2016 (9) TMI 1451 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80IA - income generated from the Electric Plant - Held that - The impugned order of the Tribunal extended the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act in respect of its Wind Mill Power project to the extent of ₹ 30.83 lakhs. The impugned order of the Tribunal placed reliance upon its order in respect of the same respondent assessee for the A.Y. 1997-98 reported as M. Pallonji & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2005 (9) TMI 238 - ITAT BOMBAY-J and also on its order passed for A.Y. 1996-97. The Revenue does not dispute that the fact situation in the two earlier Assessment Years relied upon is identical to the facts in the subject Assessment Year. Disallowance made under Section 14A - Held that - Revenue very fairly states that the same stand concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT .

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2006-07.
- Deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Tribunal's Order
The appellant challenged the order dated 28th August, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for Assessment Year 2006-07 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The questions of law raised by the Revenue pertained to the deduction under Section 80IA and the restoration of the issue of disallowance under Section 14A back to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's order extended the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA in relation to the Wind Mill Power project to the extent of ?30.83 lakhs. The Revenue disputed this deduction, but it was noted that the fact situation in earlier Assessment Years was similar and had been accepted by the Revenue. As there were no distinguishing features in the subject assessment year, the Tribunal's order was upheld as it followed its earlier accepted orders.

Issue 2: Deduction under Section 80IA
Regarding the deduction under Section 80IA, the Tribunal's order was based on precedents from earlier Assessment Years where similar deductions were allowed and accepted by the Revenue. The appellant failed to provide evidence of appeals against the Tribunal's orders for the relevant years. As the Revenue had accepted the deductions in previous years with identical fact situations, the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction in the present case was upheld.

Issue 3: Disallowance under Section 14A
The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was also raised, with the Tribunal restoring the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, the counsel for the Revenue acknowledged that a similar issue had been decided against the Revenue in a previous case. The decision in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax was cited as precedent. Consequently, the question of disallowance under Section 14A was not entertained as it did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The Tribunal's order was upheld, and the issues raised by the Revenue did not present substantial questions of law warranting further consideration.