Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: cpt :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment
« From the Courts »
 Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Shreemati Devi vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
 Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)

Indo Count Industries Ltd., 1206, Pragati Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), C.R. Building, New Delhi
June, 06th 2015
                         DELHI BENCH: `H' NEW DELHI

                       SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                              I.T.A .No.-2093/Del/2005
                           (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2001-02)

     Indo Count Industries Ltd.,     vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,
     1206, Pragati Tower,               Circle 11(1), C.R. Building,
     Rajendra Place, New Delhi          New Delhi
      (APPELLANT)                       (RESPONDENT)

       Appellant by                Sh.O.P. Mody, Adv
       Respondent by               Sh. Syed Nasir Ali, CIT DR

             Date of Hearing               11.05.2015
          Date of Pronouncement            05.06.2015



      The present appeal has came up for hearing as a result of the order of
remit by the Hon'ble High Court in an appeal moved by the Revenue against
the original order dated 24/6/2009 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench.            The
said order was set aside by the order and judgment dated 20th December 2010
by the Hon'ble High Court in ITA No. 1142/2010 wherein the afore-said order
was challenged by the Revenue. Accordingly in terms of the remand by the
Hon'ble High Court, we consider the claim of the assessee who assails the
correctness of the order dated 8/2/2005 of CIT(A) VIV, New Delhi pertaining to
2001-02 Assessment Year on the following grounds:-

      1. "For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred
         in arbitrarily concluding that the appellant's counsel has not been
         able to file any evidence that Unit-2 is a separate unit and not
         expansion of Unit-1 and in that view of the matter erroneously
         holding that the Assessing officer has rightly merged the loss of
                                                                        ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

           Unit-2 in the profit of Unit-1. For that the decision of the
           Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being contrary to facts on
           record, is not maintainable.
      2.   For that the Balance Sheet on record of Unit-2 irrefutably
           evidences the fact that Unit-2 was established by the appellant
           company at a fixed capital outlay of Rs.99,80,68,554/- to
           independently manufacture cotton yam and grey knitted fabrics
           and that Unit-2 is a separate and distinct integrated unit capable
           of being carried on separately as a physically identifiable and
           industrially recognizable viable undertaking. For that the fact that
           Unit-2 is a separate unit is borne out of records.
      3.   For that establishment of Unit-2, though it led to an expansion of
           the existing business of the appellant company, it also led to
           emergence of a new, physically separate, identifiable, integrated
           industrial undertaking, viable by itself, separate and distinct in all
           and every respect from the existing Unit- 1.
      4.   For that no deduction having been claimed by the appellant
           company under section 10B of the income Tax Act 1961 in relation
           to Unit-2. the question of applicability thereto of clause (iv) of
           Explanation 2 of section 10 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 simply
           does not arise and is of no relevance.
      5.    For that Unit-2 having been established by the appellant
            company in terms of letter of permission granted by the
            Government of India, Ministry of industry, Department of
            Industrial Development Secretariat for Industrial Approvals, EOU
            section, the same is a hundred percent export-oriented
            undertaking within the meaning of section 10 B of the Income Tax
            Act, 1961 and the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income Tax
            (Appeals) to the contrary is not sustainable.
      6.   For that the fact that Unit-2 is separate and distinct from Unit-1 is
           borne out of records and is an accepted fact on record ever since
           assessment year 1997-98.
      7.   For that it is prayed that deduction under section 10 B of the
           income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be allowed to the appellant
           company in respect of the whole of the profits of Unit-1 without
           reducing it by the loss of Unit-2. For that it is further prayed that
           the whole of the loss of Unit-2 may kindly also be allowed to be
           carried forward in the hands of the appellant company for set off
           in subsequent years.
      8.   For that the appellant company craves leave to take additional
           ground or grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing."

