1 Reserved Court No. - 10 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 82 of 2015 (Assessment Year 2007-08) Appellant :- Mku (Armours) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Kanpur Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Garg,Ashsih Bansal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Alongwith Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 81 of 2015 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Appellant :- Mku Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Kanpur Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Garg,Ashish Bansal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Alongwith Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 36 of 2015 (Assessment Year 2008-09) Appellant :- Mku Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Commissioner Of Income Tax Kanpur Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Garg,Ashish Bansal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J. Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J. (Delivered By:- Arun Tandon,J.) 1. These three appeals have been filed by assessees against common order, dated 21.11.2014 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow in I.T.A. Nos.612, 401 and 2 152/Lko/2012 for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09; and 2009-10 respectively. 2. Common question of law as raised in all these appeals is as follows:- Whether in facts and in circumstances of case, assessee is entitled to benefit under Section 10-B of Income Tax Act.? 3. facts are more or less identical in all these appeals. For purpose of adjudication, facts as on record of Income Tax Appeal No.82 of 2015 are being referred. 4. 'appellant company' has set up industrial undertaking at 118-E, Shyam Nagar, Kanpur. It is 100% export unit, as per certificate granted by Central Government under Section 14 of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. assessee, during period under consideration, was engaged in manufacture of 'Ballistic Helmet' and 'Bullet Proof (bullet resistant) Jackets (hereinafter called 'Helmet and Jackets'). 5. assessee claimed benefit under Section 10B of Income Tax Act, which was denied by A.O. But C.I.T.(A) has allowed claim of 3 assessee. However, Tribunal has restored order of A.O. Being aggrieved, assessees have knocked door of this Court by filing present appeals. 6. Sri S. K. Garg assisted by Sri Ashish Bansal, advocate on behalf of assessees, submitted that assessee company being '100% EOU' qualifies for exemption on purchase of raw materials meant for manufacturing under section 3B of Trade Tax Act. Similarly, exemption under Section 10B of Income Tax Act is allowable to assessee. 7. On 25.2.2008, survey under Section 133A was carried out at factory premises of assessee situated at 118E, Shyam Nagar, Kanpur. Certain documents and books of account were found and seized. On spot only 17 machines were found installed at factory premises, though assessee had claimed that 94 machines were used for manufacture. 77 machines were found at 'jacket division' of M/s MKU Pvt. Limited, 30 UPSIDC, Malwan & Salempur (Rooma). seized loose papers i.e. two bills dated 7.3.2005 and 9.3.2005 disclosed engagement of cranes and labours for shifting of Hydraulic Press Machine to Malwan. 8. On facts of case, A.O. opined that 4 assessee is not 100% manufacturing unit, as maximum machines were installed at another division, doing manufacturing on its behalf. 9. Learned Counsel contended that survey can have no bearing on assessment of MKU (Armours) Private Ltd. for reason that with effect from 1.4.2007, entire industrial undertaking of assessee had been transferred to MKU Private Ltd. with due approval of authorities concerned. In other words, manufacturing actually had been out sourced . It is also submission of learned counsel that A.O. has wrongly denied claim under Section 10B of Act. learned counsel further submits that assessee is 100% export unit . Even if manufacturing of some items has been out sourced and assembling is done by assessee even then assessee is entitled for benefit under Section 10-B. 10. For purpose, learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards affidavit dated 11.6.2010, sworn by one Mr. Manish Khandelwal, Director of company, where it is mentioned commercial production of 100% EOU was started w.e.f 1.11.2004. Some job work process was carried out from time to time on out sourcing basis 5 after obtaining due permission from Superintendent (Customs) Central Excise Division-III, Kanpur. Since manufactured items, to be exported, were as per specific requirement of buyers of foreign countries so job work was got done from specialized out sourcing unit , and such outsourcing work was always under control and personal supervision of assessee. All plant and machinery installed by company M/s MKU (Armous) Pvt. Limited were new and were never used previously for any other purpose. It is also submission of learned counsel that managerial and technical staff was available with assessee for direct control and supervision of goods to be manufacture through outsourcing. 