DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EBIX SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Vs Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(1), 311, B-4/A, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACE9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: The above two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 30th May, 2017 of the CIT(A)-3, New Delhi relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA No.5274/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. and is engaged in the business of rendering information technology/information technology enabled services (IT/ITES). It filed its return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring nil income after claiming deduction of Rs.226,98,41,758/- under section 10AA of the IT Act. However, the assessee has paid tax u/s 115JB on book profit of Rs.205,06,58,504/-. Since the assessee had entered into certain international transaction, the AO referred the matter to the TPO for determination of the ALP of the international transaction. However, the TPO did not draw any adverse inference in respect of such international transaction undertaken by the assessee. So far as the other issues are concerned, the AO, after considering the various replies given by the assessee, rejected the claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act made by the assessee in respect of income from six SEZ units and made addition of Rs.226,98,41,758/-. Similarly, the AO made addition of Rs.82,88,099/- on account of other income from four SEZ units. The AO further made addition of Rs.8,40,46,029/- by rejecting the claim of depreciation on goodwill. Thus, the AO determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.212,44,62,496/-.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Sr. Name of undertaking Amount No 1 Noida SEZ 209,44,51,574 4,88,88,288 2 Nagpur SEZ (89-90) 3 Coimbatore SEZ 4,42,95,190 4 Hyderabad SEZ 8,25,79,324 Total 227,02,14,376 7. However, the deduction claimed was restricted to the total income of Rs.226,98,41,758/- as against the total profit of Rs.227,02,14,376/-. The unitwise break-up of deduction claimed by the assessee company as exempt u/s 10AA for SEZ units is as under:-

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Further, there has been no transfer of employees by the Assessee from any other business units to these two business units during the subject year under assessment. During the subject year under assessment, these two units were continuing business operations carried forward from the previous year, and there has been no splitting or reconstruction of these business units during the previous year under assessment………. ” “……..Both, Coimbatore and Hyderabad SEZ units were initially set-up by Planet in the F. Y. 2010-11 and F.Y. 2011-12 respectively and commenced business operations in respective years of set-up. Assessee acquired business Operations from Planet on a going concern business in F.Y. 2012- 13, and has accordingly claimed deduction ids I0AA in respect of two units in its tax return for the subject year assessment. These two business units are engaged in export of services i.e. provision of IT (software development support) to Ebix group outside India, which is permitted business activity under SEZ and fur claim of tax holiday u/s 10AA of the Act. ”

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

(iv) Chennai DTA 10,05,546 (v) Begumpet DTA 3,23,00,959 (vi) Coimbatore SEZ 2,11,70,027 (including Depreciation of Rs.1,91,76,128/- on Goodwill) (vii) Uppal SEZ 1,74,89,944 (including Depreciation of Rs.1,71,07,849/-on Goodwill)

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Undertakings for Computation of eligible Profits of the eligible Undertakings. He further noted that the report in the Form 56F are also faulty to this extent.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Rs.19,14,995/- has been considered inadmissible expenses of Non-SEZ unit and added back to the Business Income of NOIDA SEZ unit. Similarly, for the Computation of Business Income of Coimbatore Unit inadmissible expenses of Rs.2,04,54,537/- has been added back. The details of these varying figures of inadmissible expenses has not been furnished by the assessee. It also remain unexplained as to why there is a difference in the consolidated computation and unit- wise computation.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Employee Benefit Expenses as compared to Revenue from Operations of each unit which is as under:~ Name of the Unit Revenue from Employee Benefit % of EBE to Revenue Operations Expenses (EBE) from Operations NOIDA SEZ (Ebix 221.57 18.28 8.25% SEZ) NAGPUR SEZ (Ebix 1.0,00 4.64 46.4% SEZ) fO-MBATORh SEZ 14.1 1 5.34 37.84% (Planet Online) Uppal SEZ (Planet 16.72 5.05 30.20% Online) Chennai Non SEZ NIL 1.88 Infinite Hyderabad Non SEZ 2.27 15.00 660.79% (Planet Online)

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

there were expenses of Non-SEZ units which were used for earning income of SEZ units is admitted by the assessee itself in the form of Computation of Income submitted by it. Further, the assessee failed to submit satisfactory details and justification in respect of each unit that has claimed deduction u/s 10A. In view of the above, the AO rejected the claim of deduction u/s 10AA made by the assessee.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

3,2 That w.e.f. 1.4,2011, M/s. Ebix Software India SEZ Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Ebix SEZ'), another company incorporated under the Companies Act,1956 was merged and amalgamated with the appellant company under an order dated 30,4.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi sanctioning the composite scheme of arrangement under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. 3.3 That pursuant to the aforesaid order, two units eligible for deduction under section 10AA of the Act set up by M/s. Ebix SEZ stood merged and amalgamated with the appellant company. The details of the two units are as under: Sr. Particulars Assessment year in which unit was No. set up by M/s Ebix SEZ i) Noida SEZ 2010-11 ii) Nagpur SEZ 2011-12

Apart from the above, business activity of Ebix SEZ in domestic tariff area (hereinafter referred to as "DTA") in Chennai (referred to as non-eligible unit namely 'Chennai non-SEZ') was also amalgamated with the appellant company. Moreover, under the scheme of composite arrangement, there was a de-merger of the undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 10B of the Act of the company at Noida engaged in providing BPO and support services to M/s. Premier Ebix Exchange Software Pvt. Ltd. However, as a result, certain specified assets were retained by the company, on which depreciation has been claimed in the instant year and, referred to as 'Noida DTA’. 3.4 That accordingly, during the assessment year 2012-13, company had three undertakings namely Noida SEZ, Nagpur SEZ and Chennai non-SEZ. It is stated that the company had claimed deduction under section 10AA of the Act for both the undertakings, namely Noida SEZ for an amount of Rs 144,89,55,520/- and Nagpur SEZ for an amount of Rs 6,23,98,396/- . Infact, in assessment year 2012-13, in respect of the assets retained by the company and classified under the head 'Noida DTA;, depreciation of Rs. 1,20,87,945/- was claimed by the company which was allowed as such in assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. The details of deduction claimed and, allowed for assessment year 2012-13 are as under:-

Date of Income declared after Income assessed after Date of order u/s 143(3) filing of claiming exemption claiming exemption of the Act return u/s 10AA of the Act u/s 10AA of the Act 28.11.2012 NIL NIL 29.1.2016 (pages 224 - (pages 230 235 of Paper 229 of Paper Book) Book and 272- 328 of Paper Book))

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

That subsequently on 1.6.2012, the company entered into a business transfer agreement (copy placed at pages 106-116 of Paper Book) with M/s. Planet Online (P) Ltd. to purchase the business undertakings for a consideration of Rs.38,53,50,000/- (USD 7 miilion) as on going concern on slump sale basis. The business undertakings comprised of assets, transferred employees, liabilities, licenses, contracts and receivables. - 3.5 As a result of the above, two eligible units at Coimbatore and Uppal stood owned by the company and another non eligible unit at Hyderabad also stood acquired by the company. 3.6 In the nutshell, as a result of the aforesaid, the company owned four eligible units and two non eligible units during the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The details of the eligible units are as under: Sr. Unit Acquired from Acquired during the Assessment No. assessment year year of setting up of Unit i) Noida SEZ Ebix SEZ 2012-13 2010-11 ii) Nagpur SEZ Ebix SEZ 2012-13 2011-12 Coimbatore iii) SEZ Planet Online (P) Ltd. 2013-14 2011-12 iv) Uppal SEZ Planet Online (P) Ld. 2013-14 2012-13 Likewise, the status of non-eligible units was as under: Sr. Particulars of unit Acquired from Acquired during the No. assessment year i) Chennai non-SEZ Ebix SEZ 2012-13 ii) Hyderabad non- Planet Online (P) 2013-14 SEZ Ltd. Apart from the above, the appellant had also certain assets as stated above out of 10B Units which were retained by the company and classified as Noida DTA, It is also clarified that during the instant year, expenditure claimed on depreciation in respect of the said Noida DTA assets is of Rs. 52,74,157/-. A copy of the chart of depreciation of assets of Noida DTA is placed at page 152 of the Paper Book. At this juncture, it is stated that deduction has been claimed under section 10AA of the Act in respect of the four units eligible for the deduction and details of the set up of the units and the status thereof is tabulated as under:

