9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ₹ 1,59,00,541/- which is more than the prayer of the assessee in application u/s 154. When we enquired whether the computation of the value of steam for this A.Y would have any consequential affect in the subsequent A.Ys, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the subsequent years, there was no disallowance and these calculations would not in any way affect the computation of income in the subsequent years. Since the relief granted by the Add. CIT u/s 154, was more than the relief claimed by the assessee in its application u/s 154 of the Act, we do not see any prejudice being caused to the assessee. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Add. CIT dated 11.8.2014 u/s 154 of the Act. Penalty u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had returned a gross total income of ₹ 32,63,02,708/- and claimed a deduction of ₹ 10,07,52,120/- u/s 80IA in respect of its power division. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO disallowed the cost of steam considered as nil value and denied deduction u/s 80IA in respect of the power division due to which in the Sugar Division, the expenditure towards the cost of steam purchased from power division was also disallowed. The matter travelled upto ITAT and the ITAT allowed deduction u/s 80IA. However, it held that the cost of steam for the sugar division cannot be at nil. Consequently, the AO passed consequential order on 22.7.2014 computing the cost of steam transferred to Sugar Division fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al quantity and value of steam supplied to sugar division instead of reworking the same. 3. Your Appellant submits that the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the working of the Assessing Officer, which is not scientific method of calculation, as compared to the actuals submitted, therefore the Assessing Officers working may be deleted. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have considered the submission of your Appellant during the appellate proceeding would have appreciated the mistake in quantity and value worked out by the Assessing Officer, thereby would have directed to accept the working of your appellant. For these and such other grounds that may urged at the time of hearing, your appellant prays that the relief claimed may be allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the subsequent years, there was no disallowance and these calculations would not in any way affect the computation of income in the subsequent years. Since the relief granted by the Add. CIT u/s 154, was more than the relief claimed by the assessee in its application u/s 154 of the Act, we do not see any prejudice being caused to the assessee. In view of this, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Add. CIT dated 11.8.2014 u/s 154 of the Act. 6. In the result, assessee s appeal in ITA No.1446/Hyd/ 2017 is dismissed. ITA No.2138/Hyd/2017 7. This is assessee s appeal for the A.Y 2009-10 against the order of the CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad dated 18.8.2017 confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the assessing Officer reworked the cost of steam on mere assumption and presumption. 3. Your Appellant submits that the calculation regarding cost of steam submitted is as per the records and on scientific method, there is no mistake in the valuation of steam as well as quantity of steam consumed by the sugar division from the power division. Hence there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 4. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer having accepted the consistent method of arriving at cost of steam in the past, ought to have accepted the same for the year under consideration, therefore there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
