9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1062 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA in respect of profits of the eligible undertaking - Claim denied on the ground that the appellant had not fulfilled the conditions specified in section 80IA(4) - HELD THAT - once, the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in section 80IA (4) of the Act and was allowed deduction in the earlier assessment years in respect of undertaking in AY 2006-07 that is in the initial year, therefore, deduction under section 80-IA in respect of the infrastructure facility should have been allowed to the assessee. We noted that the Ld. CIT(A) in his finding recorded that assessment for A.Y. 2006-07 was reopened under section 147 is factually wrong. There is no reopening notice under section 147 for A.Y. 2006-07. So far as the objection of the Ld. Sr DR for the revenue is concerned that the assessee has made agreement with GIDC and no new infrastructure facilities was set up by the assessee. We find that the submissions of the Ld. DR for the revenue is based on the finding of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has entered into agreement dated 15.12.2006 with GIDC and started deduction under section 80-IA of the Act from AY 2006-07. On this objection, we are also in agreement with the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that pursuant to insertion of sub-clause (c) in Explanation to section 80IA(4)(i) with effect from 01.04.2001, by new sub-clause so as to include Solid Waste Management System within the meaning of infrastructure facility, the assessee-company is covered under the amended definition of Infrastructure Facility and fulfills all the conditions as specified in subclause (a) to (c) of section 80IA(4) (i). Accordingly the assessee is eligible for claim of deduction under section 80IA - Decided in favour of assessee. Computation of deduction u/s 80IA - excluding the interest earned on delayed payment received from customer, interest earned from GEB deposits and interest on other deposits - HELD THAT - Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessee s group case 2017 (2) TMI 1493 - ITAT AHMEDABAD wherein interest income from fixed deposit in bank was allowed for deduction under Section 80IA, thus, the interest on deposits are allowed. So far as interest on delayed payment from customers is concerned, such payments were made by various members have direct nexus with the profit and gains derived from undertaking. So far as interest earned on deposits with GEB is concerned, the same is not derived from the business activity of the assessee nor flowing directly from the industrial undertaking therefore, not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. Thus, the assessee partly succeeded on this ground of appeal. Granting less credit of advance tax/prepaid tax - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that assessee has claimed that full credit of advance tax is not made therefore, Assessing Officer is directed to verify the advance tax paid by or on behalf of assessee and grant credit thereon. Needless to order that before passing the order, the Assessing Officer shall grant adequate opportunity to the assessee. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Interest under Section 234D - HELD THAT - As considering the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court supra, the Assessing Officer is directed to calculate the interest on refund by following the decision in the case of CIT Vs United Insurance Co. Ltd. 2021 (9) TMI 556 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Levy of interest on profit distributed - assessee submits that during the year, the assessee paid dividend distribution tax of Rs. 392820/- on 01/11/2010 and in the assessment order, the interest on distributed profit amounting to Rs. 392820/- has been levied - The assessee made application under Section 154 - HELD THAT - We find that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee specifically contended that dividend distribution tax was paid on 01/11/2010, copy of challan of tax was also furnished. The Ld. CIT(A), held that the assessee failed to comply with the time limit. Considering the fact that the assessee moved appropriate application under Section 154 on 18/08/2014 for rectification of mistake and furnished the necessary challan of dividend distribution tax. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to pass order on application of assessee under Section 154 in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In this result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Adjustment of refund - assessee submits that as per assessee s record, no demands were outstanding for this relevant year, thus adjustment of refund was erroneous - HELD THAT - As considering the fact that assessee claimed that no demands were outstanding, therefore, adjustment of refund is not correct. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the facts and pass the order if any adjustment of refund for relevant years were pending. In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that we have deleted the entire disallowance in quantum assessment therefore, the penalty levied by Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) will not survive. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147. 2. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA. 3. Exclusion of interest income while computing deduction under Section 80IA. 4. Estimation of expenditure related to interest income. 5. Levy of interest under Section 234D. 6. Levy of interest on distributed profits. 7. Adjustment of refund against outstanding demands. 8. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion. The original assessment had already examined the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal cited various precedents, including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decisions in Cliantha Research Ltd. and Sai Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd., which emphasized that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion if the original assessment was completed after a full inquiry. 2. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA: The Tribunal found that the assessee fulfilled all the conditions under Section 80IA(4) and was eligible for the deduction. The Tribunal emphasized that once the deduction is allowed in the initial year, it cannot be re-examined in subsequent years. The Tribunal relied on various judicial decisions, including those from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which supported the view that the deduction once granted in the initial year should be allowed in subsequent years without re-examination. 3. Exclusion of Interest Income while Computing Deduction under Section 80IA: The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of interest on delayed payments from customers and interest on fixed deposits with banks for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 80IA, following the decision in the assessee's group case Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. However, interest earned on deposits with Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) was not allowed as it was not derived from the business activity of the assessee. 4. Estimation of Expenditure Related to Interest Income: The assessee did not press this ground of appeal, and it was dismissed as not pressed. 5. Levy of Interest under Section 234D: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to calculate the interest under Section 234D by following the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., which held that interest under Section 234D is leviable only if the refund granted becomes collectible in an order passed under regular assessment. 6. Levy of Interest on Distributed Profits: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to pass an order on the assessee's application under Section 154 for rectification of mistake regarding the levy of interest on distributed profits, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. Adjustment of Refund Against Outstanding Demands: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts regarding the adjustment of refund against outstanding demands and pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, as the disallowances in the quantum assessments were deleted. Consequently, the penalties did not survive. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee on most grounds, particularly emphasizing the invalidity of reopening assessments based on a mere change of opinion and the continuity of deductions under Section 80IA once granted in the initial year. The Tribunal also provided directions for the proper calculation of interest and verification of tax credits and refunds.
|