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

I Noida SEZ AY Deduction Entity in Disallowance if Date of order u/s claimed (in which, any 143(3) of the Act Rs.) (page of deduction (Pages of PB) PB) claimed 2010-11 65,27,64,881 Ebix SEZ Nil 20.2.2014 (384-386) (393-397) 2011-12 142,07,41,308 Ebix SEZ Nil 17.2.2015 (462-464) (481-483) 2012-13 144,89,55,520 Appellant Nil 29.1.2016 (231) company (224—229) II Nagpur SEZ AY Deduction Entity in Disallowance if Date of order u/s claimed (in which, any 143(3) of the Act Rs.) (page of deduction (Pages of PB) PB) claimed 2011-12 31,23,74,139 Nil 17.2.2015 (462,465-466) Ebix SEZ (481-483) 2012-13 6,29,98,996 Appellant Nil 29,1.2016 (232) company (224-229)

III Coimbatore SEZ AY Deduction Disallowance, if claimed Entity in which, any (Rs.) deduction claimed 2011-12 61,644 Planet Online (P) Ltd. Nil (532-533) 2012-13 49,62,722 Planet Online (P) Ltd. Nil (586,588) IV Uppal SEZ AY Deduction Entity in which, Disallowance, if any claimed deduction claimed (Rs.) 2012-13 Planet Online (P) Ltd. Nil 84,24,989 (586-587) 19. It was reiterated that the disallowance was made by the AO based on fundamental misconception of facts and circumstances. It was argued that the assessee has maintained complete books of account which were duly audited and

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

have been accepted. In other words, the AO has not rejected the books of account by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and the profit declared has been accepted. It was submitted that when the AO has accepted separate books of account maintained by the assessee company in each of the unit which are supported by audit report and, therefore, the AO cannot allege that any expenditure of the revenue has been diverted to other unit. It was submitted that even as per assessment order, the AO has computed business income of each of undertaking separately, the details of which are as under:- Unit Amount of business income as per Sr Assessing officer No. i) Noida SEZ 2,08,44,45,787 ii) Nagpur 4,86,90,981 iii) Coimbatore 4,39,95,190 iv) Uppal 8,25,79,324 Total 225,97,11,282

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Referring to various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 and in the case of CIT vs. JK Charitable Trust, 308 ITR 161, it was argued that following the rule of consistency alone the AO should not have rejected the claim of deduction in respect of Noida and Nagpur units.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

of the conditions as provided in sub-section (1) r.w. section 4 of section 10AA of the Act has to be seen in the year of formation and since in the year of formation of the SEZ units, units were eligible for the deduction, it cannot be said that such units are not eligible for deduction u/s 10AA. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT, 196 ITR 188, it was argued that the conditions as prescribed in section 10AA(1) of the Act r.w. sub-section (4) have to be seen in the year of formation of the unit and not subsequently. The following details were furnished before the CIT(A) regarding the assessment particulars and it was argued that the table given by the AO at page 2, para 1 of the assessment order contains factually incorrect observations:- “Sr. Unit reference Year of commen- Eligibility of unit No. of years completed in No. cement of for Claiming A.Y. 2013-14 since business deduction u/s commencement of business 10AA of the IT Act as claimed by the assessee during the AY 2013-14

| 1 NOIDA SEZ 2009-10 Yes |4*(first year ' with assessee) (Ebix SEZ) 2 NAGPUR SEZ 2010-11 Yes 3*(first year with assessee) ' (Ebix SEZ) 3 COIMBATORE 2012-13 Yes 3*(first year with assessee) SEZ (Planet Online) 4 Uppal SEZ (Planet 2012-13 Yes 2 * (first year with assessee) Online) 5. Chennai Non SEZ n.a. No NA 6. Hyderabad Non n.a No (Acquired by assessee in SEZ (Planet A.Y. Online) 2013 -14)

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

*Correct position in second year with assessee It was submitted that the Assessing Officer at page 3 of the order of 22. assessment in para 1 has incorrectly noted that in financial year 2012-13, there was major change in undertaking owned by the company. He has incorrectly noted that prior to this period, the assessee was only having business undertaking at Noida and it is also only after composite scheme of arrangement and business transfer agreement during the assessment year, the assessee company owned six undertakings/units. The Assessing Officer has factually erred in holding that the units of Noida and Nagpur came to be owned by the company in the instant year. It is submitted that this finding is contrary to his own observation at page 3 in para 3 of the order of assessment.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

is factually incorrect. It was submitted that the sum of Rs.19,14,995/- and Rs.3 lakhs respectively represent expenditure incurred on the guest house which has been added back to avoid any possible dispute though there is no material to suggest that the expenses have any bearing on the non-SEZ units. It was argued that merely because the above sums have been added back by using the narration as explained pertaining to non-SEZ units available made a basis to assume that resources of non-SEZ units have been utilized for earning the revenue in SEZ units. So far as the allegation of the AO that deduction u/s 10AA is not allowable as there is splitting up/reconstruction of business already in existence and since the expenses relating to the registered office at Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi and Noida DTA have been clubbed with the Noida SEZ is concerned, it was submitted that the above observation is factually incorrect and there is no expenditure incurred and claimed in respect of the registered office of the company. So far as the Noida DTA is concerned, it was submitted that there is only expenses on account of depreciation at Rs.52,74,157/- which has been claimed in the consolidated computation of income and not as part of the unitwise computation of income. Referring to the details furnished before him, it was submitted that in the unitwise computation of income the depreciation claimed for the Noida SEZ is for Rs.2,41,23,252/- which has been separately claimed as part of the consolidated computation in addition to the depreciation of Rs.52,74,157/- in respect of Noida unit. Thus, no expenditure has been claimed either in respect of Noida DTA or in respect of registered office while computing profits of Noida SEZ. Referring to 20

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

various other inconsistencies and observations in the assessment order and relying on various decisions, it was argued that the company has correctly made the claim of deduction u/s 10AA.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

is determined and not of the assessee. So far as the various allegations/observations of the AO are concerned, the ld.CIT(A) held that those are factually incorrect. Relying on various decisions, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.226,98,41,758/- made by the AO u/s 10AA of the Act.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

the auditor. He submitted that the AO has correctly held that the A.Y. 2013-14 was the first year in respect of these units and as such, the claim of the assessee was required to be examined and the specific queries raised by the AO during the assessment proceedings were not answered by the CIT(A), who simply accepted the submissions made by the assessee. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) being not in accordance with law, should be reversed and that of the AO be restored on this issue.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

i) 355 ITR 14 (Del) CIT v Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. ii) 251 CTR 290 (Del) CIT v Tata Communication Internet Services Ltd. iii) 214 CTR 227 (Del) CIT vs. Jagson International Ltd. iv) 216 ITR 548 (Bom) CIT vs. Paul Brothers. v) 349 ITR 309 (Bom) CIT vs. Western Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd. vi) 349 ITR 150 (Bom) Direct Information (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO vii) 123 ITR 669 (Guj) C.I.T. v Saurashtra Cement and Chemicals.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

viii) 267 ITR 774 (AP) G.B. Bros and Konda Rajagopala Chetty vs. ITO ix) 133 ITR 687 (MP) CIT vs. Bhilai Enginering Corporation x) ITA No. 477/2013 dated 28.7.2014 (Kar) M/s Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. Vs. DCIT xi) 244 Taxman 217 (SC) CIT v. Defree Engineering (P) Ltd. xii) 209 Taxman 76 (Mad)(Mag) Sterilite Industries (India) Ltd. v. ACIT xiii) 243 Taxman 408 (Mad) CIT v. P.S. Velusamy

