Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (2) TMI 840 - ITAT DELHI

2016 (2) TMI 840 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Deduction u/s 80IB - Held that:- We have no hesitation in holding that this is not a case of reconstruction as alleged by the Department. We are unable to concur with the findings of the authorities below and while allowing the grounds of appeal, we direct that the assessee shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act in the assessment year under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 2486/Del/2012 - Dated:- 24-2-2016 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his mind to the findings of fact of the Assessing Officer which have been accepted as if such findings cannot be interfered in appeal. 2. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee was not entitled to deduction (of ₹ 10,13,828) u/s 80- IB of the I.T. Act on the ground that the newly formed company is a reconstruction of old existing business and with old machineries. 2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the Ld. AR and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d Company under Part IX (section 574) of the Companies Act, 1956 and renamed as Upkar International (P) Ltd. All the partners of the erstwhile firm became the shareholders of the company and shares for the amount equivalent to the capital of the partners in the firm were allotted to them. On such conversion, all the assets and properties of the firm automatically vested in the company under section 575 of the Companies Act. 2.3 On 13.08.2002 itself, the company took over business of Miglani Expo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for the A.Y. 2001-02, he had disallowed the deduction, inter alia for the reason that the assessee did not fulfil the essential conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80 IB. 3.1 The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and by the time the appeal of the assessee was heard, the first appellate authority in the cases of the two partnership firms held that the two firms were entitled to the deduction. Accordingly, in the case of the assessee also, the CIT (Appeals) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/s 80IB. No finding whatsoever has been given by the Ld. C1T (A) that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions laid down in section 80IB for the year under consideration. Therefore, to examine that whether conditions for grant of deduction u/s 80IB were fulfilled or not, the matter is required to be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer. 4.1 In the fresh assessment order (which is the subject matter of this appeal), the AO held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction u/s 80IB a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ern. In view of this fact of the case, it can be said that the newly formed company is a reconstruction of old existing business and with old machineries. The condition laid down by the provision of subsection 2 of section 80IB strictly states the business should not be formed by transfer of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. 4.2 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) in his order has rejected the arguments of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT (Appeals), the assessee has preferre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o take over the entire business of these two partnership firms with all assets and liabilities. All the partners became directors in this assessee company and the assessee company took over the running business with all assets and liabilities of these partnership firms and allotted the shares to the partners for their partner's capital stood in the books of firms on the date of take over. It was submitted that the business of the firms were taken over as a going concern basis with all assets .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