2.    Before proceeding to address the arguments of the parties before the
Bench we deem it appropriate to first extract the following specific direction of
the Hon'ble High Court hereunder:-

      " The question of law which is raised by the Revenue in this appeal
      is as to whether the assessee would be entitled to claim the benefit

                                                                                    Page 2 of 13
                                                                    ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

      of Section 10B of the Income Tax Act in respect of profit making unit
      without adjusting the losses there against which were suffered by
      another unit of the same assessee, i.e, the loss making unit. We find
      that precisely this issue was raised before the Income Tax Appellate
      Tribunal (in short ` the Tribunal') also and it is pure legal issue
      touching upon the interpretation which is given in Section
      10B of the Act. The Tribunal has, however, not decided the
      issue on merits and the appeal of the assessee herein has
      been allowed only on the ground that in previous years such a
      benefit was given., by following the principle of consistency.

             We are of the opinion that in a matter like this, since the
      grant of benefit depends upon the interpretation to be given to
      Section 10B of the Act, the Tribunal should have decided the
      issue on merits rather than taking the aforesaid short route.
      In view of this, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/assessee states that
      he has no objection if the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for
      decision on merits.

             We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remit the
      case back to the Tribunal with direction that the appeal preferred by
      the assessee before the Tribunal shall be decided on merits.

          This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. "

                       (emphasis provided in the present proceedings)

3.    Addressing the issue under challenge, the Ld.AR sought to rely upon the
findings arrived at by the Co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 24/6/2009
(copy of the said order placed at pages 22 to 28) so as to submit that the facts
have been correctly brought out in the said order and considering the judicial
precedent on the same, the issue it was submitted is to be decided in favour of
the assessee. It was pointed out to the Ld. AR that since as per record, the
said order has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court, accordingly instead of
referring to facts recorded in the said order, it would be more appropriate to
refer to the facts as found recorded in the orders of the authorities below. In
view of the same, the Ld. AR drew the attention of the Bench first to the
findings recorded in the assessment order. While doing so, it was his stand
that full facts have not been discussed in the assessment order as the AO has
directly proceeded to reduce the eligible profits of Unit-I by the losses of Unit-II
which was not claimed as an eligible unit by the assessee. Accordingly it was
his submission that since relevant discussion is missing in the assessment

                                                                               Page 3 of 13
                                                                ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

order, he had wanted to refer to the facts recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench.
However, since the order stood set aside, it was submitted that the only finding
given by the Assessing Officer is at page 3 i.e the last page of the assessment
order where instead of allowing the exemption to the entire profits of unit 1
which was the eligible unit, the Assessing Officer has reduced the same by first
disallowing the loss from unit II. Referring to the material available on record it
was his submission that the assessee has never claimed that Unit 2 is an
eligible unit and has given narration to this effect in its Audited Balance Sheet.
Referring to the impugned order it was his submission that the CIT(A) while
deciding the issue has wrongly proceeded to consider the issue in an entirely
different context by bringing in an irrelevant discussion on "Green Card" and
thereafter has upheld the conclusions arrived at in the assessment order.
Referring to paper book page no. 19 which contains copy of the statement of
Income which is part of the Audited Balance Sheet of Unit II. it was submitted
that the assessee, had never claimed that unit 2 is an eligible unit and
accordingly in the circumstances the tax authorities are not justified in
reducing the eligible profit of Unit 1 by the losses of Unit II.     Reliance was
placed on the judgment of the jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT VS.
Technologies Pvt. Ltd (2014)361 ITR 36 Delhi.       The Ld. AR was specifically
required to address any direct evidence in regard to the claim of the assessee
on record apart from the narrations given in the audited books of accounts.
However, it was submitted that the only direct evidence could be "consistency"
on the issue and this factor had been relied upon by the assessee before the
Co-ordinate Bench and the said factor was accepted for deciding the issue in
assessee's favour.   Accordingly it was his prayer that the same should be

4.    Ld. CIT DR Mr. Syed Nasir Ali, appearing for the Revenue vehemently
submitted that Hon'ble High Court has strongly deprecated the approach to
decide the issue on consistency accordingly reliance placed thereon by the Ld.
AR, it was submitted is misplaced. Apart from that heavy reliance was placed