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

i) CIT v. Hearland Delhi Transcription, ITA No.300/2011 (Del) dated 18.07.2014; ii) NDS Services Pay-TV Technology (P) Ltd., 33 taxmann.com 414 (Bang); iii) DCIT v. LG Soft India (P) Ltd., ITA Nos.623 & 847/B/2010, dated 19.5.2020; iv) M/s Samsung India Software Operations (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, ITA No.399/Bang/2012

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

of the Act in the instant year. For the above proposition, the ld. Counsel relied on the following decisions:-

i) 181 ITR 518 (Kar.) CIT vs. Nippon Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. ii) 59 ITD 563 (Pune) Vintage Cards and Creations vs. ACIT iii) 108 TTJ 905 (Pune) Ghodavat Pan Masala India (P) Ltd. Vs. JCIT iv) 14 SOT 303 (Mum) ITO vs. Laxmi Packers

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

viii) 391 ITR 274 (SC) CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (pages 443-444 of Paper Book) ix) 129 TTJ 273 (Chennai) Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

2 NAGPUR SEZ (Ebix 2010-11 Yes 3* Second year with SEZ) (first year with Assesse (please assessee) refer table at point no. 3.3 herein above)

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

A.Y. 2012-13 in the orders passed u/s 143(3). Therefore, the findig that the issue of claim of deduction has to be examined for the first time in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is factually incorrect. Since deduction u/s 10AA of the Act was already examined in the case of the assessee so far as Noida and Nagpur for the first time in A.Y. 2012-13 and the same stands allowed as such, therefore, there is no question of re-visiting the same during this year.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

the Noida SEZ of Rs.2,41,23,252/- the working of which is at page 153 of the paper book and as a result thereof the deduction claimed was of Rs.2,09,44,51,574/- u/s 10AA of the Act. He submitted that while computing the consolidated income of the assessee company, the assessee has not only reduced the depreciation of SEZ unit, but, also has reduced the depreciation of non-SEZ units while computing the income of the assessee company. He submitted that the assessee has restricted its claim of deduction to Rs.226,98,41,758/- as against eligible claim of Rs.227,02,14,376/-.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

deduction u/s 10AA cannot be denied. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Cincom Systems India (P) Ltd., 103 taxmann.com 161 (Delhi), the ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that separate and selected accounts cannot be rejected on the ground that profit margin of the STPI unit was higher than the profit margin of the non-STPI unit without pointing out any discrepancy error or mistake in the accounts.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

computing unitwise computation for determining profit eligible for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. He submitted that in the consolidated computation of income, the assessee has added back expenses of Chennai unit and Hyderabad unit of Rs.21,85,82,287/- and Rs.3,01,30,343/-, respectively. He submitted that had this expenditure been claimed, then, gross income of the assessee would have been Rs.2,02,11,29,128/- and not Rs.226,98,41,758/- and consequently, the deduction u/s 10A would have been restricted to Rs.202,11,29,128/-. Therefore, the observation of the AO of adding back has no basis to determine the claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. In any case, he submitted that the above figure of Rs.22,14,995/- pertains to the expenditure incurred by the eligible units and guest house whereas the figure of Rs.24,87,12,630/- pertains to non-eligible units and also incurred by non-eligible units which has not been claimed while computing income of the assessee company. Therefore, the observation of the AO with respect to differential figures of inadmissible expenses of non-SEZ units in consolidated computation of income and individual computation of income is incorrect.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

and claim in respect of the registered office of the assessee company except depreciation of Rs.52,74,157/-. He submitted that unsubstantiated observation does not meet the rule of law and, therefore, cannot be relied upon to draw any adverse inference against the assessee. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 196 ITR 188(SC), he submitted that the claim of deduction should be examined only in the year of formulation and not subsequently.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Other expenses 1,14,28,266 3,35,66,482 4,49,94,748 Foreign Exchange gain — — — and loss Total Expenses (IV) 3,16,90,329 21,86,67,175 25,03,57,504 V (3,16,90,329) (19,58,92,586) (22,75,82,915) Profit before exceptional and extraordinary items (V) = (III-IV) VI Add Back: Depreciation and 14,15,441 3,50,65,473 3,64.80,914 Amortization expenses Other 3,01,30,343 21,85,82,287 24,87,12,630 expenses/employee Total Add Back (VI) 3,15,45,784 25,36,47,760 28,51,93,544 VII Net profit/(Loss) (VII) = (144,545) 5,77,55,174 5,76,10,629 (V-VI) VIII Less: Deprecation as per 9,01,810 4,73,47,487 4,82,49.297 Income Tax Act IX Income (10,46,355) 1,04,07,687 93,61,332 X Add back: Late Payment 4,04,654 XI Income assessable 97,65,986 50. Therefore, the observation of the AO has no valid justification and in any case cannot be a ground to deny claim of deduction u/s 10AA. Relying on the following decisions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that mere suspicion, surmises and conjectures cannot be a ground to hold to the contrary:- a) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT b) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v. CIT c) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v, CIT d) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cottom Mills Ltd. v. CIT e) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT f) 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

iii) The assessee has not shown any domestic revenue from Noida DTA and the resources and infrastructure of Noida DTA has been used for earning revenue in Noida SEZ; iv) There is variation in the profits of SEZ undertakings. v) There are differential figures of inadmissible expenses of non-SEZ units in consolidated computation of income and individual computation of income; vi) Resources of non-SEZ units have been used for earning of revenue in SEZ units; vii) Expenses of Noida DTA have been clubbed up with the expenses of Noida SEZ; viii) Units have been acquired on slum sale basis; ix) Disproportionate expenses against revenue show fictitious arrangement in which the entire resources of Chennai unit or Hyderabad unit have been utilized for earning tax free income of SEZ units; x) The ratio of employee expenses to revenue under each of the unit show that the deduction claimed by the assessee company in respect of eligible units is not in accordance with the law.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

books of account are accepted as such, no disallowance can be validly made. Further, deduction granted in the initial year cannot be withdrawn and the disallowance is contrary to the principles of consistency. According to the ld.CIT(A), mere amalgamation of the undertaking could neither in law and nor on fact be made a basis to deny legitimate claim of deduction of the assessee company and does not amount to splitting up or reconstruction of business already in existence. Likewise, mere acquisition of undertaking on slump sale could neither in law and nor on fact be made a basis to deny legitimate claim of deduction of the assessee company. He further held that mere change in ownership either by way of slump sale, merger or otherwise cannot be made a basis to disallow the claim of deduction and also assume that there is splitting up or reconstruction of business. He further held that fulfillment of the conditions as provided in sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of section 10AA has to be seen in the year of formation and since in the year of formation of the SEZ units, which were eligible units, it cannot be said that such units are not eligible units for deduction u/s 10AA in the subsequent year. According to him, the reading of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 10AA that eligibility of the unit is determined and not of the assessee.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

an undisputed fact that the assessee has six undertakings out of which four undertakings have been claimed to be eligible u/s 10AA of the Act. The amount of deduction claimed in respect of four undertakings u/s 10AA are as under:-

Sr. Name of undertaking Amount Noida SEZ 209,44,51,574 1 Nagpur SEZ 4,88,88,288 2 3 Coimbatore SEZ 4,42,95,190 4 Hyderabad SEZ 8,25,79,324 Total 227,02,14,376

