9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 677 - AT - Income TaxExemption u/s 10B - 100% EOU - splitting/reconstruction of an existing business - principal of consistency - the assessee applied for registration under Software Technology Park of India as 100% EOU in the month of August 2009 for which approval was granted by STPI in the month of September 2009 in favour of assessee . It was submitted that in the month of December 2009, the assessee relocated its unit to another location for which NOC was received from STPI approving relocation of the unit. Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sasken Communications Tech Ltd.(2011 (8) TMI 613 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) has held that deduction u/s. 10B of the 1961 Act shall be allowed in case of shifting of the undertaking from one State to another State with due permissions and after shifting if the undertaking has maintained integrity, identity and continuity. Thus , keeping in view our detailed discussions and reasoning, we hold that keeping in view factual matrix as is emanating from records before us, the deduction shall be allowable to the assessee u/s. 10B of the 1961 Act - Benefit of deduction allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given the allegation of splitting/reconstruction of an existing business. Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegation of Splitting/Reconstruction of Existing Business: Facts of the Case: - The assessee is engaged in providing diet, health, fitness, and wellness information through various media and offering content writing, web design, and SEO solutions. - The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 10B amounting to ?90,73,767 for AY 2011-12. - The AO noted that the business was in existence before the new STP unit was set up for claiming Section 10B benefits, thus alleging a violation of Section 10B provisions. AO's Observations: - The AO observed that the new STP unit was established using the same employees and resources from the existing business. - The AO concluded that the new unit was not separate and independent but a continuation of the existing business, thereby constituting splitting/reconstruction. - Consequently, the AO denied the Section 10B exemption. Assessee's Defense: - The assessee argued that the business was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business. - The assessee provided a Chartered Accountant's opinion supporting the claim for Section 10B exemption. - The assessee cited various judicial precedents to support its case. CIT(A)'s Findings: - The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had obtained necessary approvals from the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) and Customs authorities. - The CIT(A) highlighted that the assessee had relocated its operations with due permissions and maintained business continuity. - The CIT(A) allowed the Section 10B deduction, stating that the assessee fulfilled all conditions under Section 10B. Tribunal's Analysis: - The Tribunal observed that the assessee's unit was initially set up in a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and later approved as a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under the STPI scheme. - The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not used old machinery or violated any conditions under the STPI scheme or Section 10B. - The Tribunal referred to CBDT Circular No. 1/2005, which clarified that a DTA unit subsequently approved as a 100% EOU is eligible for Section 10B benefits from the date of approval. - The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents supporting the assessee's claim, including decisions from the Hon’ble Madras High Court and Karnataka High Court. Conclusion: - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the Section 10B deduction to the assessee. - The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's new unit was not formed by splitting/reconstruction but was a continuation of the existing business with proper approvals and compliance. - The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Order Pronounced: - The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2018.
|