11. C.I.T.(A) has already verified this fact as mentioned in his order dated 15.7.2010. C.I.T. (A) found that only part of manufacturing activity of 'Ballistic Helmets' and 'Bullet Proof (bullet resistant) Jackets' was out sourced. entire raw material needed for job work was procured by assesee company and sent to site of job worker with due permission of Excise Authorities. job work was carried out by job worker, under supervision of staff of assessee. After job work, product was returned to assessee factory, where final product was assembled, 6 packed and dispatched to overseas buyers. 12. Learned counsel, further submitted that powers of first appellate authority are co- terminus with power of A.O. as per ratio laid down in case of Jute Corporation of India Vs. C.I.T. 187 ITR SC 688, 693. In support of his submissions counsel for assessee relied upon ratio laid down in following cases:- (i). Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Talwar Khuller (P.) Ltd. [1999] 235 ITR 70 (All); (ii). Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prabhudas Kishordas Tobacco Products P. Ltd. [2006] 282 ITR 568 (Guj.); (iii). Liberty Group of Marketing Division Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 294 ITR 294 ITR 61 (P&H). Regarding allegation of splitting up and reconstruction, he placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements:- (i). CIT Vs. Quality Steel Tubes P. Ltd. [2006] 280 ITR 254 (All); (ii). CIT Vs. Starlight Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 280 ITR 37 (Guj). (iii). Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 195; (iv). Hindustan Malleables and Forgings Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer [1978] 112 ITR 389 (Patna) (v). CIT Vs. Simmonds Marshall Ltd. [1986] 7 161 ITR 817 13. On other hand, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for department has supported impugned order. On strength of written submission, he submits that earlier, assessee company was known as A.R. Plimsol. In year 2004-05 it was renamed as MKU Armor Pvt. assessee has used old machinery. assessee was not involved in any manufacturing activity. It had outsourced manufactuer of goods and had no direct supervision and control. assessee is not entitled to exemption under Section 10-B of Income Tax Act. In support of his arguments he relied on ratio laid down in following cases:- (i). Commissioner of Central Excise, Chenai II Commissionerate Vs. F. Harley and Company (2010) 9 SCC 104; (ii). Grasim Industries Vs. Union of India (2011) 10 SCC 653; (iii). Union of India Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills AIR 1963 SC 791; (iv). Deepkiran Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1 [2014] 46 taxmann 415 (Gujrat); and (v). Brook Bond India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2004] 269 ITR 232 (Calcutta). 14. Lastly, learned counsel for department submits that most of activities are outsourced and very small part of manufacture was 8 undertaken by assessee. This is established from fact that expenses incurred by way of job charges paid to outsourcing unit during period under consideration was 8.5 time more than expenses incurred on wages and salary of staff of assessee. very small amount was spent on power, fuel and water (i.e. Rs.5.98 lacs only). conclusion drawn by C.I.T.(A) is incorrect and order passed by Tribunal is reasonable. 15. We have heard both parties and gone through material available on record. For facilitation, Section 10B of Income Tax Act is reproduced below:- Sec.10B (2) This Section applied to any undertaking which fulfills all following conditions, namely:- (i) it manufactures or produces any articles or things or things computer software; (ii) it is not formed by splitting up, or reconstruction, of business already in existence; Provided that this condition shall not apply in respect of under-taking which is formed as result of re-establishment, reconstruction or revival by assessee of business of any such undertaking as is referred to in section 33B, in circumstances and within period specified in that section; (iii) it is not formed by transfer to new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose. 9 16. From records, it appears that during year under consideration, part of activity connected with manufacturing of 'Ballistic Helmets' and 'Bullet Proof (bullet resistant) Jackets' had been outsourced, for which job charges had been paid to job worker, who were none else but sister concern of assessee, by name of MKU Pvt. Ltd. job charges were paid in continuation to similar job charges paid in preceding two assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 which were 1st year and 2nd year respectively of existence of '100% EOU'. Copies of agreements executed for job works connected with manufacture of Ballistic Helmets and Bullet Proof (bullet resistant) Jackets effecting from 1.4.2006 had been placed before Tribunal, which form part of paper book before us also. In said agreements, overall flow chart for manufacturing of Ballistic Helmets and Bullet Proof (bullet resistant) Jackets disclosed. Manufacture of Ballistic Helmets involves 14 stages and manufacturing of Bullet Proof (bullet resistant) Jackets involves 7 stages. Out of such 14 and 7 stage, only 5th and 3rd stages respectively had been outsourced. Rest of activities were carried out in industrial site of assessee situated at 118E, Shyam Nagar, Kanpur. 