                                                                          Page 4 of 13
                                                              ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

upon the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order.    Attention of the Bench was
invited to Paras 3.3.5 at page 7 of the impugned order, so as to submit that the
CIT(A) has concluded the issue taking into consideration        the submission
advanced on behalf of the assessee itself who has stated that the green card is
issued in the name of the appellant company and the said card covers both the
units. Addressing the "Green Card" it was his submission that a perusal of the
relevant provisions of the Act which have been considered by the CIT(A) would
show that this is a license given by the Competent Authority under the Act to
eligible companies. For the said purpose attention was invited to Clause (iv) of
Explanation 2 of Section 10B of the Income Tax Act.      Based on the facts and
the provisions of the Act, it was his submission that the claim of the assessee
has rightly been denied.   Referring to the copy of the audited balance sheet
which was also relied upon by the Ld. AR at page 19, it was his submission
that as per assessee's own claim in the "Notes" to the accounts the assessee
has first made a disclosure that "the assessee company is a 100 percent Export
Oriented Unit claims exemption u/s 10B from the assessment years." Further it
was argued that the thereafter narration is given on which reliance is placed
upon by the Ld. AR that the assessee does not "propose" to claim exemption for
Unit-II this year. This narration it was submitted is a self-serving note. Thus
this self-serving note, it was argued cannot decide the issue in the face of the
directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. CIT DR was required to show
from the findings in the impugned order whether there is any direct reference
to the fact that unit-II was an eligible unit or not. The Ld. CIT DR stated that
apart from the narration of the assessee on the issue in its Notes to Accounts
which cannot be accepted the only other direct evidence is the submission
made before the CIT(A) recorded in the last page of his order where the
assessee through the AR accepts that the green card covers both the units.
Thus this plea of the assessee on facts which the assessee ought to know
decides the eligibility of the Unit-II also and the consistent finding of fact on
record, it was submitted deserves to be upheld.

                                                                        Page 5 of 13
                                                                 ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

5.     We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available
on record, it is seen that the assessee company is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and exporting combed cotton yarn and grey knitted fabrics.
The assessee's claim of exemption u/s 10B for unit I was reduced by the losses
of Unit II by the assessing officer. The action was assailed in appeal contending
that for Unit II the assessee had not put forth any claim of exemption u/s10B
and thus since the assessee never treated it as an eligible unit the occasion to
reduce the eligible profits of Unit I by the losses of Unit II did not arise. It is
seen that the CIT(A) also did not agree with the claim put forth by the assessee
and it is only before the Tribunal that the assessee succeeded for the first time.
The Co-ordinate Bench considering the principle of consistency allowed the
appeal of the assessee.       The said order as per record has been challenged
before the Hon'ble High Court who was pleased to remit the issue back
directing the Tribunal to return a finding on merits.

5.1.   In the said background, we note that as far as the assessment order is
covered there is no discussion on the issue and based on the material available
conclusion has been drawn by the AO.          The correctness of the decision in
appeal has been assailed as per record before as per Page 4 of the impugned
order on the following ground:-

       i)     Unit 1 began to manufacture and export in the previous year
       relevant to A.Y: 1992-93. The exemption u/s 10(B) was claimed for
       this unit from A. Y 1995-96 and is available to the unit up to A.Y
       2001-02 i.e the year under appeal.
       vii)   Unit 2 was established which began to manufacture and
       export in the previous year relevant to A.Y 1997-98. The appellant
       company had opted for non application of the provisions of Section
       10(B) to its unit for the A.Y 1997-98 and thereafter. Unit 2 is a
       separate independent production unit.

5.2.   Further relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Textile
Machinery Corporation Ltd 107, ITR 195 (SC)& ors it was claimed that Unit II
is not an expansion of the existing unit       but in fact it was a distinct and
separate identifiable unit.

