:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1172 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.1172 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.1172 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. M/s.S.N.S.Technologies Pvt.Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.R.Asokan for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 18TH JULY, 2008 : 18TH JULY, 2008 : 18TH JULY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appeared for the Respondent though served. By the above Appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law: The Substantial question of law arises in the present Appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of Sec.10B and other provisions of the Income Tax Act,1961 and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in allowing the Appeal of the Assessee and directing the A.O. to give benefit u/s.10B of the Income Tax Act to the Assessee. 2. We have perused the order dated 13th April,2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. There is no dispute that the earlier partnership business of Respondent was taken over by the present Respondent Company and it appears that the beneficial ownership of the Company has virtually :2: remained the same and the Company has been given the same benefit subsequently. The only issue in the above is whether Section 9A as amended should be given retrospective effect. 3. In paragraph 6 of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it is clearly stated that though sub Section 9 deals with denial of deduction in case of change in the ownership or transfer of beneficial interest in the undertaking whereas Explanation 1 and sub-section 9A, though enacted subsequently, have clarified the position that in what situations change in ownership or transfer of beneficial interest in the undertaking would be construed to have taken place or would not be presumed or would be presumed, hence, provisions of Section 9A and Explanation 1 have to be applied retrospectively. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had given retrospective effect. There is nothing illegal or arbitrary in the same. We do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)