9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment years are 2004-05 and 2005-06. These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the CIT(A) - I at Bangalore dated 11/06/2009 and 26/03/2009 respectively and arise out of the respective assessments completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961. 2. The assessee company had claimed deduction u/s 10A for both the assessment years under appeal. But the claim of the assessee was negativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Revenue that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that there has been no re-organization of the business or alteration in the business without appreciating the fact that the assessee had hived off the eligible undertaking, which was in the form of branch office, into a subsidiary company, which tantamounts to splitting up. It is the case of the Revenue that the assessee was not a newly establishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction provided u/s 10A. 8. Shri Sarangan, the learned Sr. Advocate appeared for the assessee. 9. The learned counsel submitted that the entire issue has been discussed in threadbare in the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has appreciated the facts of the case in a proper perspective and in such circumstances, there is no justification to interfere in the orders passed by the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting business in the case of a branch establishment becoming a subsidiary establishment. The assessee's unit satisfied all the conditions stipulated in the Act and was entitled for the benefit. Therefore, as rightly held by the CIT(A), a mere organizational change is not a ground to hold that the assessee has violated the conditions stated in 10A(2)(ii). It is a case of only change in the nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