                                                                            Page 6 of 13
                                                                      ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

5.3.   The CIT(A) held the said claim contrary to record and as per assessee's
own submissions qua the availability of the necessary approval of the
competent authority as per the mandate of Clause (iv) of Expln 2, Section 10B
of the Income Tax Act, 1961.           For ready reference we extract the specific
statutory portion as it stood at the relevant time from the impugned order

       "3.3.5. The relevant provisions of Section 10(B) are note below:
       10B.      Special provisions in respect of newly established hundred
       per cent, export oriented undertakings.
       Explanation 2.------ for the purposes of this section,---
       (i)     " Computer software" means,---
       (a)     any computer programme recorded of any disc, tape,
               perforated media or other information storage device; or
       (b)     any customized electronic date or any product or service of
               similar nature, as may be notified by the Board, which is
               transmitted or exported from India to any place outside India
               by any means;
       (ii)    " Convertible foreign exchange" means foreign exchange which
               is for the time being treated by the Reserve Bank of India as
               convertible foreign exchange for the purposes of the Foreign
               Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) and any rules
               made there under or any other corresponding law for the time
               being in force;
       (iii)   " export turnover" means the consideration in respect of export
               by the undertaking of articles or things or computer software
               received in, or brought into India by the assessee in
               convertible foreign exchange in accordance with sub-section
               (3), but does not include freight, telecommunication charges or
               insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things
               or computer software outside India or expenses, if any
               incurred in foreign exchange in providing the technical services
               outside India.
       (iv)    " hundred percent. Export oriented undertaking" means
               an undertaking which has been approved as a hundred
               percent.      Export-oriented undertaking by the Board
               appointed in this behalf by the Central Government in
               exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the
               Industries (Development and Regulation)Act, 1951 (65 of
               1951), and the rules made under that Act;
       (v)     " relevant assessment years" means any assessment
               year failing within a period of ten consecutive
               assessment years, referred to in this section.

                                                                                  Page 7 of 13
                                                              ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

5.4.   Considering the same, the CIT(A) it is seen concluded that for claiming
the exemption u/s 10(B), it is necessary to obtain approval as a 100% export
oriented undertaking by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central
Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14 of the Industries
Development & Regulation Act, 1951 and the Rules made under that Act. The
Ld. CIT(A) considering the papers filed by the assessee before him vide letter
dated 18th January 2005, observed that the green card has been issued by the
Export Promotion Officer vide letter dated 26/8/1992 and the company had
been informed about the issue of the green card No. is 037 dated 25/8/1992
valid upto 23/8/1997. Considering the discussion in the impugned order, we
find that the submission of the Ld. AR that the CIT(A) misdirected himself by
discussing an irrelevant issue of "Green Card" on facts is found to be not
tenable we find that the discussion on green card was a valid discussion and it
was introduced by the assessee itself before the CIT(A) in support of its claim.
It is further seen that the CIT(A) took into consideration the information given
that the Dy. Development Commission vide letter dated 22/8/1997 as per
record informed the assessee that the earlier green card no. 037 dated
25/8/1992 is cancelled and the new green card no. 377 dated 22/8/1997 valid
up 21/8/1992 had been issued.       Thereafter as per record reference is also
made to the      letter dated 14/8/20002 of the        Assistant Development
Commissioner which informed the assessee that the green card No. 377 dated
22/8/1997 is also cancelled and a new green card no. 000971 dated
14/8/2002 valid upto 31/3/2006 was being issued.          On the basis of this
information the CIT(A) concluded that the green card issued is in respect of the
unit set up in 1992. A copy of certificate issued by Ministry of Commerce was
also made available to the CIT(A) as per record by the assessee and on
considering the same, it was noticed that the certificate has been issued in the
name of M/s Indo Count Industries Ltd. Certifying it to be 100% EOU dated
14/8/2002 valid upto 31/3/2006.       The said   certificate it was noted is in
relation to green card No. 000971 i.e the industrial unit which started
manufacturing in 1992.       In this background, considering the statutory
                                                                        Page 8 of 13
                                                                  ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

requirement, the CIT(A) required the assessee to address the said requirement
having been met by unit 2 by way of a certificate as per the Explanation 2(iv) of
section 10B noted above.        In response thereto the CIT(A) records that the
assessee has given the following reply "The appellant counsel submitted that the
green card is issued in the name of the appellant company and covers both the
units."   The CIT(A) has concluded that the         stand of the assessee in the
submissions made is contradictory to the stand taken by the assessee in the
written submission.     Thus,    holding that when exemption is claimed to be
available qua the undertaking in such a situation to hold that it was not
available based on the claim put forth in the balance sheet is not relevant.
However not concluding the issue against the assessee despite the oral
submissions, it is seen that the assessee           was directed to file copy of
application made to the Board as mentioned in Explanation 2(iv) for unit 2 to
verify whether the assessee sought to expand the existing units or set up an
entirely new independent undertaking for which separate permissions were
required to be made. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the counsel
failed to produce copy of the same.

