9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1298 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 80IA - assessee is engaged in the manufacturing and job work of electronically engraved copper roller , which are used for printing and packaging industries Income was generated on account of wind mill business (sale of power) - AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA by following the decision of Goldmine Share and Finance Private Limited 2008 (4) TMI 405 - ITAT AHMEDABAD wherein ITAT observed that while computing deduction u/s 80IA, the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of determination of the quantum of deduction u/s 80IA has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even through they have been allowed to be set off against other income in earlier years - CIT(A) allowed the deduction u/s 80IA as claimed by the assessee HELD THAT - It is well settled that if there are two contrary decision of Hon ble High Court wherein the said High Court s are non jurisdictional High Courts, then the decision favourable to the assessee shall apply, and more so the later decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court has taken a view in favour of the assessee after considering decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court which has taken a view in favour of Revenue. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT Thus, we upheld the view taken by ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee by following the judgment and order of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy 2010 (3) TMI 860 - MADRAS HIGH COURT So far so good, there is no difficulty, but the difficulty arose that ld. CIT(A) has simply followed the decision of this Tribunal for assessment year 2009-10 to 2013- 14 and granted relief to the assessee. Presently, we are concerned with assessment year 2017-18. The verification of claim is a factual matter which requires factual verification of various aspects concerning installation/commissioning of wind mill as well computation thereof. CIT(A) did not considered the factual aspects that the assessee has commissioned new windmill at Nani Malti, Jamnagar in the financial year 2013-14, and the impugned assessment year is the initial assessment year , wherein the assessee is claiming the deduction u/s 80IA for the first time. No verification was done by ld. CIT(A). Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider that the deduction u/s 80IA w.r.t. Wind Mill at Navedra was claimed in the impugned assessment year being the last year of the allowability of said claim. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) whose powers are co-terminus with the powers of the AO, did not examine the factual matrix of claim of deduction u/s 80IA , its computation and its allowability thereof. Thus, with these observations, we are remitting the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for verifying the claim of deduction u/s 80IA after considering the factual matrix as is emerging for the impugned assessment year. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 claimed by the assessee. 2. Verification of the factual matrix and computation of the deduction under Section 80IA. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 claimed by the assessee: The Revenue appealed against the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) granting the assessee a deduction under Section 80IA amounting to Rs. 1,56,66,658/-. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and job work of electronically engraved copper rollers, filed its return of income declaring Rs. 8,72,74,960/-. The return was processed, and the case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee claimed the deduction under Section 80IA for income generated from its windmill business. The AO disallowed this deduction, relying on the ITAT's decision in ACIT v. Goldmine Shares & Finance (P) Ltd., which required the computation of deduction after considering notional brought forward losses and depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A), however, allowed the deduction following the Hon'ble Madras High Court's decision in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, which stated that losses absorbed in earlier years cannot be notionally brought forward for deduction purposes. The Ld. CIT(A) also considered the ITAT's decisions in the assessee's favor for previous years (2009-10 to 2013-14). 2. Verification of the factual matrix and computation of the deduction under Section 80IA: The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not verify the factual aspects of the deduction claim, particularly the commissioning of new windmills and the computation of the deduction. The assessee installed new windmills in the financial year 2013-14, making the assessment year 2017-18 the initial year for claiming the deduction. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider these new installations and the last year of deduction for another windmill. The Tribunal emphasized that the Ld. CIT(A)'s powers are co-terminus with those of the AO, requiring a thorough examination of the claim's factual matrix. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for verifying the claim under Section 80IA, considering all relevant facts and computations. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a detailed factual verification of the assessee's deduction claim under Section 80IA. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced on 23rd August 2024, in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, at Ahmedabad.
|
