https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207752 The court concluded that the business set up at Falta SEZ was a new unit and not a reconstruction of an existing business. The Tribunal and the Assessing Officer's interpretation was deemed flawed as the term "reconstruction" implies reorganization at the same place, not a different location. The court emphasized that the statute does not prohibit shifting of business but prohibits splitting up. The judgment and order of the Tribunal were set aside, and the order of the CIT (Appeals) allowing the exemption under Section 10A was restored. The Assessing Officer was directed to comply with the CIT (Appeals) judgment. en-us Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207752 The court concluded that the business set up at Falta SEZ was a new unit and not a reconstruction of an existing business. The Tribunal and the Assessing Officer's interpretation was deemed flawed as the term "reconstruction" implies reorganization at the same place, not a different location. The court emphasized that the statute does not prohibit shifting of business but prohibits splitting up. The judgment and order of the Tribunal were set aside, and the order of the CIT (Appeals) allowing the exemption under Section 10A was restored. The Assessing Officer was directed to comply with the CIT (Appeals) judgment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207752