Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Hcl Technologies Ltd, New Delhi vs Assessee on 28 October, 2010 1 ITA No. 5623.Del.2010 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.5623/Del/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR200506) HCL Technologies Limited, ACIT, 806, Siddhartha 96, Central Circle2, Room No323, Nehru Place, vs 3rd Floor, E2, ARA Center, New Delhi110002. Jahndewalan Ext., New Delhi. PANAAACH1645P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv., Sh. Neeraj Jain Sh. Upvan Gupta, CA Respondent by Sh.G.C.Srivastav, Adv., Sh. Saurabh Srivastav, CA ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the TO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C (13)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to 200506 assessment year on the following grounds: 1. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in completing the impugned assessment under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") read with Section 144C (13) of the Act at an income of Rs.56,53,95,072 as against the income of Rs.1,17,48,138 returned by the appellant. 2. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in completing the impugned assessment proceedings on the basis of original return of income by arbitrarily ignoring the revised return filed by the appellant. 3. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily denying deduction claimed in the revised return of income under Section 10A of the Act in 2 ITA No. 5623.Del.2010 respect of the profits derived from the various undertakings owned by the appellant in the complete disregard of actual facts and circumstances. 3.1. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in drawing an adverse inference regarding the eligibility of the various undertakings owned by the appellant, for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 10A of the Act without considering all the documentary evidence placed on record in support of the claim. 3.2. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in denying deduction under Section 10A of the Act in respect of the profits derived from the various undertakings owned by the appellant alleging that (a) the original 13 undertakings (as per the original return of income) were split into 31 undertakings by the appellant in the revised return of income (b) no separate license was obtained by the appellant from STPI Authorities in respect of these undertakings (c) that deduction in respect of these undertakings was deliberately not claimed by the appellant in the initial years and (d) no books of account have been produced by the appellant. 3.3. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in drawing an adverse inference regarding the independent and separate nature of the undertakings owned by the appellant not appreciating that each of such undertaking of the appellant is an independent viable unit registered with STPI Authorities and were eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Act. 3.4. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily concluding that the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [107 ITR 195] (SC) is not applicable in the case of the appellant without considering the actual facts and circumstances and also overlooking the necessary evidence filed by the appellant in the course of impugned assessment proceedings in support of new and independent nature of undertakings owned by the appellant. 3.5. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that Section 10A of the Act is a complete code in itself and only those conditions which are prescribed by Section 10A of the Act are liable to be fulfilled by an undertaking for being eligible for the purpose of deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 3.6. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily concluding that the different undertakings covered under a single STPI License represent a single undertaking with multiple locations in the complete disregard of the certificate issued by the Chennai STPI Authori