TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 709
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibunal") in relation to assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2) Being aggrieved by the order dated 12/8/2009, the appellant revenue has formulated the following identical question of law for the three assessment years for the consideration of this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption to the assessee company u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act in respect of its unit at SEEPZ Mumbai even though it has not complied with the requirements of the sub section 10A(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act? 3) The facts are similar in all the three appeals. However, for the sake of convenience, we are setting out the facts stated in appeal No.1150 of 2010 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eign travel expenses were incurred by the Fort unit and transferred to the SEEPZ unit. d) In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 24/3/2008 set aside the order dated 24/7/2007 for the assessment year 2002-03 disallowing the claim of exemption under Section 10A of the Act to SEEPZ unit. The order dated 24/3/2008 while holding that benefit of Section 10A is available to SEEPZ unit records that the order for the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004- 05 by the Assessing officer denying the benefit of Section 10A of the Act had been set aside by his predecessor. Therefore, the Assessing officer was directed to grant relief under Section 10A of the Act to the respondent-assessee in respect of its SEEPZ unit.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and purchasing of few computers would not result in an independent unit being set up. Mr. Gupta further submits that the Tribunal erred in proceeding on the basis that as the respondent-assessee had been granted benefit of Section 10A of the Act for assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02, it is not open to take a contrary view for subsequent years. Mr.Gupta submits that each year is an independent year and there is no concept of res-judicata in tax matters. Therefore, the revenue is entitled to take a different view in subsequent year. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee submitted that in view of the decision of this court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above, he submitted that both Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have concluded on examination of evidence that SEEPZ unit was an independent unit not formed by splitting up of the Fort unit. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with this finding of fact. 6) We have considered the submissions. We find that the submissions made by Mr. Pardiwalla on the basis of the decision of this Court in the matter of Paul Brothers (supra) and Director of Information Pvt. Ltd. (supra) merits acceptance. Therefore, in this case, it is not necessary for us to decide whether SEEPZ unit was set up/formed by splitting up of the first unit. In both the above decisions, this Court has held that where a benefit of deduction is avail....