9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,342/- made by the authorities below on this account. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered the material on record. We find that, as submitted by the learned A.R. for the assessee, this issue before us, i.e. whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act, has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA No. 2342/Mum/2012 dated 13.09.2012 wherein at para 2.4 thereof it has been held as under: - "2.4 Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is observed that the ITAT in ITA Nos. 7944, 7946, 2255 & 7943/Mum/2011 for the AYs. 2005-06 to 2008-09 in the assessee's own case while deciding an issue, i.e., 'section 80-IA (5) being applicable for the current year, whether the assessee's claim for set off of loss/allowance u/s 32(2) 70 and 71 is against other income, admittedly from a not eligible business source, sustainable in law', has held the same in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It has further been held that the Revenue is not correct in law in denying the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation allowance/loss of the assessee's eligible units against it income from other source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act and also the directions of the learned CIT(A) to the AO to verify as to whether the losses have already been set off against the income of non-eligible unit in the earlier years and in case the losses were already set off then the same cannot be notionally carried forward for setting off against for computing the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. We hold and direct accordingly. Consequently, the grounds at S.No. 1 to 4 raised by Revenue are rejected. 4. In the result, Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 is dismissed. 5. Assessee's CO No. 82/Mum/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11 5.1 In this CO the assessee has raised the following objections: - "I. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ₹ 2,39,3421-: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] in confirming the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 at ₹ 2,39,342/-. It is submitted that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act computed by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is excessive, unreasonable and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of appeal that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 2,39,342/- under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, since it was made in respect of interest expenditure incurred on Term Loans taken for purchase of Windmills. 6.4 Per contra, the learned D.R. for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 6.5.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record. It is the submission of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) that interest expenditure incurred during the year to the extent of ₹ 39,20,797/-, and in respect of which the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of ₹ 2,39,342/- is made by the AO, pertains to Term Loan availed for acquiring Windmill Plants referred to in the earlier years as reflected in Schedule '18' to the Audited Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2010. In these circumstances, the assessee contends that the aforesaid interest expenditure which related to term loan for acquisition of Windmills cannot be considered for working out disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D as such term loan and related interest expenditure do not have any nexus, direct or indirect with the earnin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