AY Disallowance if Date of order u/ s 143(3 any of the Act (Pages of PB) Entity in which, Deduction claimed deduction claimed (in Rs.) (page of PB) 2010-11 Nil 65,27,64,881 Ebix SEZ (236-293) 20 7 N il4 (289-293) (285-287) 2011-12 Nil 142,07,41,308 17.2.2015 Ebix SEZ (294-339) (332-334) (337-339) 2012-13 Nil 29.1.2016 144,89,55,520 (231, Assessee (224—229) 235) company (224-235) II Nagpur SEZ AY Disallowance if Deduction claimed (in Date of order u/s any Rs.) 143(3) of the Act Entity in which, deduction claimed (page of PB) (Pages of PB) 2011-12 Nil 31,23,74,139 17.2.2015 Ebix SEZ (294-339) (335-336) (337-339) 2012-13 6,29,98,996 (232, 235) Nil 29.1.2016 Assessee (224-229) company (224-235) III Coimbatore SEZ AY Disallowance, if any Deduction claimed (Rs.) Entity in which, deduction claimed 2011-12 Nil 61,644 (341, 363) Planet Online (P) Ltd. (340- 363)

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

2012-13 Nil Planet Online (P) Ltd. (364- 49,62,722 398) (398) IV Uppal S EZ AY Deduction claimed Disallowance, if any Entity in which, deduction (Rs.) claimed 2012-13 Nil Planet Online (P). Ltd. (364- 84,24,989 398) (397)

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

subsequent light or ingenuity might suggest some traverse which had not been taken." 30. Reference was also made to Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) and then it was held: "We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. "On these reasonings in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter - and if there was no change it was in support of the assessee -we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken." 31. It appears from the record that in several assessment years, the Revenue accepted the order of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and did not pursue the matter any further but in respect of some assessment years the matter was taken up in appeal before the Bombay High Court but without any success. That being so, the Revenue cannot be allowed to flip-flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers' money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it.”

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

AO is not entitled to re-examine the eligibility of claim of deduction in the succeeding year.

“74. In the present case, the claim of the assessee under section 80-I of the Act was examined and allowed by the Assessing officer for three years preceding the assessment year 1991-1992. It is relevant to note that assessments in the earlier years i.e relating to assessment years 1988-89, 1989-1990 and 1990- 1991 has not been disturbed by the Assessing Officer and there has been no change that could justify the Assessing officer adopting a different view in the assessment years 1991-92 and thereafter. As stated hereinbefore, in certain cases where the issues involved have attained finality on account of the subject matter of dispute having been finally adjudicated, the question of reopening and revisiting the same issue again in subsequent years would not arise. This is based on the principle that there should be finality in all legal proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO: [1977] 106 ITR 1 had held as under:- "that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity." 75. In the facts of the present case, where although the Assessing officer has allowed the assessee deduction under section 80-I of the Act in the preceding years, one may still have certain reservations as to whether the issue of eligibility of Unit nos. 2 and 3 fulfilling the conditions has been finally settled, since the question has not been a subject matter of any appellate proceedings in the years preceding the assessment year 1991-92. However, there is yet another aspect which needs to be considered. By virtue of section 80-I(5) of the Act, deduction under section 80-I of the Act is available to an assessee in respect of the assessment year (referred to as the initial assessment year) relevant to the previous year in which the industrial undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles or things, or to operate its cold storage plant or plants or the ship is first brought into use or the business of the hotel starts functioning or the company commences work by way of repairs to ocean- going vessels or other powered craft. Such deduction is also available for the seven assessment years immediately succeeding the initial assessment year. Surely in cases where an assessee is held to be eligible for deduction in the initial assessment year, the same cannot be denied in the subsequent 45

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

assessment years on the ground of ineligibility since the set of facts which enable an assessee to claim to be eligible for deduction under section 80-I of the Act occur in the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and have to be examined in the initial assessment year. In such cases, where the facts on the basis of which the deductions are claimed are subject matter of an earlier assessment year and do not arise in the current assessment year, it would not be possible for an Assessing Officer to take a different view in the current assessment year without altering or reopening the assessment proceedings in which the eligibility to claim the deduction has been established. 76. In cases where deduction is granted under Section 80-I of the Act, the applicability of the Section is determined in the year in which the new industrial undertaking is established. The qualification as to whether any industrial undertaking fulfills the condition as specified under Section 80-I of the Act has to be determined in the year in which the new industrial undertaking is established. Although the deduction under Section 80-I of the Act is available for the assessment years succeeding the initial assessment year, the conditions for availing the benefit are inextricably linked with the previous year relevant to the assessment year in which the new undertaking was formed. In such circumstances, it would not be possible for an Assessing Officer to reject the claim of an assessee for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act on the ground that the industrial undertaking in respect of which deduction is claimed did not fulfill the conditions as specified in Section 80- I(2) of the Act, without undermining the basis on which the deduction was granted to the assessee in the initial assessment year. This in our view would not be permissible unless the past assessments are also disturbed.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

the subsequent assessment years. This is for the reason that the benefit under Section 10A of the Act is available inter alia if the unit has not been formed by splitting up or reconstruction of business already in existence. This aspect of the matter was examined while completing assessment under Section 143(3) for the assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 and the benefit was extended after reaching a conclusion that the same was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence. Further, the benefit which is given to the respondent-assessee under Section-10A is for the period of 10 consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year in which the undertaking begins to export computer software. Besides the 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 available for a particular number of years on satisfaction of certain conditions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, then unless relief granted for the first assessment year in which the claim was made and accepted is withdrawn or set aside, the Income Tax officer cannot withdraw the relief for subsequent years. More particularly so, when the revenue has not even suggested that there was any change in the facts warranting a different view for subsequent years. In this case for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 the relief granted under Section 10A of the Act to SEEPZ unit has not been withdrawn. There is no change in the facts which were in existence during the assessment year 2000-01 vis a vis the claim to exemption under section 10A of the Act. Therefore, it is not open to the department to deny the benefit of Section 10A for subsequent assessment years i. e. assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and 2004-05. Besides that, on consideration of the facts involved both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that the SEEPZ unit is not formed by splitting up of the first unit.”

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

“(5) Where any undertaking being the Unit which is entitled to the deduction under this section is transferred, before the expiry of the period specified in this section, to another undertaking, being the Unit in a scheme of amalgamation or demerger,— (a) no deduction shall be admissible under this section to the amalgamating or the demerged Unit, being the company for the previous year in which the amalgamation or the demerger takes place; and (b) the provisions of this section shall, as they would have applied to the amalgamating or the demerged Unit being the company as if the amalgamation or demerger had not taken place.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act could not be granted. Further the AO also expressed opinion that the Assessee was formed by transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used by M/S. Last Peak BPO Pvt. Ltd. and therefore there was violation of Sec.10AA(4)(iii) of the Act. 31. The CIT(A) did not decide on this issue at all. We have considered the order of the AO and are of the view that the reason given by the AO, to say the least, is frivolous. It is undisputed position that M/S. Last Peak BPO Pvt. Ltd. was enjoying STP unit status as it was in ITES. Therefore there was no question of the Assessee having been formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a unit already in existence. The Assessee is already an existing unit. The deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act is claimed for the period within 10 years contemplated by Sec. 10AA of the Act even after considering the exemption already availed by the Assessee. Even M/S. Last Peak BPO Pvt. Ltd. had not availed Sec. 10A deduction for period beyond 10 years before amalgamation with the Assessee. In such circumstances, the very basis of application of Sec. 10AA(4)(ii) & (iii) of the Act is flawed. We are of the view that the objection of the AO in this regard is without any merit.”

