9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me for the purpose of making disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules and recompute the disallowance accordingly and thereafter reduce the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee in the return of income. Expenses incurred on replacement of electricity meters - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee for all the earlier assessment years by various orders of this Tribunal and various orders of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court on the similar facts and circumstances in assessee s own case. We find that ld. CIT(A) had relied on the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court for A.Y₹ 1999-2000 to 2004-05 wherein the Hon ble Bombay High Court did not admit the departmental appeals in respect of this issue of expenditure on replacement of meters. We also find that this issue is also decided in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case in A.Y.2011-12 [ 2017 (12) TMI 1121 - ITAT MUMBAI] Hence, by respectfully following the said decisions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Addition made on account of proportionate apporti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 25/10/2017 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-14(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The ground Nos. 1-3 raised by the Revenue are challenging the deletion of disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act. 2.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee company is engaged in the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The assessee is a leading player in the country in the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) segment of the power and infrastructure sectors. The assessee is also engaged in implementation, operation and maintenance through Special Purpose Vehicles in various infrastructural areas. 2.2. We find that assessee had earned dividend income of ₹ 27,55,59,525/- which was claimed as exempt u/s.10 of the Act in the return of income. We find that assessee had made suomoto disallowance of ₹ 16,09,800/- towards expenses attributable to earning exempt income. We find that the ld. AO proceeded to apply the computation mechanism provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 7,66,72,484/- as capital expenditure and granted depreciation amounting to ₹ 86,25,654/- while completing the assessment. 3.2. We find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee for all the earlier assessment years by various orders of this Tribunal and various orders of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court on the similar facts and circumstances in assessee s own case. We find that ld. CIT(A) had relied on the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court for A.Yrs. 1999-2000 to 2004-05 wherein the Hon ble Bombay High Court did not admit the departmental appeals in respect of this issue of expenditure on replacement of meters. We also find that this issue is also decided in favour of the assessee in assessee s own case in A.Y.2011-12 in ITA No.4345 and 3407/Mum/2015 dated 20/12/2017. Hence, by respectfully following the said decisions, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground No.4 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 4. The ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of proportionate apportionment and allocation of head office expense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appeal No. 2180 of 2011 dated 17.04.2014 had decided this issue in favour of the assessee, wherein it was held as under: 5. In so far as the question (c) in relation to head office expenses is concerned, the findings of the facts by the ITAT for the prior assessment years have been referred to and if at all any reference needed, paragraphs 17 and 18 of the ITAT s order are complete answers . Therefore, the factual findings do not raise any substantial question of law in relation to disclaim as well. 3.2 Respectfully following the said decision, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee. Accordingly the ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 4.2. Respectfully following the same, ground No.5 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. The ground No.6 raised by the Revenue is challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) as to whether the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act is allowable to the extent of gross total income or only to the extent of business income. 5.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that this issue has already been considered by the Hon ble Jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