17. We have also examined manufacturing 10 process of final products with help of photographs at various stages. During course of arguments, learned counsel for assessee points out that 'outsourcing' was limited to certain well defined 'process' and did not cover manufacturing of entire products. Looking to very critical and sensitive nature of final products entire outsourcing was under control and supervision of managerial and technical personnel of assessee company available with it. 18. Under circumstances 'outsourcing' was limited only to part of overall manufacturing activities as were needed to be carried on for purpose of finished products in form of Ballistic Helmets and Bullet Proof (bullet resistant) Jackets. Section 10-B provides for exemption on manufacture or produce. word 'manufacture' has been defined as under:- (a). Section 10AA (iii). manufacture shall have same meaning as assigned to it in clause (r) of section 2 of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. (b) Section 2(r) (Special Economic Zones Act 2005) manufacturer means to make, produce, fabricate, assemble, process or bring into existence by hand or machine, new product having distinctive name, character or use and shall include processes such as refrigeration, cutting, polishing, blending, repair remaking, re-engineering and includes agriculture, aquaculture, animal husbandry, 11 floriculture, horticulture, pisciulture, poultry, sericulture, viticulture and mining (c). Inserted by Finance Act 2009 (29BA) manufacture , with its grammatical variations, means change in non-living physical object or article or thing - (a) resulting in transformation of object or article or thing into new and distinct object or article or thing having different name, character and use: or (b) brining into existence of new and distinct object or article or thing with different chemical composition or integral structure. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation (No.1) (1991) 188 ITR 370 decided by this Court it was observed:- assessee imported innumerable components of tractor. These various parts were first assembled together in turn resulted in tractor. components imported by assessee did not have propulsion and could not be called tractor. assessee claimed that its activity required labour, skill and management and that it was industrial undertaking which manufactured or produced articles and was entitled to relief under Sections 80-I and 80- J of Income Tax Act, 1961. Tribunal held that assessee was industrial undertaking in so far it was engaged in assembling of tractors: In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Prabhudas Kishordas Tobacco Products P. Ltd. (2006) ITR 568 (Guj) it was observed that:- that tendu leaves and tobacco, which are used 12 as inputs, do not retain their independent identity after bidis are rolled after undergoing several process. Commercially, final product is known in trade as distinct commodity and has separate market. Furthermore, merely because assessee gets work done through contract workers, in other words, enters into contract with workers and pays them per piece relief could not be denied. test is whether outside agency works directly under supervision and control of assessee, it being immaterial whether processing is done by workers employed by assessee at place outside premises of assessee. In relation to additional reason given by Assessing Officer for denying relief under section 80-I of Act, both determining whether unit is small scale industrial undertaking or not, while ascertaining monetary limit laid down in provision, all assets of business were not to be taken into consideration. Tribunal was justified in treating activities carried on by assessee as amounting to manufacture of bidis, entitling assessee to relief under section 80HH and 80-I In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Penwalt India Ltd. (1992) 196 ITR 813 (Bom) it was observed that:- assessee would be said to be engaged in manufacturing activity if he is doing part of manufacturing activity by himself and, for rest of it, engages services of somebody else on contract other than contract of purchase. 