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

slump sale, the STPI unit now transferred to the assessee is claimed to be eligible for benefit of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. 6. The AO asked the assessee to explain specific provisions in section 10A of the Act under which it was eligible for deduction in respect of an undertaking stated to be purchased on a slump sale basis. ……… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… 14. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. It is noticed that a similar issue having identical facts has been decided by the ITAT Bench ‘B’ Bangalore in ITA No.623 & 847/Bang/2010 for the assessment years 2004- 05 & 2005-06 respectively in the case of DCIT v. M/s. LG Soft India Pvt. Ltd., order dated 19.05.2010 wherein vide para 10 it has been held as under:- “10. We considered the rival contentions and the facts of the case reflected in the orders passed by the lower authorities. As rightly pointed out by the CIT(A), the assessee’s undertaking existed in the same place, form and substance and did carry on the same business before and after the change in the legal character of the form of organization. Formerly, it was a branch establishment of non-resident company/foreign company but later on, it was converted into a subsidiary company. But for the above change of the organizational status, the same unit continued to function throughout the time. Therefore, it is quite fruitless to argue that the organizational change has caused conversion of the existing unit to a new unit. There is no such splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business in the case of a branch establishment becoming a subsidiary establishment. The assessee’s unit satisfied all the conditions stipulated in the Act and was entitled for the benefit. Therefore, as rightly held by the CIT(A), a mere organizational change is not a ground to hold that the assessee has violated the conditions stated in 10A(2)(ii). It is a case of only change in the name and style. It is clearly possible to state that there was no violation of the conditions laid down in sec. 10A(2)(iii) as well.” 15. In the present case also, the assessee undertaking existed in the same place, form and substance and did carry on the same business before and after the change in the legal character of the form of the organization. Formerly it was a branch establishment of a nonresident company/foreign company, but later on it was converted into a subsidiary company. However, for the above change of organization status, same unit continued to function throughout the time and even Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) authority vide letter dated 05.12.2005 gave the approval for transfer of STP activities of M/s. SECL to the assessee w.e.f. 01.12.2005. Therefore a mere organizational change was not a ground for the AO to hold that the assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act within the meaning of section 10A(2) of the Act.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Thus, in view of the above and respectfully following the aforesaid referred to earlier order of the coordinate Bench, we set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. 16. For the aforesaid view, we are also fortified by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. M/s. GXS Technology Centre (Pvt.) Ltd. in ITA No.616/Bang/2009 for the A.Y. 2004-05, order dated 10.08.2010 reported in wherein the relevant finding is given in para 4 & 5 which read as under:- "4. The learned departmental representative strongly supported the order of the AO while the learned counsel for assessee supported the order of the CIT(A) and also placed reliance upon the decision of the ‘B’ Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dy.CIT v. M/s. L.G. Soft India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos.623 & 847/Bang/2010 dated 19-5-2010 wherein it has been held that where an undertaking existed in the same place, form and substance and did carry on the same business before and after the change in the legal character of the form of organization, the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.K. Engg. & Forging (P) Ltd., reported in 87 Taxman 101 wherein, while considering the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80J, it was held that where the industrial undertaking run by a firm which had been allowed deduction u/s 80-J for a period of 5 years, it would be entitled to benefit of residuary period. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tech Books Electronics Services (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT wherein it was held that merely because of change in ownership the exemption cannot be denied. Another decision relied upon by him is in the case of Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT wherein it was held that where a firm is converted into a company and there was change only in the composition of ownership and not the undertaking and business, the exemption allowed to the firm u/s 10A of the Act could not be denied to the company merely because it had been separately granted recognition. 5. Having heard both the sides and having considered the rival submissions, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for assessee. The distinctions sought to be brought out by the learned Departmental Representative, in our opinion, are not relevant to the facts of the case before us. In view of the same, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed." 17. In view of the above, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.”

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

“(4) This section applies to any undertaking, being the Unit, which fulfils all the following conditions, namely:— (i) it has begun or begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide services during the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2006 in any Special Economic Zone; (ii) it is not formed by the splitting up, or the reconstruction, of a business already in existence: Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of any undertaking, being the Unit, which is formed as a result of the re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by the assessee of the business of any such undertaking as is referred to in section 33B, in the circumstances and within the period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by the transfer to a new business, of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. Explanation.—The provisions of Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (iii) of this sub-section as they apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of that sub-section.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

that the new undertaking can be said to be not formed out of the already existing business, there must be a new emergence of a physically separate industrial unit which may exist onits own as a viable unit. An undertaking is formed out of the existing business if the physical identity with the old unit is preserved.” Even though this decision was concerned with clause dealing with reconstruction of an existing business, the expression “not formed” was construed to mean that the undertaking should not be a continuation of the old but emergence of a new unit. Therefore, even if the undertaking is established by transfer of building, plant or machinery, but it is not formed as a result of such transfer, the assessee could not be denied the benefit.

“17. If the specific provisions of the Act provide [first proviso to Sections 10A(1); 10A (IA) and 10A (4)] that the unit that is contemplated for grant of benefit of deduction is the eligible undertaking and that is also how the contemporaneous Circular of the department (No.794 dated 09.08.2000) understood the situation, it is only logical and natural that the stage of deduction of the profits and gains of the business of an eligible undertaking has to be made independently and, therefore, immediately after the stage of determination of its profits and gains. At that stage the aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the provisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70, 72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The deductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the commencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter VI of the Act for arriving at the total income of the assessee from the gross total income. The somewhat discordant use of the expression “total income of the assessee” in Section 10A has already been dealt with earlier and in the overall scenario unfolded by the provisions of Section 10A the aforesaid discord can be reconciled by understanding the expression “total income of the assessee’ in Section 10A as ‘total income of the undertaking'.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

“Every scheme of amalgamation has to necessarily provide a date with effect from which the amalgamation/transfer shall take place. The scheme concerned herein does so provide viz., January 1, 1982. It is true that while sanctioning the scheme, it is open to the Court to modify the said date and prescribe such date of amalgamation/transfer as it thinks appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Court so specifies a date, there is little doubt that such date would be the date of amalgamation/date of transfer. But where the Court does not prescribe any specific date but merely sanctions the scheme presented to it - as has happened in this case - it should follow that the date of amalgamation/date of transfer is the date specified in the scheme as "the transfer date". It cannot be otherwise. It must be remembered that before applying to the Court under Section 391(1), a scheme has to be framed and such scheme has to contain a date of amalgamation/transfer. The proceedings before the court may take some time; indeed, they are bound to take some time because several steps provided by Sections 391 to 394-A and the relevant Rules have to be followed and complied with. During the period the 55

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamating units, i.e., the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company may carry on business, as has happened in this case but normally provision is made for this aspect also in the scheme of amalgamation. In the scheme before us, clause 6(b) does expressly provide that with affect from the transfer date, the Transferor Company (Subsidiary Company) shall be deemed to have carried on the business for and on behalf of the Transferee Company (Holding Company) with all attendant consequences. It is equally relevant to notice that the Courts have not only sanctioned the scheme in this case but have also not specified any other date as the date of transfer amalgamation. In such a situation, it would not be reasonable to say that the scheme of amalgamation takes effect on and from the date of the order sanctioning the scheme. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer (impugned in the writ petition) were not warranted in law. The business carried on by the Transferor Company (Subsidiary Company) should be deemed to have been carried on for and on behalf of the Transferee Company. This is the necessary and the logical consequence of the court sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation as presented to it. The order of the Court sanctioning the scheme, the filing of the certified copies of the orders of the court before the Registrar of Companies, the allotment or shares etc. may have all taken place subsequent to the date of amalgamation/transfer, yet the date of amalgamation in the circumstances of this case would be January 1, 1982. This is also the ratio of the decision of the Privy Council in Raghubar Dayal v. The Bank of Upper India Ltd. [A.I.R.1919 P.C.9]. Counsel for the Revenue contended that if the aforesaid view is adopted when several complications will ensue in case the Court refuses to sanction the scheme of amalgamation. We do not see any basis for this apprehension. Firstly, an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company. Secondly, and probably the more advisable course from the point of view of the Revenue would be to make one assessment on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both of Transferor or Transferee Companies and also to make separate protective assessments on both the Transferor and Transferee Companies separately. There may be a certain practical difficulty in adopting this course inasmuch as separate balance-sheets may not be available for the Transferor and Transferee Companies. But that may not be an insuperable problem inasmuch as assessment can always be made, on the available material, even without a balance- sheet. In certain cases, best-judgment assessment may also be resorted to. Be that as it may, we need not purpose this line of enquiry because it does not arise for consideration in these cases directly.”

