2017 (8) TMI 130 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement for benefit of Section 10A - whether business of Unit II and Unit III were independent, distinct and separate? - Held that - The Unit II and Unit III cannot be said to be formed by reconstruction nor can be said to be an expansion of earlier same business. Though the permission was sought by way of an expansion, the facts on record categorically and succinctly establish that the business of Unit II and Unit III were independent, distinct and separate and are not related with each other or even with Unit I. Tribunal also considered the letter from Director, STPI, issued to the Assessing Officer dated 10th December 2008, the letter of the Director, STPI, intimating formation of Unit II so also another letter to Director, STPI, seeking permission for bonding facility for Unit II and approval from Director, STPI for Unit II, the letter to the Director, STPI, intimating formation of Unit III, letter to Director, STPI, seeking permission for bonding facility for Unit III and approval from Director, STPI for Unit III. After considering all the documentary evidence and the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal agreed with the remand report of the Assessing Officer and held that the assessee would be entitled for benefit of Section 10A of the Act. Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
- Claim for deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act for Unit II and Unit III
- Interpretation of whether Unit II and Unit III are distinct undertakings or expansions
- Consideration of evidence and findings of the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and Tribunal
- Application of Section 10A(2) regarding formation of new undertakings

Detailed Analysis:

Claim for Deduction under Section 10A:
The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2005-2006, where the appellant claimed deduction under Section 10A for Unit II and Unit III engaged in IT and IT enabled services. The Assessing Officer initially denied the deduction, but the Tribunal later allowed the appeal, stating that both units were entitled to the benefit under Section 10A. The main issue revolved around whether Unit II and Unit III qualified as distinct undertakings eligible for the deduction.

Interpretation of Distinct Undertakings:
The Revenue raised concerns about the nature of Unit II and Unit III, arguing that they were expansions rather than distinct undertakings. The appellant's counsel contended that the units were represented as expansions to the STPI, and the Tribunal erred in overlooking this fact. Reference was made to judgments from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court to support the argument that fresh permission would have been required if the units were new undertakings. The counsel highlighted the necessity to consider Section 10A(2) in determining eligibility for the deduction.

Evidence and Findings Consideration:
The Assessing Officer's remand report supported the appellant's claim, emphasizing that both units fulfilled the conditions under Section 10A(2). The report detailed various factors, including fresh investments, separate books of accounts, distinct nature of activities, independent employees, and different revenue sources for each unit. The Tribunal concurred with the remand report, indicating that Unit II and Unit III were indeed independent and separate businesses, not formed by reconstruction or expansion of existing operations.

Application of Section 10A(2):
The counsel for the appellant argued that Section 10A(2) would only apply if the undertaking was not formed by splitting or reconstructing an existing business. Since the units were established with fresh investments and operated independently, they should qualify for the deduction under Section 10A. The Tribunal's decision was supported by documentary evidence and the remand report, which highlighted the distinctiveness of Unit II and Unit III from the existing business.

Conclusion:
After evaluating the submissions from both parties and examining the documentary evidence and remand report, the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction for Unit II and Unit III under Section 10A was upheld. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the independent nature of new undertakings and clarified that the units in question were separate and identifiable entities, distinct from the existing business. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law arising from the case.