9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61 read with Rule 8D, while computing income under the normal provisions of the Act, as also, while computing book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of Terry Towels, Cotton Yarn, Bath rugs and bedding products and trading in cotton yarn and fabric, etc. It is also engaged in generation of power. Be that as it may, for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income on 01.12.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 222,39,01,090/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 3,81,32,06,474/- u/s. 115JB of the Act. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of investment made by the assessee in exempt income yielding assets. Whereas, it is a fact on record that in the previous year relevant to assessment year under dispute, the assessee had earned exempt income only to the tune of Rs. 4/-. Now, it is fairly well settled that disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D in a particular assessment year cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income earned in the said year. Therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D could not have exceeded the quantum of income earned by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the first appellate authority in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D, while computing income unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion received from Shri Dhaval Gandhi. Though, the assessee completely denied of having entered into any such transaction, however, rejecting assessee's explanation, A.O. proceeded to add the amount of Rs. 48,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. 7. The assessee contested the afore-said addition before first appellate authority. 8. After considering the submissions made and evidences available on record, the first appellate authority, being convinced with the fact that the assessee had not received any cash compensation as alleged by the A.O., deleted the addition. 9. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the A.O. has made the disputed addition primarily based on the statement reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual facts. Thus, in absence of any corroborative evidence on record to back his finding that the assessee has actually received the cash compensation amounting to Rs. 48,50,000/-, no addition can be made merely on conjectures and surmises. Therefore, we uphold the decision of the first appellate authority on the issue. Ground raised is dismissed. 10. In ground nos. 4 & 5, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance made u/s. 80IA of the Act. Briefly the facts are in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, the assessee had claimed deductions u/s. 80IA and 80JJ/JJA of the Act. While verifying assessee's claim of such deductions, A.O. noticed that the return of income for the impugned assessment year was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n acquired through a slump sale, the assessee does not satisfy the eligibility conditions. Insofar as, belated filing of the return of income is concerned, undisputedly, CBDT has condone such delay and A.O. accepts such factual position. Thus, the only thing which needs to be addressed is whether the assessee satisfies the condition of section 80IA of the Act. As could be seen from the facts and materials on record, the assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, for an amount of Rs. 30,49,31,288/-. The deductions claimed is split between the following two units: 1. Captive Power Plant 15MV - Vapi (Rs.26,01,68,676/-) 2. Captive Power Plant 12MV - Anjar (Rs.4,47,68,612/-) 14. Thus, as could be seen from the above, the deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the undertaking was eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act due to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the said provision. Merely because of change of the ownership of the undertaking it would not get disentitled from availing deductions u/s. 80IA of the Act for remaining years for which deduction has not been claimed. As rightly observed by the first appellate authority, deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act is qua undertaking and not qua the assessee. Since, the Revenue has not brought on record any cogent material to controvert the factual findings of the first appellate authority, while deciding the issue, we are inclined to uphold the decision of first appellate authority by dismissing the ground raised. 15. In the result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
