9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that has seen a change of ownership and the business has continued using the machinery or plant it was hither to using. 3) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances stated in the assessment order under which the deduction claimed u/s 10A was disallowed on the ground of non fulfillment of the conditions laid down in sections 10A(2)(i)(h), 10A(2)(ii) and 10A(2)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. 4) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee company was incorporated on 1.1.2003 and the STPI approval accorded on 10-2-2003 was for the establishment of a New unit/undertaking and did not confer the status of STLP unit to an existing undertaking. 5) For these and such other grounds that may be urged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent to the sale of the undertaking. Thereafter, he considered the question as to whether the undertaking has been established for the first time or whether it is an expansion of a unit or shifting of a unit or splitting or reconstruction of a unit and examined the applicability of section 10A(2)(iii) and held that the assessee does not fulfil the conditions of sec.10A(2)(1)(b), 10A(2)(ii) and 10A(2)(iii) and therefore the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. He, however, considered the assessee's alternative claim of deduction u/s 80-HHE of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the same holding that the undertaking has existed in the same shape and form and has carrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat merely because of change in ownership the exemption cannot be denied. Another decision relied upon by him is in the case of Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (106 TTJ 484) wherein it was held that where a firm is converted into a company and there was change only in the composition of ownership and not the undertaking and business, the exemption allowed to the firm u/s 10A of the Act could not be denied to the company merely because it had been separately granted recognition. 5. Having heard both sides and having considered the rival submissions, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for assessee. The distinctions sought to be brought about by the learned Departmental Represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
