9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the ITAT does not suffer from any infirmity or error and, is, therefore upheld. - HON BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU AND HON BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA For the Appellant Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs For the Respondent Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila, Mr. Pravesh Sharma and Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocates JUDGMENT SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. 1. The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ hereafter the Act ] impugning an order dated 14.06.2019 [hereafter the impugned order ] passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereafter the learned ITAT ], in ITA No. 2785/Del/2013, in respect of the assessment year (AY) 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputation of book profit under Section 115JB of the Act indicate that though the assessee had computed book profits at Rs. 192,54,68,053/-, a total amount of Rs. 126,23,86,823/- was to be added to the said amount on certain accounts. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: 7. With these remarks, the total income of the assessee company is computed as follows: TOTAL INCOME DECLARED IN COMPUTATION Rs. 6,49,98,060 Add Rs. 114,39,00,000 A. Addition on account of derecognizing of revenue (as per para 3) B. Excess Claim of depreciation on UPS disallowed (as per para 4) Rs. 26,36,870 C. Provision for Bad Doubtful Debts (as per para 5) Rs. 23,41,192 D. Energy Tax disallowed u/s 43B (as per para 7) Rs. 10,17,86,761 E. Disallowance u/s 14A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference in provision for doubtful debts (energy tax) was erroneous and could not be sustained. The relevant findings of the CIT (A) are reproduced below: 6.1 Ground no. 8 of appeal is directed against additions made by the A.O. to the book profit computed for the purpose of section ll5JB of the IT Act, on account of de-recognition of revenue amounting to Rs. 114,39,00,000/-, excess depreciation on UPS amounting to Rs. 26,36,870/-, provision for doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 23,41, 192/-, energy tax disallowed u/s 43B amounting to Rs. 10,17,86,761/- and disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 1,17,22,000/-. The Assessing Officer while computing the income of the assessee under the normal provision had made the above addition to the total in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of the assessee are not covered by the aforesaid clauses. 6.3 Regarding the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s 14A, no actual expenditure was debited in the profit loss account relating to the earning of exempt income. Section 14A contains subsection (2) and sub-section (3), which do not find a place in the clause (f) of explanation to Sec 11 SJB. Therefore, insofar as computation of adjusted book profit is concerned, provisions of subsection (2) and sub-section (3) of section 14A cannot be imported into clause (f) of explanation to Sec 115JB. Therefore, the disallowance made u/s 14A are also not covered under the clauses of explanation to sec l 15JB. 6.4 Regarding addition of sum of Rs. 23,41,192/- on account of difference in provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee and the Revenue filed cross-appeals before the learned ITAT, the assessee s appeal being ITA No. 2785/Del/2013 and Revenue s appeal being ITA No. 4054/Del/2013. A perusal of the impugned reveals that the assessee had raised an additional ground, that is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO had erred in law in taxing book profits under Section 115JB of the Act. The learned ITAT, vide the impugned order, allowed the assessee s appeal and dismissed the Revenue s appeal. The learned ITAT relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax: (2010) 329 ITR 91, and held that the ratio of this decision applied to the present case. The learned ITAT accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote that the present appeal was heard along with ITA 687/2019, captioned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-9 v. M/s Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s North Delhi Power Limited), filed by the Revenue against the same assessee in respect of AY 2006-07, assailing a similar order passed by the learned ITAT. These appeals were admitted on the same question of law by this Court. 11. By way of judgment dated 13.01.2025 delivered today in ITA 687/2019, we have answered the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and held that Section 115JB of the Act would be inapplicable to an electricity generation company, prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012. 12. In view thereof, we are of the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