13 assessee canvassed orders for supplying, erecting and commissioning sugar and tea machinery. assessee's activity consisted of (I) canvassing of orders, (ii) preparing of designs and drawings on basis of orders, (iii) placing orders for manu8facture of machinery with TH, (iv) to see that manufacturing process is carried on by TH under direct supervision of assessee- company, (v) to have check over quality and control and to be responsible for proper functioning of machinery and guarantee after sale service for stipulated period. assessee claimed special deduction under section 80-I of Income Tax Act, 1961. In case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Elgi Ultra Industries Ltd. TC(A) Nos.451 of 2006 and 218 & 219 of 2007 dated 10.8.2012 it was observed that assessee himself is not personally engaged in manufacture, would not disentitle assessee from claiming relief as one engaged in manufacturing activity, so long as assessee exercises control in work entrusted to job workers and assessee will be entitled for benefit of manufacturing:- order of authorities below show that assessee exercised supervision and control in manufacturing of parts done by job workers on materials supplied by assessee in according to specification in dyes supplied by assessee. They were subjected to quality control 14 too. Thus even though assessee had not employed its own employees, yet, fact is that at every stage assessee had extracted control over job work as though they were employees of assessee. Given fact that dyes and materials were given by assessee to job workers, who had merely bestowed their labours, case of assesee that it qualify for relief u/s 80IA has to be accepted. In case of Orient Longman Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II 130 ITR 477 it was observed that:- That though assessee as publisher would not be doing more than manuscript and preparing same for printing and book binding, yet fact that printing and book binding was done by some else did not imply that someone else was manufacturer. It was business of assessee to get books manufactured by getting manuscript, designing nature of book, finishing anticipated product and then selling product after getting it made. Therefore, assessee was industrial company within meaning of s. 2(6)(c) and was entitled to be assessed at concessional rate of tax in accordance with provision of Act. In case of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-III Cultta Vs. A. Mukherjee And Co. (P.) Ltd. (1978) ITR 719 Vol 113 it was observed that:- In order that publisher of books should be 15 manufacturer of books it is wholly unnecessary for him to be book binder himself. publisher may get books printed by any printer but printer is not manufacturer but mere contractor. In case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Agra Vs. Mubarakali Khan (1980) 123 ITR 102 it was observed that:- assessee was partner in two firms which were engaged in manufacture of biris. assessee claimed that firms were industrial undertakings as defined in Explanation to s. 5(1) (xxxi) of W.T. Act, 1957, and assessee's share in firms was exempt from tax in view of s. 5(1)(xxxii) of Act. method of manufacture of biris involved following process. firms purchased tendu leaves and tabacco and these were given to local contractors for getting biris manufactured. labourers cut useless portion of tendu leaves from all side and then cut leaves to small pieces of required size. These pieces were then rolled in shape of biris. Tobacco was filled and top portion was closed and biris were tied up with thread. biris were then brought to factory of firms and were heated for short time. They were then packed in bundles of 25 each, wrapped in specially designed paper bearing trade mark and label of firms. Therefore, from tendu leaves and tobacco, new and different article, viz., biris, emerge as result of various processes to which tendu leaves and tobacco were subjected. Therefore, firms were industrial 16 undertakings as contemplated by Explanation to s. 5(1)(xxxi) of Act and assessee was entitled to exemption of value of his shares held in two firms under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of Act. 19. In light of above discussion, we are of view that assessee is manufacturer of 'Ballistic Helmets' and 'Bullet Proof (bullet resistant) Jackets'. Only part of manufacturing activities was got done by assessee from outside agency and that to under direct control and supervision of managerial and technical staff available with assessee. Therefore, even on basis of such outsourcing assessee has to be held to be 'manufacturer' of products for which it had been approved as 100% EOU. Accordingly it cannot be denied benefit of exemption under section 10B of Act. In instant case, new product has come out at final stage. It is not case of changing label or cover of product. When totally new product came into existence after entire process then we are of view that assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 10B of Act. We set aside impugned order passed by Tribunal and restore order passed by first appellate authority pertaining to benefit of exemption under Section 10B of Income Act. 20. Having answered core issue in favour of 17 assessee we proceed to deal with appeals no. defective 81 of 2015 and 36 of 2015 which relates to MKU Private Ltd. for assessment years 2008-08 and 2009-10. In these two appeals, Tribunal has held