The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central -3, Pune… v. Kamal Khata, Jj

Digitallysigned bySHRADDHASHRADDHAKAMLESHKAMLESHTALEKARTALEKARDate:2023.01.0916:47:36+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 550 OF 2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -3, Pune… Appellant Versus Symantec Software India Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Veritas Software India Pvt. Ltd.)…Respondent ***** Mr.Ajeet Manwani with Ms.Samiksha Kanani, Advocate forappellant. Mr.Thakkar i/b Mint and Confreres, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE :6[th] JANUARY, 2023. P C : 1.The present appeal has been preferred under section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) against the order, dated 28[th] December 2016 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai,pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. 2.The following question of law has been framed for ourconsideration : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai was right in upholding theassessee’s claim for treating Unit-B as a separate andindependent unit for the purpose of claimingdeduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act,1961? 3.It is not denied that section 10A of the Act envisages certainbenefts which are available either to a new unit or a unit whichundertakes substantial expansion. In the present case, thedispute essentially pertains to a question of fact as to whetherUnit-B of the respondent was a new unit, and therefore, whetherit was entitled to the beneft under section 10A of the Act or not.The Tribunal, in the instant case, has returned a fnding basedupon an earlier decision of the Tribunal, dated 30[th] November2011, pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 that Unit-B wasa new unit. 4.Mr.Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for therespondent submits that the said view expressed by the Tribunalwas upheld by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1534 of 2012(The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV Vs. Symantee Software India(P) Ltd.), where the respondent was held entitled to the beneftsunder section 10A, being a new Unit. This being essentially aquestion of fact which has already been upheld for the assessment year 2004-05 vide order dated 12[th] December 2014 in the case ofthe assessee itself, no substantial question of law arises. Be that as it may, the present appeal is found to bewithout merit and is accordingly dismissed. [ KAMAL KHATA, J. ] [DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.]