AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 726
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITAT was justified in law in allowing the benefit of deduction u/s. 10B even to the acquired unit of M/S. Anjali Exports despite of the facts the same was not having certificate of Export Oriented Unit which was mandatory requirement" 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership concern and was established in the year 2000. The assessee was claiming deduction u/s 10B of 100% of EOU. The firm earlier was known as M/s. V.K. Exports. On 30.12.2006, reconstitution of business was made and new partner has introduced & Old partner retired. After reconstitution of business, the name is changed to M/s Veto Electro Power. On 15.01.2007, the assessee firm has purhcased another undertaking named M/s Anjali Exports through MOU. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of M/s Anjali Exports and M/s Veto Electro Power. 7. The ownership of undertaking M/s Anjali Exports have changed. The assessee firm has claimed deduction u/s 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 for both the undertakings, M/s Anjali Exports & M/s Veto Electro Power in its return. 4. The counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of AO and CIT (A) and contended that CIT(A) has seriously committed an error taking into consideration that income of Anjali Exports is of the previous year therefore, he cannot be allowed benefit for the whole year. He particularly invited our attention to the observations by the CIT (A) which reads as under:- I have considered facts of the case and arguments taken by Sh. Shah quite carefully.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trial Area, Jaipur and w.e.f 1.4.2006 all the assets and liabilities of said unit said business as on 1.4.2006 becomes the assets and liability of the appellant firm. It is clear that the appellant firm had acquired on slump sale basis the aforesaid 100% EOU unit set up by M/s Anjali Exports at F-6, Malviya Nagar Ind. Area, Jaipur. Thereafter, the appellant firm vide their letter dated 11.1.2007 to the Development Commissioner, Noida Special Economic zone has intimated regarding change in the name of partnership firm from M/s V.K.Exports to M/s veto Electro Powers and regarding changes of partners in the partnership firm and in response to that Assistant Development Commissioner from the office of Development Commissioner Noida Special Econ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f new concern coming into existence but the manufacturing and export activity being run in 100% EOU by M/s V.K. Exports and M/s Anjali Exports was continuing as such. Further from the perusal of copy of P&L A/c and Balance Sheet of M/s Veto Electro Powers (formally V.K. Exports) as on 19.3.2007 and for the period from 1.4.2006 to 19.3.2007 it is clear that separate figures of various accounts namely Income & Expenditure for Anjali Exports and veto Electro Powers were given alongwith consolidated figure of the audited accounts and therefore, the officer is assessing factually incorrect in his finding that there were no separate books of accounts and separate audit of M/s Anjali Exports and M/s Veto Electro Powers. In fact, with such separate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee company was formed as a result of reconstruction of EOU owned by the firm. Further, the PAN of prior and post acquisition of appellant firm i e. M/s Veto Electro Power is the same and all other registration of M/s V.K. Exports such as IEC number, registration with Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Excise and Custom Authorities etc. continued to remain in same manner in new name namely M/s Veto Electro Powers. This is a clear case of acquisition of an entity of 100% EOU unit by the another 100% EOU unit through slump sale. It shall not be out of place to analyze that the re-organization of M/s Veto Electro Powers and M/s Anjali Exports is complete tax neutral exercise not aimed to gain any undue tax advantage. As per provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orts at Rs. 8,25,38,959/- and AO is thereby directed to allow the same. 5. He also pointed out the finding of the Tribunal which reads as under:- 37. The other objection of the AO is that an agreement of assignment of business was also entered by Ms. Anjali Exports and M/s. Veto Electric Power Pvt. Ltd.. therefore there was a contradiction in MOUs entered into by assessee and the successor company. This is a technical objection of the AO. There will be no impact on the revenue either M/s. Anjali Exports is taken over by assessee firm or by its successor company. The successor company is not a new entity as the same was converted from partnership firm to private limited company. All its partners were taken as Director or sharehol....