justifiable & legal as there is no reconstruction of business of the undertakings, it is a case of takeover/ succession because M/s. Upkar international Pvt. Ltd. took over the entire business with all assets and liabilities of the predecessor partnership firms (I) M/s. Upkar International & (2) Miglani Exports and the partners got the shares in the assessee company for the amount standing in their capital account on the date of succession by the assessee company. The Ld. AR submitted t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anga Sugar Corp Ltd (1973) 92 ITR 173 (Del) it was held that where a company is already running one industrial unit sets up another industrial unit then it will amount to reconstruction of business. He submitted that the underlying idea of a reconstruction is that there be a continuation of the activities and business of the same undertaking. The original business or undertaking continues without its identity being lost. 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the AO in the body of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n to existence by observing that assessee company was formed after reconstruction of two earlier existing business firms, namely; Miglani Exports and Upkar International. Therefore, after discussing the provision in detail, the AO has observed that condition laid down by Section 80IB (2)(ii) has not been fulfilled. In the grounds of appeal it has been contended that assessee company took over the entire business with all assets and liabilities of two firms, namely; Upkar International and Miglan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssee company has been formed by two firms. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. It is the contention of the assessee that it is a case of conversion of partnership firm into a limited company under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956 whereas the Department contends that it is a clear case of reconstruction. It is seen from the records that the assessee company was incorporated on 13.8.2002 and the Certificate of Incorporation issued .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed by shares, a joint stock company means a company having a permanent paid up or nominal share capital of fixed amount divided into shares, also of fixed amount, or held and transferable as stock, or divided or held partly in one way and partly in the other, and formed on the principle of having for its members the holders of those shares or that stock, and no other persons. Once the new company is formed, the entire business of the firm along with all its assets and liabilities is transferred .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of existing business with old existing machineries and since sub-section (2) of section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 states that the business should not be formed by transfer of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, the assessee company was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. 8. On facts, it is undisputed that the erstwhile partnership firm M/s Upkar International, having 8 partners was converted into a limited company under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hange in the ownership of the undertaking. There was no change in the business of the undertaking which was already in existence. The issue of reconstruction was discussed at length by the ITAT Delhi B Bench in Tech Books Electronic Services (P) Ltd. vs ACIT, Range-16, 100 ITD 125 (Del) wherein the Bench, adjudicating on the issue of exemption u/s 10B of the Act, observed as under:- However, we are not concerned with the change in the ownership. Rather we are to enquire as to whether there was a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l not be qualified for claiming exemption. The Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A) have not pointed out as to in what manner there was any change in the business of the undertaking. The business of the undertaking was not formed by splitting up of the old business or by reconstruction of the old business i.e., business already in existence. The departmental authorities have laid much emphasis on the change in the ownership and it appears that they have not properly appreciated the t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n means, "The meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps". As stated by the Privy Council, "it is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in an Act of Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them". This rule, according to Maxwell, means that when two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take as it were their colour from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

c application of the broader maxim noscitur a sociis. 10.3-3 In view of the above maxim of Rule of interpretation, the term 'reconstruction, is to be seen and considered in the light of splitting up Otherwise also, as per the dictionary meaning of 'reconstruction', as given in Judicial Dictionary by K.J. Iyer, Eighth Edition 1980, the word 'reconstruction' is expressed by synonymous 'rebuild'. Thus, if there is change of ownership from one person to another but the bu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e formed by rearranging the components or equipments of the earlier business and that is the reason that Sub-clause (iii) says in specific terms that the undertaking to be qualified for exemption under Section 10B should not be formed by the transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Thus, the emphasis is on the previous business, business already in existence or old business establishment. However, if the new undertaking has been formed and conditions laid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or unchanged by subsequent change in the ownership then it cannot be said that the business of the undertaking has been reconstructed. 10.3-5 Thus, the undertaking acquired by the assesseecompany remained the same and the observation of the Assessing Officer that undertaking acquired by the company is nothing but reconstruction of business already in existence cannot be accepted. 10.4 So far as the conversion of firm into company is concerned, again it cannot be said that there was any transfer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. CIT[2005] 95 ITD 1, the Jodhpur Bench of the ITAT has also taken a similar view. Thus, it cannot be said that EOU owned by the assessee-company is formed as a result of reconstruction of EOU owned by the firm. 9. Similarly, A Bench of Chennai ITAT has held in Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 14 SOT 1(Chennai) that where the assessee was converted from partnership firm to private limited company as per the provisions of section 575 of Companies Act, 1956, exemption u/s 10A of the Income Tax Act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ncome Tax Act, 1922, Section 15C(2)(i) contained a similar provision that the section would apply to an industrial undertaking which is not formed by the splitting up or the reconstruction of a business already in existence or by the transfer to a new business of building, machinery or plant used in a business which was being carried on before 1 April 1948. In that case, there was a partnership firm and its assets and goodwill were taken over by the assessee for a stated consideration and agains .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

undertaking must continue to carry on the same business in an altered form. On the other hand if the ownership of a business or an undertaking is transferred that would not constitute a reconstruction. The Hon ble Division Bench held as follows: "...The reconstruction of a business or an industrial undertaking must necessarily involve the concept that the original business or undertaking is not to cease functioning, and its identity is not to be lost or abandoned. The concept essentially re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version