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

separate audited books of account maintained by the assessee company for each of the unit which are also supported by audit report, the quantum of deduction can never be separately disputed. We find the assessee itself has computed the business income for each of the unit independently the details of which are already given in the preceding para. Once separate books of accounts maintained have been accepted, the quantum of the claim cannot be tinkered on surmises and conjectures by alleging in a vague manner that expenditure or revenue has been diverted to another unit. 74. We find, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Quest Informatics (P) Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:- “3. The assessee is an Indian company engaged in the business of computer software development and business processing out source. During the financial year 2005-06, the assessee was running its business from a non-STPI unit under a rented premises. In this period the party has applied for permission to set up the STPI unit at the ground floor of the said premises. The STPI authorities granted approval for setting up of the STPI unit for development of computer service/IT enabled services (TIES) on February 31, 2006. The assessee started the business in the newly set up unit during the financial year 2006-07. The assessee also continued to carry out its business from the non-STPI unit also. Separate books of account were maintained by the assessee for the STPI unit and the non-STPI unit. In respect of the STPI unit the claim for deduction under section 10A made by the assessee was rejected on the ground that the STPI unit is found by splitting of the existing unit. In appeal, on appreciation of the material on record, the said order was set aside and the benefit under section 10A was extended to the STPI unit and the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has confirmed the same. 4. This court had an occasion to consider the similar question in the case of CIT v. Wipro GE Medical System Ltd. reported in [2015] 4 ITR-OL 288 (Karn) : [2014] 226 Taxman 156 (Karn), and in the case of CIT v. Maxim India Integrated Circuit Design (P.) Ltd. reported in [2011] 202 Taxman 365 (Karn) and CIT Vs. Expert Outsource (P) Ltd., [2013] 358 ITR 518 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 481 (Kar.).

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) allowing such relief, we uphold the same.”

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Similarly the assessee in its reply dated 21st November, 2016 has stated as 77. under:-

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

becomes a non-issue. In our opinion, the allegation of the AO that the entire expenses have not been added back and it is a clear admission on the part of the assessee that resources of non-SEZ units have been used for earning of revenue in SEZ units is concerned, this also, in our opinion, is a vague finding without any basis. Mere add back of certain expenses from eligible profits of eligible unit which is accepted in the order of assessment cannot be a basis to assume that the resources of non-SEZ units have been used for earning the revenue in SEZ units. So far as the allegation of the ld. CIT, DR that the assessee has failed to submit specific details to specific queries during the course of assessment proceedings is concerned, we find from the paper book that the assessee has in fact filed detailed reply before the AO to the queries raised point-wise. Therefore, this allegation of the ld. CIT, DR in our opinion is without any basis.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

same is of no consequences. At best the AO could have reduced the net expenditure claimed from the deduction under section 10AA of the Act and nothing more but the same could not be a reason for the AO to deny the claim of deduction under section 10AA. Therefore, to suggest that there is fictitious arrangement and the entire resources of Chennai unit or Hyderabad unit have been utilised for earning tax free income of SEZ unit is not justified. Suspicion, surmises and conjectures however strong may be cannot be a basis for disallowing a claim of detection. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA. Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

income of Rs.82,88,099/- cannot be considered as profits and gains derived from export of article/things from services as necessitated in section 10AA. He, therefore, excluded this income from the profits of undertakings for computation of eligible profits of the eligible undertakings and made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

services as necessitated under section 10AA of the Act, therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in considering the same as business income eligible for deduction under section 10AA of the Act.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

i) CIT vs. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd.; ii) CIT vs. Hindustan Gem & Chemicals Ltd., 72 taxmann.com 90 (Cal); iii) CIT vs. Chinna Nachimuthu Constructions,297 ITR 70 (Kar); iv) Satishchandra & Co. vs. CIT, 234 ITR 70 (Kar): and v) M/s Green Agro Pack P. Ltd. vs. CIT, ITA No.3112 of 2010 (Kar.).

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

v) ITA No. 51/Bang/2008, A.Y. 2004-05 dated 14.8.2008 Rajesh Exports Ltd. vs. ACIT vi) ITA No. 2010/Kol/2006 dated 25.6.2007and ITA Nos 1296 and 1490/Kol/2007 dated 30.10.2007 Cheviot Co. Ltd. vii) 17 SOT 54 (Mum) Mercator Lines Ltd. v. DCIT viii) 17 DTR 496 (Del) DCIT v. Sudhir Genset Ltd.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

High Court in the case CIT vs Motorola India Electronics Private Limited, 265 CTR 94 while deciding an identical issue has observed as under:- "In s. 801A, the term "profits and gains from the business has been used. Similar terminology has been used m many other sections such as s. 80JJ or 80JJA, etc., whereas under s- 801 and other sections the terminology used is "profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking". The term "from the business of’ is much wider than the term "derived from industrial undertaking.’ Keeping this distinction in mind, we have to necessarily hold that the entire profits derived from the business of undertaking should be taken into consideration, while computing the eligible deduction under s.10B/10A of the Act, by applying the mandatory formula.” "The issue becomes further clear when we look into the provisions of s. 80HHC which are similar, as far as the education (sic) of deduction is concerned. As the legislature wanted to specifically exclude receipts by way of brokerage, commission, rent, charges or any other receipt of similar nature, from "the profits of the business, in s. 80HHC, it has specifically inserted Expln. (baa). If the legislature intended to exclude interest from the term ‘profit of business of undertakings’ under s. 10A/10B, a similar provision as in the case of Expln, (baa) would have been inserted. No such Explanation has been introduced in s. 10A/10B."

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

"The word 'derived' is not defined in the Act. Hence we resort to the dictionary meaning of the same. The Oxford illustrated Dictionary defines the word 'derived' as 'get, obtain from a source, have one's or it's origin from, be descended or have one's.' In the case of a 100% export oriented unit, the origin or source of export benefits in the form of import entitlement is the business of export only. The scheme of the Govt, is only an enabling factor. The judgment of Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods (supra) is, therefore, distinguishable, since the present issue is u/s. 10A and not u/s. 80HH as in the said case of Sterling Foods (supra)" Further, the decision in Menon Impex and other decisions following it are no longer an authority. This is for the reason that the decision in Menon Impex was rendered in the context of section 10A, and pertained to the assessment year 1985-86. The law itself has undergone a change with the substitution of section 10A with effect from 01.04.2001. On this ground in AC1T v. Motorola India Electronics (P) Ltd., reported in 112 TTJ 562 (Bang), the tribunal held that the decisions in Menon Impex and those relying on Menon Impex have no application to substituted section 10A and similar provisions. The use of the words "profits of the business of the undertaking" in section 10AA(7) is very broad. This due to the fact that the two over lapping terms "business" and "business of the undertaking" forming part of the above expression are very broad in themselves. The term 'business' has been understood in a very broad sense by the Supreme Court in Continental Construction Ltd v. C1T, reported in 195 ITR 81 (SC) so as to include all activities, obligations and commitments which are incidental or ancillary to the operating part of the business. In the context of section 80HHB, the Supreme Court observed: "The expressions "business of execution of a foreign project" or work forming part of it or the 'profits derived' from the business, take in all aspects of a business involving the activities referred to in Sub-section (2) (b) of Section 80-HHB together with all activities, commitments and obligations ancillary and incidental thereto and the profits flowing therefrom." The act of securing a letter of credit facility for imports with fixed deposits will be an activity incidental and connected with export business of assessee. Any income there from, including interest income will constitute profits of the business of the undertaking."

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

“41. The other connected issue is that as per the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax, the interest income in question being derived by the assessee from Indian Bank, the same is to be excluded while computing profits derived from the export of articles or things or services for the purpose of section 10AA of the Act. Sub-section (7) of section 10AA provides the manner in which the profits derived from "export of articles or things or services" is to be computed for the purposes of section 10AA of the Act. Therefore, in view of the above specific provision in the section itself, "profits derived from the export of articles or things or services" cannot be computed in any other manner. Sub-section (7) of Section 1GAA reads as under: "For the purposes of sub-section (1), the profits derived from the export of articles or things or services (including computer software) shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, being the Unit:, the same proportion as turnover of the business carried on [by the undertaking]: [Provided that the provisions of this sub-section [as amended by section 6 of the Finance (No. 2.) Act, 2009 (33 of 2009)] shall have effect for the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2006 and subsequent assessment years.]" 93. We find Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Ossian Exports Ltd., vide ITA No.1650/Mum/2015, has observed as under:- “7.3.3 We are of the considered opinion that the said interest receipts earned by the assessee out of FDs kept with banks by way of margin money made for the purposes of the assessee's business of import/export trading in diamonds, constitutes business receipts/income and is therefore eligible for deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. We hold and direct accordingly. Consequently assessee's appeal on grounds 1 to 3 is allowed.” 94. We find following the above decisions and various other decisions the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act on the interest income and ‘other income.’ The ld. CIT-DR could not distinguish the various decisions relied on by the ld. CIT(A). In view of the above discussion and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A), while allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 10AA & interest income and other

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

income, we do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 95. Ground of appeal No. 3 by the Revenue reads as under:- “3. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.8,40,46,029/- made by the AO on account of Depreciation claimed on goodwill.”

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Further, the assessee was having set chain of the supply of insurance for specified software for the insurance industry which the assessee has purchased from Planet Online Private Limited. Therefore, he held that the depreciation on goodwill is actually construed as depreciation of non-compete fee in the light of the given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, relying on various decisions the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation of Rs.8,40,46,029/-.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

held that there is no acquisition of non competition agreement, it is restricted one and 'therefore, such a sum is not eligible for the capital assets under section 32(1) of the Act. It was held that expression 'similar business of commercial rights' has to be necessarily result in an intangible asset against the entire world to be eligible for the deprecation. The said judgment has no application on the facts of the instant case more particularly when there is no independent agreement and there is no specified consideration for non- compete fee having been paid by the company. It is well settled law that an agreement is to be read as such. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: a) 288 ITR 408 (SC) of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries ltd. s BIT b) 341 ITR 1 (SC) Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v UOI c) 173 ITR 479 (SC) C1T v Arvind Narottam The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. reported in 302 ITR 249 while examining the nature of non-compete fee laid the stress on the length of period of restriction. The Hon'ble Court referring to Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Coat Shipment's case reported in 82 ITR 902 (SC) has observed that payment made to ward off the competition in a business to a rival dealer would constitute capital expenditure if the object of making that payment is to derive an advantage by eliminating the competition over some length of time, the same result would not follow if there is no certainty of the duration of the advantage and the same can be put to an end at any time, it was held that, "How long the period of contemplated advantage should be in order to constitute enduring benefit would depend upon the circumstances and the facts of each individual case." The Hon'ble Court also observed that, "to decide whether an expenditure of this nature is a capital expenditure or not would depend on the facts of the case. However, it is necessary to know whether the advantage derived by the prayer is of an enduring nature, and for this one of the considerations is the length of time for which the non-compete agreement would operate although that is not decisive. While the length of time for which computation is eliminated may not strictly be decisive in all cases, yet, at the same time, it should not be so brief as to virtually be transitory. The Court finally held that, "the assessee did not acquire any capital asset by making the payment of non-compete fee of 4 crores. It merely eliminated completion in the two wheeler business, for a definite period of time." Therefore, the expenditure was held to be revenue in nature. 5.3 In view thereof, claim of non-compete fee without payment of any consideration is though a part and parcel of the agreement and provided on

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

account of commercial expediency and business necessity, yet the same cannot be made a basis to hold that excess of consideration paid over, the book value assets is not goodwill, but payment for non compete fee as claimed by the Assessing Officer. The judgment relied by the Assessing Officer to deny the eligible deduction of depreciation on the goodwill has been given in the different context and has no connection with the facts of the given case In view of the above, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the depreciation of Rs.8,40,26,029/- and modify the order of assessment accordingly” 102. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Smifs Securities Ltd. (supra), he submitted that the Hon’ble apex court has held that excess consideration paid by the assessee over the value of net assets acquired of amalgamating company and considered as goodwill arising on amalgamation was, in fact, paid towards the reputation which the amalgamating company was enjoying in order to retain its existing clientele. It was, thus, held that such goodwill is eligible intangible asset for depreciation. Referring to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Triune Energy Services (P) Limited vs DCIT, 237 Taxman 230 (Del), he submitted that the Tribunal following the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court under identical circumstances has deleted the disallowance. Relying on various other decisions, he submitted that the CIT(A) is fully justified in deleting the depreciation on goodwill.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

to the ld. counsel shows that the money paid and determined as consideration based on the valuation report and accepted in the agreement with M/s Planet Online Private Ltd. are in respect of goodwill and not in respect of non-compete fee. He submitted that non-compete fee was an incidental obligation of M/s Planet Online Pvt. Ltd. and there was no separate consideration paid towards non- compete fees. He submitted that as per various judicial precedents it has been consistently recognised and held that any sum paid over and above the book value is to be held as exclusive unless there is an agreement to the contrary and, thus, in absence of an agreement to the contrary in any manner holding that the sum is paid towards non-compete fee is absolutely misplaced and untenable.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

Court after considering the judgement of the apex court in the case of Techno Shares and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. and the judgement in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (supra) held that there is no acquisition of non-competition agreement, it is restricted one and, therefore, such sum is not eligible capital asset u/s 32(1) of the Act. It was held that expression ‘similar business of commercial rights’ has to necessarily result in an intangible asset against the entire world to be eligible for depreciation. He submitted that the said judgement has no application on the facts of the instant case when there is no independent agreement and there is no specified consideration for non-compete fees having been paid by the assessee company. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that agreement is to be read as such:- a) 288 ITR 408 (SC) of Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. vs. DIT b) 341 ITR 1 (SC) Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v UOI c) 173 ITR 479 (SC) CIT v Arvind Narottam

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

section 32(1)(ii) r.w. agreement, copy of which is placed on the paper book. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue be dismissed.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals above, and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, and intending to be legally bound, Purchaser and Seller agree as follows: ARTICLE I General Provisions 1.1 Definitions. Appendix A to this Agreement sets forth the definitions of certain terms used in this Agreement. 1.2 Other Definitions and Meanings: Interpretation. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Party” means (except where the context otherwise requires) Purchaser or Seller; the term “Parties” means (except where the context otherwise requires) Purchaser and Seller together; the term “person” includes any natural person, firm, association,- partnership, corporation, governmental agency, or other entity other than the parties; and the words “hereof’, “herein”, “hereby” and other words of similar import refer to this Agreement as a whole. The headings of the Articles and Sections of this Agreement have been included for convenience of reference only and shall not be deemed to affect the meaning of the operative provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE II Purchase and Sale 2.1 Transaction. On and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, with effect from June 1, 2012 (“Transfer Date”), Seller sells, conveys, transfers, assigns, grants and delivers to the Purchaser and Purchaser purchases, acquires and receives from Seller its business undertakings as a going concern, as a slump sale, that is to say, all of the, Assets, Transferred Employees, Liabilities, Licenses, Contracts and Receivables, as defined in Definitions Schedule relating to the Business, free and clear of all liens, mortgages, pledges, security interests, restrictions, prior assignments, encumbrances and claims of every kind, nature or character (hereafter referred to as‘the business undertaking’. 2.2 Purchase Price. As sole and entire consideration for the purchase of the business undertaking, Purchaser shall pay to the Seller a purchase price of Rupee Equivalent of USD 7.0 million on and subject to the terms of Article III herein below. 2.3 Assets. The term “Assets” means all tangible and intangible assets, properties, and rights used by the Seller to carry out the Business as specifically reflected in the list of Assets as set out in Exhibit 1 hereto. Seller shall deliver to the Purchaser such bills of sale, assignments, endorsements, and other recordable instruments of assignment, transfer,