5.5.   In the said background where we are called upon by the Hon'ble High
Court to decide the issue on merits where admittedly in the assessment order
there is no discussion but facts are thrashed out by the CIT(A) where
admittedly the only direct evidence would be the letter/application addressed
to the Competent Authority by the assessee for its approvals is not available on
record, we find that the issue has to be sent back to the AO. While doing so,
we hold that the Ld. CIT DR is justified in relying upon the finding of the CIT(A)
as the claim cannot be decided on the basis of the self-serving Note to Accounts
No. (ii) in paper Book page 19 given by the assessee in the Audited Book of
Account. The same is reproduced hereunder:-

        (i)  "The company being an 100% Export Oriented Unit claims
       exemption u/s 10B from assessment year.
       (ii)  The Unit-II of the assessee company which commenced
       business is year 1997-98 is an 100% of export Oriented Unit and its

                                                                             Page 9 of 13
                                                                   ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

       income Tax u/s 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee do not
       propose to avail the exemption this year in respect of its Unit-II."

5.6.   A perusal of the above shows that not only there is a contradiction in
Note (i) and Note (ii) in the above extract even otherwise the Note (ii) relied upon
is unsupported by any evidence.        The principle of consistency on the issue
relied upon by the Ld. AR and accepted by the Co-ordinate Bench has not been
approved of by the Hon'ble High Court accordingly in the absence of any direct
evidence on record the issue needs to be restored.          As observed, the direct
evidence in the facts of the case would be the letter/application addressed by
the assessee to the Competent Authority at the time of setting up Unit II as
that is the evidence which would demonstrate whether the assessee intended
to start a new independent undertaking or did the assessee intend to expand
the existing unit as for both the eventualities permission/approval of the
Competent Authority was necessary.         The permission evidently having been
granted which the Revenue on facts considers it to be in the case of expansion
it is for the assessee to show that the permission granted was on the
application of setting up a new unit and not on an application for expansion.
The self-serving note in the accounts cannot be treated to be a direct evidence
of any credible relevance. The justification for setting up a new undertaking on
the basis of costs incurred for capital acquisition, investments in assets, new
employees, new business, new premises etc. would be irrelevant evidences as
both for expanding an existing unit or setting up a new unit specific separate
bonded premises, assets, employees, separate books of account and bank
accounts and business premises would be necessary. Thus reliance placed on
decisions rendered in different facts and arguments would be of no relevance.

5.7.   Before parting, it may be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex
Court cited in the case of Textiles Machinery Corporation Ltd.(cited supra). A
perusal of the principle laid down therein with which there can be no quarrel it
is seen is that the said decision is on entirely different facts and circumstances
and does not help the assessee in any manner. The following extract from the

                                                                              Page 10 of 13
                                                                   ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

head note of the said judgement brings out the material facts before the
Hon'ble Court, these have been bold texted by us for emphasis:-

            "    The     appellant,    a   heavy     engineering     concern
            manufacturing boilers, machinery parts, wagons, etc., set
            up two new units, a steel foundry division and jute mill
            division. The steel foundry division started manufacturing
            some castings, which the appellant was previously buying
            from the market, but the castings were mostly used by the
            other existing divisions of the appellant itself.           Raw
            materials were supplied to the jute mill division by the
            boiler division of the appellant and after machining and
            forging, the parts were given back by the jute mill division
            to the boiler division. The appellant claimed exemption from
            tax u/s 15C of the India Income-tax, 1922, in respect of the
            profits form the steel foundry division for the assessment years
            1958-59 and 1959-60, and in respect of the profits from the jute
            mill division for the assessment year 1959-60. The income-tax
            authorities held that the two units were formed by reconstruction
            of the business already existing within the meaning of section
            15C(i); but the Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, held that the
            appellant was entitled to the relief u/s 15C because the two
            divisions were new industrial undertakings and that they were
            not formed by reconstruction of the existing business. The
            Tribunal found that the machinery in the two divisions
            were new, they were housed in a separate building and
            that industrial licenses had to be obtained for
            manufacturing the parts; that the existing business of the
            appellant consisted of manufacturing boilers, wagons,
            etc., and for that purpose the appellant was purchasing
            the parts, forgings and castings from outside; and that the
            business of the new units was to manufacture these very
            parts; and that, therefore, it could not be said that the
            new undertakings were formed out of the existing business
            to come within the mischief of section 15C (2)(i). On a
            reference, the High Court held that the change of producing one's
            own goods systematically used in the existing business instead
            of buying them from outside would only be a reconstruction of an
            existing business within the meaning of section 15C (2)(i). On
            appeal to the Supreme Court:

