Bombay High Court
The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 vs Hinduja Global Solutions Limited. on 6 August, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:12893-DB
89.itxa.235.2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.235 OF 2019
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 .. Appellant
Versus
M/s.Hinduja Global Solutions Limited .. Respondent
UTKARSH Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Appellant.
KAKASAHEB
BHALERAO
Mr.Harsh M. Kapadia, Advocate for the Respondent.
Digitally signed by
UTKARSH KAKASAHEB
BHALERAO
Date: 2025.08.07
19:21:38 +0530
CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 06, 2025
P. C.
1. The above Appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 30th October 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The relevant assessment year is 2008-09. According to the Revenue, the impugned order of the ITAT gives rise to the following two substantial questions of law:-
(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in concluding that benefits of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act in respect of Unit II and III are allowable by treating such units as distinct Page 1 of 5 AUGUST 06, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:44:24 :::
89.itxa.235.2019.doc undertaking, ignoring the fact that assessee in its application to STPI authorities has stated that these units are expansion and not distinct undertaking?
(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in ignoring and not appreciating the evidence in the form of assessee's own declaration and admission in application to STPI to the effect that the works under reference constituted expansion of existing units and not a new and distinct undertaking or unit, which has led to perversity in the order of the Hon'ble ITAT?
2. Mr.Sharma, fairly submitted that in the Assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2005-06, these very same questions came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10 V/S M/s. Hinduja Ventures Ltd (in Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2016 decided on 26 th July 2017). This Court, after examining the facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the ITAT for A.Y.2005-06 requires no interference and that the Appeal did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Mr.Sharma however submitted that the order passed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2016 has been subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP has been Page 2 of 5 AUGUST 06, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:44:24 :::
89.itxa.235.2019.doc admitted on 26th February 2019. He, therefore, submitted that the above Appeal be kept pending till the disposal of the Appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Having heard Mr.Sharma as well as the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Assessee, we find that the questions of law as projected in the above Appeal are identical to the questions of law that this Court considered in the Respondent- Assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2016. After examining the facts of the case this Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the ITAT for A.Y.2005-06 and opined that the order of the ITAT does not gives rise to any substantial question of law. Hence it dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue. Not only do we agree with the aforesaid decision, but we are bound by it. Hence the fate of this Appeal would also be the same as it was in Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2016.
4. We must mention that in the Respondent-Assessee's own case for A.Y.2010-11, once again the ITAT held in favour of the Respondent-Assessee on the issue as to whether the Respondent- Assessee is entitled to the benefits of Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, Page 3 of 5 AUGUST 06, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:44:24 :::
89.itxa.235.2019.doc 1961. That also was challenged by the Department before this Court by filing Income Tax Appeal No.563 of 2017. That Appeal of the Revenue has also been dismissed on 4th June 2019 interalia following the decision passed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2016. Whether the order passed in the Assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.563 of 2017 (decided on 4 th June 2019) is subjected to a challenge, is not informed to us. In other words neither party is able to tell us whether the said order has been subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Considering these facts and circumstances and following the decision passed by this Court in the Assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.63 of 2016 (decided on 26th July 2017) we are of the firm view that the impugned order dated 30 th October 2017 passed by the ITAT does not give rise to any substantial question of law that requires an answer by this Court.
6. The above Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Page 4 of 5
AUGUST 06, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:44:24 :::
89.itxa.235.2019.doc
7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 5 of 5 AUGUST 06, 2025 Utkarsh ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:44:24 :::