2019 (11) TMI 103 - HC - Income Tax

Eligibility for deduction u/s. 10A - expansion of the existing units - HELD THAT - The issue raised herein stands concluded in favour of the Respondent- assessee by the order of this Court in its own case 2013 (10) TMI 293 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The aforesaid appeal was filed by the Revenue from the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2002-03. No distinctive features have been shown in the present year from that of assessment year 2002-03 warranting different view to be taken Deduction u/s 80IA(10) - Appeal admitted on question (b) - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in interpreting the words so arranged used in section 80IA(10) to impose burden on A.O. to prove tax avoidance before invoking section 80IA(10) of the Act when bare reading of the provision does not impose such burden of proving tax avoidance on A.O.?

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging a common order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Identical questions of law raised in both appeals.

Analysis:

Question (a):
The issue raised in Question (a) pertains to the eligibility for deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act. The High Court noted that the matter had already been decided in favor of the Respondent-assessee in a previous case, specifically Income Tax Appeal No.1148/2012. The Court highlighted that no new features were presented in the current case compared to the one decided earlier, which warranted a different view. Consequently, the High Court held that the question did not give rise to any substantial question of law and, therefore, declined to entertain it.

Question (b):
Regarding Question (b), which was considered a substantial question of law, the High Court admitted the appeal for further consideration. The question revolves around the interpretation of the term "so arranged" in section 80IA(10) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's interpretation requiring the Assessing Officer to prove tax avoidance before invoking the provision was challenged. The High Court found this interpretation to be a significant legal issue deserving further examination and, therefore, admitted the appeal for detailed consideration.

The High Court directed the Registry to inform the Tribunal about the order and requested the Tribunal to keep the relevant papers and proceedings ready for future reference. The Respondent's Counsel waived the service, and the case was scheduled to be heard along with another Income Tax Appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court addressed the issues raised in the appeals comprehensively, providing detailed reasoning for each question of law. While Question (a) was dismissed based on a previous ruling, Question (b) was acknowledged as a substantial legal matter warranting further deliberation. The High Court's detailed analysis and directions indicate a meticulous approach to resolving the legal complexities involved in the case.