that, since benefit under Section 10B had not been allowed to predecessor company i.e. MKU (Armours) Private Ltd. same cannot be allowed to successor i.e. MKU Private Ltd. This objection of Tribunal gets overturned in view of our finding that MKU (Armours) Private Ltd. are entitled for exemption under section 10B of Income Tax Act. 21. Suffice it to say that view of Tribunal is wholly misconceived. It may be mentioned that in terms of agreement dated 19.3.2007, effective from 1.4.2007, entire industrial undertaking, lock stock and barrel had been taken over by MKU Private Ltd. with due approval of competent authoruty as designated under Industries (Development) Regulation Act 1953 and Excise Authorities. premises of MKU (Private) Ltd., successor had duly been approved, licenses were surrendered by former in favour of later. name of implementing agency i.e. MKU Private Ltd. was substituted in place of MKU (Armours) Private Ltd., by authorities. Therefore, it is not case where part of machines have been transferred from MKU (Armours) Private Ltd. to MKU Private Ltd. 18 provisions contained in sub-section (7A) as have been inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2004, with simultaneous abolition of sub-section (9) and (9A) of section 10B, provides for continuance of benefit in favour of successor unit, for unexpired period. 22. intention behind insertion of said sub- section (7A) was clarified by CBDT circular no.7 of 2003 dated 5.9.2003 reported in (2003) 263 ITR 62 (St.) which reproduced hereunder:- 21. Allowing deduction under sections 10A and 10B, to resulting entity in case of amalgamation or demerger: 21.1 deduction under sections 10A and 10B, are not allowed to assessee where ownership or beneficial interest in undertaking is transferred by any means, due to provisions of sub-section (9) of section 10A and sub section (9) of section 10B. However, this condition is not applicable in certain cases, such as where firm or sole proprietary concern is succeeded by company as result of reorganization of business, or where as result of change in ownership, resultant entry is public limited company or venture capital company. 21.2 With view to give boost to export-led growth, and to eliminate hurdles in Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) and other modes of business restructuring, new sub-section (7A) in section 10A and new sub section (7A) in section 10B have been 19 inserted to provide that where undertaking of Indian company is transferred to another company under scheme of amalgamation or demerger, deduction shall be allowable in hands of amalgamated or resulting company. However no deduction shall be admissible under this section to amalgamating company or demerged company for previous year in which amalgamation or demerger takes place. As consequence, sub-section(9), (9A) and Explanation below thereto in sections 10A and 10B, become redundant and have been omitted. 21.3 amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2004-05 and subsequent years. [Sections 7(e), 7(f), 7(g), 8(b), 8(c) and 8(d)] 23. Needless to mention that circular, particularly beneficial circular, instruction, press note etc as issued by CBDT have got binding effect on tax administration and it is obliged under law to give effect to same un-hesitatingly, as per principle laid down in umpteen number of case laws decided by Hon'ble Apex Court, for example:- (i) Union of India & Another v Azadi Bachao Andolan and another reported in (2003) 263 ITR 706; and (ii) State of Kerla vs. Kurian Abraham Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2008) 303 ITR 284 (SC) 24. Reference may also be had to law laid down in following judgments:- 20 1. CIT Vs. Bullet International reported in (2012) 349 ITR 267 (Alld) .....There is no other provision for disallowance of benefit to assessee under section 10-A of Act. C.I.T. (A) in his order has quoted relevant extract from Board's Circular No.7/2003 dated 05/9/2003 and has come to conclusion that Board agrees that benefit is attached to undertaking and not to owner thereof. It is acknowledged legal position that beneficial circular issued by CBDT is binding on department. Reference can be made in this regard to recent judgment of Supreme Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. Comissioner of Income Tax, Thrissur, JT 2012 (2) SC 493. Paragraph 21 is reproduced below: "21. Now, we shall proceed to examine effect of circulars which are in force and are issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short, `the Board') in exercise of power vested in it under Section 119 of Act. Circulars can be issued by Board to explain or tone down rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of its provisions. These circulars have force of law and are binding on income tax authorities, though they cannot be enforced adversely against assessee. Normally, these circulars cannot be ignored. circular may not override or detract from provisions of Act but it can seek to mitigate rigour of particular provision for benefit of