9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n jurisdictional High Courts, then the decision favourable to the assessee shall apply, and more so the later decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court has taken a view in favour of the assessee after considering decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court which has taken a view in favour of Revenue. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products [ 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] Thus, we upheld the view taken by ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee by following the judgment and order of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy [ 2010 (3) TMI 860 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] So far so good, there is no difficulty, but the difficulty arose that ld. CIT(A) has simply followed the decision of this Tribunal for assessment year 2009-10 to 2013- 14 and granted relief to the assessee. Presently, we are concerned with assessment year 2017-18. The verification of claim is a factual matter which requires factual verification of various aspects concerning installation/commissioning of wind mill as well computation thereof. CIT(A) did not considered the factual aspects that the assessee has commissioned new windmill at Nani Malti, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (CASS). Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee. In the return of income filed by the assessee with Revenue, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA to the tune of Rs. 1,56,66,658/- . This income was generated on account of wind mill business (sale of power). The notice was issued by the AO u/s. 142(1) of the Act , dated 04.08.2019 to the assessee requesting assessee to substantiate large deduction of claim u/s. 80IA of the Act in comparison to the earlier year with supporting evidences and certificate. The assessee submitted the details of deduction claimed vide reply dated 11.09.2019. Thereafter, the assessee was asked by the AO vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 10.10.2019 , to furnish explanation as to why disallowance made u/s. 80IA of the Act should not be made in the case of the assessee. The assessee relied upon the orders of this Tribunal in its own case for assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14. The AO observed that the claim of the assessee is consistently being disallowed keeping in view provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act. The AO had observed that quantum of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act has to be computed after deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment Year 2016-17 Considering the fact that the aspect of the immediate case are homogeneous to the issue under consideration in the preceding assessment years decided upon by the Hon'ble Judicial Authorities, it is noted that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the disallowed made by the Assessing Officer u/s 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs 1,56,66,658/- is deleted. 6. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. Hence, it was held by ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed by ld. CIT(A). Thus, the additions of Rs. 1,56,66,658/- as was made by the AO was deleted by ld. CIT(A) . 5. Now, it is the turn of the Revenue to have been aggrieved by the decision of Ld.CIT(A). Shri Santosh Kumar, Learned Senior DR submitted that in the earlier year in ITA No.542/Ahd/2017 for AY 2013-14, the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee vide order dated 26.06.2018, in assessee s own case. The learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Shri S N Divetia, Advocate submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and job work of electronically engraved copper roller , which are used for printing and packaging industries. In the return of income filed by the assessee with Revenue, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA to the tune of Rs. 1,56,66,658/- . This income was generated on account of wind mill business (sale of power). The AO disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA by following the decision of ITAT in the case of Goldmine Share and Finance Private Limited(supra), wherein ITAT observed that while computing deduction u/s 80IA, the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of determination of the quantum of deduction u/s 80IA has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even through they have been allowed to be set off against other income in earlier years. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction u/s 80IA to the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,56,66,658/- as claimed by the assessee , by following the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Private Limited(supra) and also after considering the decision s of ITAT in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2009- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products(1973) 1 SCC 442 . Thus, we upheld the view taken by ld. CIT(A) in favour of the assessee by following the judgment and order of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy(supra). So far so good, there is no difficulty, but the difficulty arose that ld. CIT(A) has simply followed the decision of this Tribunal for assessment year 2009-10 to 2013- 14 and granted relief to the assessee. Presently, we are concerned with assessment year 2017-18. The verification of claim is a factual matter which requires factual verification of various aspects concerning installation/commissioning of wind mill as well computation thereof. The ld. CIT(A) did not considered the factual aspects that the assessee has commissioned new windmill at Nani Malti, Jamnagar in the financial year 2013-14, and the impugned assessment year is the initial assessment year , wherein the assessee is claiming the deduction u/s 80IA for the first time. No verification was done by ld. CIT(A). Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider that the deduction u/s 80IA w.r.t. Wind Mill at Navedra was claimed in the impugned assessment year being the last year of the allowability of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
