidence on record. The Tribunal while allowing the claim of the assessee has observed as under: "2.7(vii) After examining the issue from various angles now keeping in view all that discussion we return back to main issue whether the assessee engaged in producing any article or thing. The natural gas is a product of oil extraction activity. This occurs in natural form along with other fossils fuel. As such the gas in this natural is crude and cannot be used by industrial or domestic consumers. The gas is supplied by Gas Authority of India (GAIL) as it is extracted by ONGC from oil wells. At assessee, company's stage the process of making as consumable for industrial or domestic purpose takes place such process is a highly technical, controlled and regulated process as the gas is very inflammable and hazardous. For this purpose the plant is maintained as per American National Standard Institute and British Standard. The crude gas is as such distributable but the same cannot be put to industrial commercial use. This is evident from the fact that GAIL supplies crude gas without making it decontaminated odorized suitable for consumption. The assessee company is processing gas for receiving chemical and physical impurities such as water, dust particles and oil, odorizing and optimally pressuring through filtration and depressurizing that makes the raw gas an unsaleable commodity which has distinct functional attributes. Thus the assessee company is engaged in producing the decontaminated odorized and optimally pressurized gas with the help of high precision instruments, in rigid atmospheric and pressure conditions which are of great importance in ensuring the final quality of the gas which has to confirm the quality standards. At every stage of process, there have to be rigid quality standards and even a very minute variations or defect could render the gas totally worthless. It, therefore, follows that the assessee company is an industrial undertaking engaged in producing the decontaminated, odorized and optimally pressurized gas satisfied the condition of producing article or thing for being entitled to deduction u/s. 80-I/80-IA". It, therefore, follows that the assessee company is an industrial undertaking engaged in producing the decontaminated, odorized and optimally pressurized gas satisfied the condition of producing article or thing for being entitled to deduction u/s. 80-I/80-IA". 6.1 Taking into account the observations made by the Tribunal while allowing the claim of the assessee, that there is a process of altering gas for making it consumable for industrial or domestic purpose or making it more user friendly for the industrial undertaking. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly taken the view that the assessee carries out manufacturing activity. No interference is called for with the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 7. So far as question (A) of Tax Appeal No. 888 of 2010 is concerned, this question will be governed by the decision given in Tax Appeal No. 60 of 2009. Hence, we answer question (A) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 7.1 So far as question (B) is concerned, in view of the decision of this court in Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2008 where this court has held that in absence of any evidence to show anything to the contrary, no legal infirmity exists in the impugned order of the Tribunal so as to give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, as proposed or otherwise and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 7.2 So far as question (C) is concerned, the Tribunal has given its findings in paragraph Nos. 6.2 and 6.3 of the order which is reproduced hereunder: "6.2 We have hard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. In the case of Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P) Ltd. (supra) facts were that the assessee-company contracted with the Scindias on August 12, 1953, to purchase certain steamers, launchers, boats, barges, buildings, furniture, fixtures and vehicles for a consideration provisionally estimated at Rs. 80 lakhs. It was provided by the agreement that the price of the assets sold will be satisfied by allotment to the Scindias of 29, 900 shares credited as fully paid up of the face value of Rs. 80 lakhs. It was provided by the agreement that the price of the assets sold will be satisfied by allotment to the Scindias of 29, 900 shares credited as fully paid up of the face value of Rs. 200 each in the share capital of the assessee company, and the balance will be treated by the assessee-company as a loan granted by the Scindias. The agreement clause 3(b) provided for payment of interest at 6% on the unpaid balance of the purchase price. On these facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claim for deduction of the amount of interest under section 10(2)(iii) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to sec. 36(1)(iii) of the Act is not admissible. However, interest paid by the assessee-company is a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to sec. 37(1) of the Act) which permits 'any expenditure not being an allowance of the nature described in any of the clauses (I) to (xiv) inclusive and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of such business, profession or vocation' as a permissible allowance in the computation of profits or gains of the business carried on in the year of account. Subsequent to the aforesaid decision, the CBDT, in their circular F. No. 10/7/6/82-IT(A-1) dated 13.9.1965 laid down that expenditure on interest payable on unpaid purchase price of plant and machinery should be allowed as revenue deduction u/s.37(1) of the Act. 6.3 In the case under consideration, as already mentioned in our findings in respect of ground No. 3, the transactions relating to purchase and lease back of machinery to RSEB were found to be genuine. The lease rentals received from RSEB have been taxed by the AO as business income. In these circumstances, especially when the revenue have not brought to our notice any contrary decision nor disputed the facts in the case under consideration, in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequent circular of CBDT we have no hesitation in vacating the findings of the lower authorities and accordingly, direct the AO to allow the claim for deduction of interest and accordingly, direct the AO to allow the claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 23,61,643/- on unpaid price of plant and machinery after the date of commencement of business. Thus, ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed." 7.3 We do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 8. As regards question (1) of Tax Appeal No. 1059 of 2011, this issue is covered by the decision in ground (A) of Tax Appeal No. 60 of 2009. Hence we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 9. So far as question No. (2) is concerned, this question will be governed by the decision in ground (C) of Tax Appeal No. 888 of 2010 where we have answered the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In that view of the matter, we answer the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. As regards question in Tax Appeal No. 85 of 2009, this issue is covered by the decision in question (A) of Tax Appeal No. 60 of 2009. Hence we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 11. As far as the question in Tax Appeal No. 6 of 2014 is concerned, this issue is covered by the decision in question (A) of Tax Appeal No. 60 of 2009. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 12. In the result, all the appeals preferred by revenue are dismissed.