9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 - Tax Case (Appeal) No.1500 of 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said provisions in the Act? 2. The tribunal, in the impugned order, followed the assessee's another case in I.T.A.No.1496/MDS/2005 dated 19.12.2007 for the assessment year 2002-03. The said appeal was dismissed by the tribunal, as against which the assessee filed T.C.(A) No.860 of 2008 and by the judgment dated 04.04.2018, the appeal filed by the assessee has been dismissed. The operative portion of the order reads as follows, 7. The claim for deduction made by the appellant under Section 80IA of the said Act was denied on the ground that the appellant's undertaking has not been set up for generation or for generation and distribution of power. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the main purpose of providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id submission and found that M/s.Covanta USA owns 70% of the shares in the SPCL and that M/s.Covanta USA also owns 100% of the shares in the assessee through its Mauritius subsidiary. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer went through the records of the SPCL and also the shareholding pattern, profit and loss account, balance sheet and computation of income, etc., and found the version of the assessee that the owner of the power plant had no technical expertise, is factually incorrect. 11. With regard to the next aspect as to whether the contention raised by the assessee by referring to the definition of 'generating company' under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