assessee in certain specified circumstances. So long as circular is in 21 force, it aids uniform and proper administration and application of provisions of Act. {Refer to UCO Bank, Calcutta v. Commissioner of Income Tax, W.B. (1999) 4 SCC 599]}." (Page 270) It is not disputed before us that for earlier assessment years exemptions have been granted to undertaking. In this view of matter, Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee is entitled to get exemption under Section 10-A of Act, 1961. argument of learned counsel for department that since proprietorship has been converted into partnership, therefore, this disentitles assessee to claim benefits under Section 10-A of Act,1961 does not borne out either from plain language of sub-sections (9) and (9A) of Section 10-A of Act, 1961 or in view of Circular of CBDT referred to above. No substantial question of law is involved in appeal. (Page 270 & 271) (Section 10A & 10B are peri-materia with each other) 2. Woco Motherson Elastomer Ltd. Elastomer Ltd. Vs. Deputy CIT (Delhi Tribunal) reported in 36 Taxman.com 534.(2013) 59 SOT 147 (judgment dated 17th May, 2013. main objection of Assessing Officer is regarding splitting of business. Assessing Officer held that assessee company has been formed and has taken over assets of existing business by splitting business of M/s MSSL. 22 While holding such finding, Assessing Officer has ignored fact that it was not case where part of plant & machinery or other assets belonging to undertaking were transferred. whole undertaking consisting of all assets and liabilities as going concern was acquired by assessee company. It cannot be said that undertaking has been formed by splitting or re-construction of business already in existence. 3. CIT Vs. Heartland KG Information Ltd. reported in (2014) 100 DTR 18 (Madras). Conclusion : assessee having acquired its undertaking from one M/s KGISL with all assets and liabilities as going concern and said KGISL enjoying benefits of s.10A, assessee as Software Technology Park was entitled to relief under s. 10A even though it claimed relief under s.10B and alternatively u/s 10A; prohibition under section 10A(2)(iii) was not attracted as transfer was not that of plant and machinery alone but of sale of whole business unit. Cases referred to AGS Tiber Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 141 CIT (Mad) 467: (1998) 233 ITR 207 (Mad) Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 63 (Guj) CIT vs. Bullet International (2012) 349 ITR 267 (All) Circular referred to Circular No. F.No.15/5/63-IT (A-1) dt. 13th Dec. 1963 Circular No.7 of 2003 dt. 5th Sept., 2003 23 4. CIT Vs. WEP peripherals Ltd. reported in 2014 362 ITR 508 (Karnataka) expressions employed in sub-section (1) of Section 80IB any business , such business and eligible business read with expression in case of industrial undertaking as occur in sub-section (3) of Section 80IB, in our opinion, it is clear indication that deduction contemplated under this provision is relatable to unit/business/industrial undertaking. Therefore, whosoever is running unit/industrial undertaking having domain over it, is entitled for deduction as contemplated by Section 80IB of Act. (Page 512) Insofar sub-section (12) of Section 80IB of Act is applicable only in case, where there is Amalgamation or demerger. That does not mean that transfer of industrial undertaking by any other mode is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IB. In other words, it would not be correct to say that deduction under Section 80IB is available only where transfer of unit/industrial undertaking is under scheme of amalgamation or demerger. It is not in dispute that unit/industrial undertaking, in present case, enjoyed deduction under Section 80IB from April 1, 1993 till 30.08.2000 i.e., 10 till unit/industrial undertaking was transferred to assessee. (Page 512) [this sub-section (12) of section 80IB corresponds to sub-section (7A) of section 10B] 25. In case of CIT vs. Heartland Delhi 24 Transcription Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2014) 366 ITR 523, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has ruled that after removal of sub sections (9) and (9A) from statute book w.e.f. 1.4.2004 and simultaneous insertion of sub-section (7A) w.e.f. same date, benefit under section 10B is applicable even where ownership of industrial undertaking, in continuity. In arriving at said conclusion Hon'ble Delhi Court has referred to and relied upon various case laws as has been referred to in preceding paragraphs and finally held that sub section (7A) is 'enabling provision', meant for continuity of benefit under section 10 B, even after change in ownership of 'industrial undertaking'. 26. Thus question of law are answered in favour of assessee and against department in all these appeals. 27. In result all appeals filed by assessees are allowed. No costs. Order Date :-_18__/ _04__2015 Dev/- (Dr. Satish Chandra,J.) (Arun Tandon, J.) Mku (Armours) Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur