COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. VETO ELECTROPOWERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the Department has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Department.

(2.) While admitting the matter on 10.04.2013, the court has framed the following question of law:-

(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/s Anjali Exports was established in the year 2001 and was claiming deduction u/s 10B. On 24.03.2007, M/s Veto Electro Power was converted into company named M/s Veto Electro Power Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Veto Electro Power Pvt. Ltd. has signed another MOU for purchase of M/s Anjali Exports on 15.01.2007 and the assessee firm has shown purchase of M/s Anjali Exports retrospectively from 01.04.2006. Similarly, MOU signed by M/s Veto Electro Power Pvt. Ltd. On 24.03.2007 and purchase of M/s Anjali Exports was shown retrospectively from 01.04.2006. The books of accounts of M/s Anjali Exports are not maintained separately. The books of accounts of M/s Anjali Exports and M/s Veto Electro Power are merged. No separate audit of these accounts was made. In case of assessee following points have emerged