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

conveyance, in respect of the above Assets, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Purchaser and its counsel, as shall be effective to vest in the Purchaser all of the right, title and interest of Seller in and to the Assets free and clear of all Liens. 2.4 Liabilities. The term “Liabilities” means all liabilities and obligations of the Seller as of the Transfer Date arising out of the Business. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is expressly understood that the Liabilities shall exclude the following liabilities and obligations; (a) All liabilities and obligations incurred by the Seller in connection with the conduct of its businesses other than the Business; (b) All liabilities as of Transfer Date, in excess of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), reasonably known to the Seller and not disclosed to the Purchaser relating to the Business. However, it is clarified that any liability not known to Seller and discovered after Transfer Date by either party shall be bome by the Purchaser. The Seller warrants that all known liabilities as on the Transfer date have been disclosed to the Purchaser. 2.5 Contracts. The term “Contracts” means all contracts, agreements, sub- contracts, memoranda, letter-agreements and other agreements and obligations of a similar nature arising out of or pertaining to the Business and which are to be assigned to the Purchaser pursuant to this Agreement. Seller shall provide to the Purchaser, prior to the Transfer Date, a status report of all performed and pending obligations and under each such Contract. 2.6 Receivables. The term, “Receivables” means all account Receivables which is outstanding for less than 181 days as of Transfer Date, associated with the Business. ARTICLE III Purchase Price 3.1 Purchase Price. For purposes hereof, the term “Purchase Price” means Rupee Equivalent of USD 7.0 million which has been arrived at based on the valuation report commissioned by the Purchaser. 3.2 Payment Schedule. The Purchase Price shall be paid by way of a bank wire, in favour of the Seller, immediately on execution of this agreement. The Seller shall upon execution of this agreement, prior to the payment, take all actions for completion of all transfer formalities i.e. (a) Transfer of control over Assets (b) Transfer of Employees (c) Transfer of Customers (d) Transfer of Suppliers.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

3.3 Adjustment. The Purchase Price shall be adjusted by such amount of the Receivable that have been transferred to the Purchaser but are realized by the Seller and such amount of payables as are transferred to the Purchaser and paid by the Seller. 3.4 It is clearly understood between the Parties that any amounts collected by Seller on or after payment of full consideration, from the Receivables transferred, shall be promptly transferred by Seller in favor of Purchaser.”

Similarly, article 9 of the agreement read as under:- “ARTICLE IX 9.1 Non Compete. In consideration for the purchase of Business, including the goodwill connected therewith, by the Purchaser, Seller agrees for a period of two years from the Transfer Date, not to directly or through an associate/Agent carry on or cause to carry on any business which is in competition with the Business.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

for non-compete fees. On the contrary, the entire purchase price has been paid for purchase of the business undertaking and undertaking has been defined to include assets, liabilities, contracts and receivables and not in connection with a non- compete fees. There is no consideration paid by the assessee for non-complete fee. A perusal of the valuation report, copy of which is placed at pages 117 to 139 of the paper book, shows that it has determined the valuation of the business and does not refer in any manner to non-compete fees. Even the method of valuation as adopted in the valuation report is a discounted cash flow method of the revenue for the succeeding years which itself which itself establishes the submission of the ld. counsel that amount has been paid for the goodwill of the assessee and not for non- compete fees. Further the non-compete clause is for a period of 2 years, i.e., for the period from 01.05.2012 to 30th April 2014 whereas the revenue as per the valuation report is for financial year 2012-13 to financial year ended March, 2007. The clause of non-compete fee without payment of any consideration is a part and parcel of the agreement provided on account of commercial expediency and business necessity. Such clause, in our opinion, cannot be made the basis to hold that the excess consideration paid over the book value of assets is not goodwill, but for payment of non-compete fee. As alleged in the order of assessment, no material has been brought on record or any enquiries have been conducted to allege that the consideration paid is for non-compete fee. There is no dispute between the assessee and the Revenue that the sum paid as goodwill by the assessee represents the difference between the purchase price of the business and the net value of 88

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

assets acquired on slump sale. The only dispute between the assessee and the Revenue is that according to the Revenue the amount of difference between the purchase price and the value of the assets should be allocated to non-compete fee in view of article IX of the agreement. However, in the light of the clear provision of Article II and III of the agreement, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid argument of the Revenue.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

"In accordance with Scheme of Amalgamation of YSN Shares & Securities (P) Ltd with Smifs Securities Ltd (duly sanctioned by Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta) with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1998, assets and liabilities of YSN Shares & Securities (P) Ltd were transferred to and vest in the company. In the process goodwill has arisen in the books of the company." 2. It was further explained that excess consideration paid by the assessee over the value of net assets acquired of YSN Shares and Securities Private Limited [Amalgamating Company] should be considered as goodwill arising on amalgamation. It was claimed that the extra consideration was paid towards the reputation which the Amalgamating Company was enjoying in order to retain its existing clientele. 3. The Assessing Officer held that goodwill was not an asset falling under Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['Act', for short]. We quote hereinbelow Explanation 3 to Section 32(1) of the Act: "Explanation 3.-- For the purposes of this sub-section, the expressions 'assets' and 'block of assets' shall mean— [a] tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture; [b] intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature." 4. Explanation 3 states that the expression 'asset' shall mean an intangible asset, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. A reading the words 'any other business or commercial rights of similar nature' in clause (b) of Explanation 3 indicates that goodwill would fall under the expression 'any other business or commercial right of a similar nature'. The principle of ejusdem generis would strictly apply while interpreting the said expression which finds place in Explanation 3(b). 5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that 'Goodwill' is an asset under Explanation 3(b) to Section 32( 1) of the Act. 6. One more aspect needs to be highlighted. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, as a matter of fact, came to the conclusion that no amount was actually paid on account of goodwill. This is a factual finding. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ‘(CIT(A)', for short has come to the conclusion that the authorised representatives had filed copies of the Orders of the High Court ordering amalgamation of the above two Companies: that the assets and liabilities of M/s. YSN Shares and Securities Private Limited were transferred to the assessee for a consideration; that the difference between the

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

cost of an asset and the amount paid constituted goodwill and that the assessee-Company in the process of amalgamation had acquired a capital right in the form of goodwill because of which the market worth of the assessee- Company stood increased. This finding has also been upheld by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘ITAT', for short. We see no reason to interfere with the factual finding. 7. One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is that, against the decision of 1TAT, the Revenue had preferred an appeal to the High Court in which it had raised only the question as to whether goodwill is an asset under Section 32 of the Act. In the circumstances, before the High Court, the Revenue did not file an appeal on the finding of fact referred to hereinabove. 8. For the afore-stated reasons, we answer Question No.[b] also in favour of the assessee.” 111. We find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Triune Energy Services (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT,237 Taxman 230 has decided identical issue and following the above decision of Hon’ble apex court has allowed depreciation on goodwill by observing as under:- "19. In view of the above, we are inclined to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee that the consideration paid by the Assessee in excess of its value of tangible assets was rightly classified as goodwill. 20. In the facts of the present case, the ITAT has rejected the view that the slump sale agreement was a colourable device. Once having held so, the agreement between the parties must be accepted in its totality. The Agreement itself does not provide for splitting up of the intangibles into separate components. Indisputably, the transaction in question is a slump sale which does not contemplate separate values to be ascribed to various assets (tangible and intangible) that constitute the business undertaking, which is sold and purchased. The Agreement itself indicates that slump sale included sale of goodwill and the balance sheet drawn up on 22nd September, 2006 specifically recorded goodwill at Rs.40,58,75,529.40/-. As indicated hereinbefore Goodwill includes a host of intangible assets, which a person acquires, on acquiring a business as a going concern and valuing the same at the excess consideration paid over and above the value of net tangible assets is an acceptable accounting practice. Thus, a further exercise to value the goodwill is not warranted.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017

CIT(A) on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.5275/Del/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) 114. Ground of appeal No.1 by the Revenue reads as under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,26,98,41,758/- made by the AO on account of business income from 6 units.

ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017