2019 (4) TMI 1392 - HC - Income Tax

Eligibility to deduction u/s 10A - AO denied claim as undertaking was formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery and plant previously used for any purpose - whether undertaking should not be formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery and plant previously used for any purpose? - HELD THAT - The unit in question was transferred as going concern, entire business was transferred to the new owner who claimed continued benefit under Section 10A of the Act. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sonata Software Ltd. 2012 (4) TMI 99 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT as held that sale of business was not a reconstruction within the meaning of Section 10A of the Act. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the formation of the undertaking by transfer of machinery and plant.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Bombay High Court involved a challenge by the Revenue against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deduction claimed under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main issue revolved around whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the deduction under Section 10A despite the formation of the undertaking by the transfer of machinery and plant previously used for any purpose, as stated in Section 10A(2)(iii) of the Act. The Respondent-assessee had claimed the deduction in the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09, which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the undertaking was formed by the transfer of machinery and plant. However, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal, leading to the issue being brought before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, in its judgment, dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found that the transfer of the undertaking was done as a going concern at its book value, and the same business activities continued even after the change of ownership from a Private Limited Company to a Partnership Firm. The Tribunal cited a legal proposition upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, stating that the benefit of Section 10A is attached to an undertaking and not to the assessee who owns the undertaking. The Tribunal also referred to a similar view taken by the Madras High Court in a related case. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 10A based on the legal precedents and affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Revenue's objection stemmed from the fact that the unit in question was transferred as a going concern, and the entire business was transferred to the new owner who claimed continued benefit under Section 10A. However, the Court noted that this issue was already addressed by a Division Bench of the Court in a previous case involving CIT Vs. Sonata Software Ltd., where it was held that the sale of a business did not constitute reconstruction within the meaning of Section 10A of the Act. Therefore, the Court concluded that no question of law arose in this case, and subsequently dismissed the Income Tax Appeal.