2018 (9) TMI 1760 - HC - Income Tax

Deduction under Section 80IA - computation of taxable total income comprised and derived from establishing, operating and maintaining the power plant engaged in generation or generation and distribution of power - Held that - The term generating company can only refer to the SPCL and not the appellant, since the Assessing Officer, the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, after considering the scope of the agreement entered into between the appellant and the SPCL, clearly held that the appellant is not the owner of the power plant and that it does only maintenance work, for which, it is given a fee. Even assuming that the appellant contributed technical knowhow for the purpose of generating electricity, it does so on behalf of the owner of the plant namely the SPCL. We find that the interpretation of agreement between the appellant and the SPCL, as given by the Assessing Officer, the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, is perfectly legal and valid and that there is no perversity in the finding rendered by all the three Authorities. We cannot re-appreciate the factual position to arrive at a different conclusion. Thus, for all the above reasons, we find that there are no merits in this appeal. Substantial questions of law framed for consideration are answered against the assessee

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act for establishing, operating, and maintaining a power plant.
2. Application of Sub Section 14 to Section 80 IA of the Act to a service contract.
3. Rejection of deduction under Section 80IA despite fulfilling conditions under Section 90IA(4)(i) and (iv).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of Deduction under Section 80IA
The tribunal upheld the denial of the deduction under Section 80IA, emphasizing the purpose of the provision to encourage investment in specific industries. It noted the appellant's investment was significantly less than the claimed deduction, which would defeat the purpose of the section. The tribunal found that the appellant, despite claiming the deduction, did not set up the undertaking for power generation or distribution. The decision was based on the examination of the investment and the purpose of the deduction under Section 80IA.

Issue 2: Application of Sub Section 14 to Section 80 IA
The tribunal considered the retrospective insertion of Sub Section 14 to Section 80 IA and its impact on the case, particularly regarding a service contract. It analyzed the agreement between the appellant and the power plant owner, determining that the appellant was primarily a contractor and not the owner of the plant. The tribunal's decision was based on a factual assessment of the agreement and the ownership structure of the power plant company.

Issue 3: Rejection of Deduction despite Fulfilling Conditions
The tribunal rejected the deduction under Section 80IA, even though the conditions under Section 90IA(4)(i) and (iv) were fulfilled. It examined the agreement between the appellant and the power plant company, concluding that the appellant's role was maintenance work for a fee, not ownership or operation of the plant. The tribunal's decision was based on a legal interpretation of the agreement and the definitions under the Electricity Act, 2003.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the denial of the deduction under Section 80IA based on the factual and legal analysis of the agreement between the appellant and the power plant company. The decision highlighted the importance of the purpose of the deduction provision and the specific requirements for eligibility, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

← Previous Next →