            Held, reversing the decision of the High Court , that the steel
            foundry division and the jute mill division were not formed by the
            reconstruction of the business already in existence within the
            meaning of Section 15C (2)(i) and that, therefore, the appellant
            was entitled to the exemption claimed.

                                                                           Page 11 of 13
                                                                    ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

            For the reconstruction of an existing business there must be
            transfer of the assets of the existing business to the new
            industrial undertaking.

            A new activity launched by the assessee by establishing new
            plants and machinery by investing substantial funds may
            produce the same commodities of the old business or it may
            produce some other distinct marketable products, even
            commodities which may feed the old business. These products
            may be consumed by the assessee in his old business or may be
            sold in the open market. One thing is certain that the new
            undertaking must be an integrated unit by itself wherein articles
            are produced and at least a minimum of ten person with the aid
            of power and a minimum of twenty persons without the aid of
            power have been employed.             Such a new industrially
            recognizable unit of an assessee cannot be said to be
            reconstruction of his ld business since there is no transfer of any
            assets of the old business to the new undertaking which takes
            place when there is reconstruction of the old business. For the
            purpose of section 15C the industrial units set up must be new
            in the sense that new plants and machinery are erected for
            producing either the same commodities or some distinct
            commodities. In order to deny the benefit of section 15C the new
            undertaking must be formed by reconstruction of the old

                                         (emphasis provided by the Bench)

5.8.   On a perusal of the above it is seen that the conclusion that deduction
u/s 15C of the Income Tax Act 1922 was allowable was arrived at dismissing
the plea of the Revenue who had proceeded to deny the same for the reason
that it was considered to be an act of reconstitution of existing business for an
assessee who was an engineering concern manufacturing boilers etc.                  The
assessee after setting up Steel Foundry Division and Jute Mill Division started
consuming their products instead of procuring them from the market as was
done in the past. Rejecting the reasoning of the Revenue their Lordships held
that "reconstruction" presupposes that transfer of assets of the existing
business took place which was not a fact in that case as fresh capital had been
introduced. It was also held that the fact that the product of the two divisions
was utilized by the assessee who earlier was purchasing it from outsiders was
not a relevant criteria for denying the claim.         Accordingly the well settled
principle in the said judgment in the facts of the assessee 's case has no bearing

                                                                            Page 12 of 13
                                                              ITA NO. 2093/Del/2005

on the issue at hand as in the facts of the present case.        What was the
intention of the assessee at the time of setting up the new unit would be
brought out from the application made to the Competent Authority.
Introduction of fresh capital is required even for expanding an existing
business to a different location. Accordingly in the absence of any discussion
on the direct evidence to decide the issue the same is remitted back to the file
of the AO with the direction to decide the same afresh by way of a speaking
order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity
of being heard.
6.    In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
      The order is pronounced in the open court on 05th of June, 2015.

      Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

(R. S. SYAL)                                                   (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

*R. Naheed/Amit Kumar*

Copy forwarded to:

1.    Appellant
2.    Respondent
3.    CIT
4.    CIT(Appeals)
5.    DR: ITAT
                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                            ITAT NEW DELHI

                                                                      Page 13 of 13
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Application Management Solutions Application Management System Application Management Software System Application Management Development Application Management Software Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions