TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulminated at the work site of the clients at South Korea and there was no need for full fledged infrastructure facilities in India. Thus, the industrial undertaking of the assessee was independent of all the undertakings which it was already possessing. Therefore, the assessee has rightly been held entitled to deduction under Section 10A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. The aforesaid concurrent findings of fact by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse. It is the cardinal principle of law that tribunal is fact finding authority and a decision on facts on the tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it, which says the finding of the tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 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 total income of ₹ 1,04,49,130/- was declared. The return was processed under Section 143(2) of the Act on 07.03.2009. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 17.12.2009 inter alia held that though the assessee has claimed deduction under Section 10A of the Act, yet from the statement filed by the assessee, it is evident that changes have been made to the existing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 11(1), BANGALORE VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD.', (2017) 88 TAXMANN.COM 69 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is registered as STPL and was granted approval on 14.09.2001. It is further submitted that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 undertaking is an undertaking of the assessee independent of all the undertakings that he is already possessing. In the instant case, the assessee was engaged on site development of software program. The programs were delivered at the premises of the client at the work site in South Korea. The activities of the assessee finally culminated at the work site of the clients at South Korea and there was no need for full fledged infrastructure facilities in Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OR) 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 applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR supra as well as in 'UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN', (2012) 8 SCC 148 and has been followed by a division bench of this court in 'CIT VS. SOFT BRANDS (P.) LTD.,' (2018) 406 ITR 513. 7. The findings of fact have not been assailed as perverse. It is also pertinent to mention that even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
