9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007-08 and 2010-11. Since common issue arises for consideration in both the appeals, we dispose the same by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. All the grounds of appeals are relating to the disallowance made u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. M/s Dun & Bradstreet Predictive Sciences & Analytic Private Ltd was incorporated on 23.1.2007 as a Private Limited Company in Chennai and subsequently name of the company changed to D&B Transunion Analytic & Decision Services P. Ltd on 5.9.2008. Further it has changed its name as D&B Technologies & Data Services P. Ltd on 12.12.2012. During te financial year 2007-08, the assessee-company has entered into business transfer agreement to purchase STPI unit of M/s Dun & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07-08 and Rs. 7,30,24,799/- for assessment year 2010-11. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim. While doing so, the CIT(A) has given a finding in his order that the entire assets of the undertaking is found to have been transferred to the assessee on lock, stock and barrel basis and there is no case for splitting up or reconstruction as advocated by the Assessing Officer. 6. In the grounds of appeal for both the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11, the Department has raised a ground that the Ld.CIT(A) has not considered the CBDT Circular No.1 of 2013 dated 17.1.2013. Hence, the ld. DR argued that the case should be remitted back to the Assessing Officer to consider CBDT Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R relied on the CIT(A)'s order. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. For the assessment year 2007-08 the CIT(A) has examined the Business Transfer Agreement and found that there was no case of splitting up or reconstruction of the existing unit and allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 10A of the Act. However, both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have not considered the CBDT Circular No.1 of 2013 while deciding the issue. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities for both the assessment years under consideration and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine the case in the light of CBDT Circular No.1 of 2013 and decide on merits after giving due opportunity to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
