9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was right in restricting the interest referable to interest free loans and advances to LIBOR +1.50% as against at 7.5%, as determined by the A.O. on the basis of RBI Circular? e. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT was right in allowing depreciation at Rs. 5131,68,56,139/- as against the depreciation allowed by the A.O. at Rs. 4899,32,39,084/-.by directing to adopt the WDV of the assets as on 01.04.2007 ? f. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was right in upholding the decision of the ld. CIT(A) who had deleted the addition made by the then AO restricting the deduction u/s 80IA at Rs. 258.95 crores as against Rs. 409.47 claimed by the assessee?" 2. As regards first question of law proposed, in our view, the issue is covered by the order of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. passed on 17th May 2023 in SLP (c) No. 18872 of 2017 etc., Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. passed by High Court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of depreciation for the year was optional in nature. It is apparent that this ground did not even arise out of the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal by adopting the reasoning in its order for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 which had upheld the view of the CIT(A) set out above. It is, therefore, apparent that (apart from what is clearly a typographical error in the question referring to 1/4/2007) the question of law as framed does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Further, it is seen that this question raises an issue which is merely consequential to the final decisions of the earlier years. Assessee is entitled to depreciation on the opening WDV and the additions made to such WDV during the year. The opening WDV is the amount of the closing WDV of the earlier year as finally determined. In this Question, the Revenue is seeking to reduce the value of the opening WDV on the basis of the stand taken by the Revenue in the earlier years. As the issue raised in this question is only consequential and effect will have to be given to the final decision in the earlier years, there is no question of law which arises for consideration in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance on an earlier judgment of the Tribunal in case of Reliance Infrastructure Limited Vs. Addl. CIT, Range 1(1). Learned counsel for the assessee had placed on record a copy of the judgment of the Tribunal in case of Reliance Infrastructure limited. In such judgment an identical issue came up for consideration. The Tribunal by detailed judgment had held and observed as under: "44. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the profits of the business of generation of power worked out by the Assessee on the basis of the price that it paid to TPC for purchase of power continues to be the best basis even after the order of MERC and therefore the same has to be accepted as was done in the past and as approved by the ITAT in Assessee's case. We therefore dismiss ground No. 4 of the revenue." 7. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the judgment of the Tribunal in case of Reliance Infrastructure limited(supra) was carried in appeal by the revenue before this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 2180 of 2011, such appeal was dismissed making following observations: "6. As far as question (d), namely, the claim relating to purchase price from Tata Po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. Gujarat High Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. [(2017) 395 ITR 247 (Guj)] also had occasion to examine such an issue. It referred to earlier order in case of Asst. CIT Vs. Pragati Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1646 of 2010 (order dated January 30, 2012) in which following observations were made: "7. To our mind, Tribunal has committed no error. Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) while adopting Rs. 4.51 per unit as the value of electricity generated by eligible unit of assessee and supplied through its non-eligible unit only worked out cost of such electricity generation. In fact CIT(Appeals) in terms recorded that Rs. 4.51 was computed as the reasonable value of the electricity generated by eligible unit of assessee. This amount included Rs. 4.17 per unit which was the cost of electricity generation and Rs. 0.34 per unit which was duty paid by the assessee to GEB for such power generation. Thus the sum of Rs. 4.51 per unit only represented the cost of electricity generation to the assessee. In Section 80IA(8) of the Act what is required to be ascertained is the market value of the goods transferred by the el ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
