9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court vide order dated 03.06.2013 on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.10A of the Act, when the new STP unit was not in existence and no activities are carried out from the STP unit? (ii) Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in allowing the deduction u/s.10A of the Act, when the assessee is not new industrial undertaking in terms of section 10A(2) of the Act?." 2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a Design Engineering Company. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 19.06.2008 and thereafter, filed a revised return on 04.11.2008, in which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revenue. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that in order to claim the benefit of deduction under Section 10A of the Act, an assessee is required to satisfy the requirements mentioned in Section 10(2)(ii) & (iii) of the Act. It is further submitted that the eligibility of the assessee has to be ascertained in the first year itself and since, the assessee has not set up a new unit, it cannot claim the benefit of deduction under Section 10A of the Act. It is further submitted that the Tribunal erred in proceeding on the assumption that the nature of the business of the assessee does not require any infrastructure. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 TAXMANN.COM 272 (DEL). 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 10A has been subject matter of interpretation by this court as well as Delhi High Court. It has been held that in order to claim deduction under Section 10A of the Act, the pre test is not whether a new industrial undertaking connotes expansion of the existing business of the assessee but, whether it is all the same and a new identifiable undertaking separate and distinct from existing business. It has further been held that a new activity may produce the same commodities of the old business or it may produce some other distinct marketable products. It has also been held that newly established undertak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e', there must be first a foundation for it laid in pleadings and the questions emerged from sustainable findings of fact arrived at by courts of fact and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. It has been held that entirely a new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in a case unless, it goes to the root of the matter. In 'HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL', (2006) 5 SCC 545 while dealing with the scope of Section 260A of the Act, it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
