Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Assessee's Appeals Partially Allowed, Revenue's Appeal Granted for Re-evaluation</h1> <h3>M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Co. Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Covanta Samalpatti Operating Pvt. Ltd.) Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I(3), Chennai.</h3> M/s. Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Co. Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Covanta Samalpatti Operating Pvt. Ltd.) Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income ... Issues Involved:1. Claim of deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Reversal of excess revenue and plant maintenance expenditure.3. Interest under section 234D of the Income Tax Act.4. Disallowance of bad debts.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Claim of Deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the operation and maintenance of a power plant, claimed a deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this deduction on the grounds that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions prescribed under the section, specifically that the assessee was only operating and maintaining a power plant set up by another company and was thus only a contractor. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for the previous assessment year. The Tribunal, upon review, also dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing a lack of new evidence to overturn the previous decision and reinforcing that the deduction under section 80-IA(4)(iv) is not available to enterprises merely operating and maintaining a power plant.2. Reversal of Excess Revenue and Plant Maintenance Expenditure:The AO noticed that the assessee had debited an amount towards plant maintenance, which included contributions to a Major Maintenance Reserve Account. The AO treated this as an application of income already earned and disallowed the expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, stating that Accounting Standard 9 (AS 9) was not applicable as the contract was operative on a year-to-year basis. The Tribunal found that the AO had not examined the contract agreement, which was for a 15-year period, and thus remitted the matter back to the AO for a detailed examination of the entire issue.3. Interest under Section 234D of the Income Tax Act:The AO charged interest under section 234D of the Income Tax Act, which the assessee contested on the grounds that the section came into effect from June 1, 2003, and should not apply to the assessment year 2003-04. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the interest should be computed from the date of insertion of the provision. The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing a jurisdictional High Court ruling that the date of the regular assessment order, not the assessment year, is the determining factor for the applicability of section 234D.4. Disallowance of Bad Debts:The AO disallowed the assessee's claim of bad debts, which arose from a withdrawn claim of service tax by a customer. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding the contractual terms and the withdrawal of the service tax claim. The Tribunal, noting that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had considered the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, remitted the matter back to the AO to re-examine the issue in accordance with the law.Conclusion:The Tribunal's judgment resulted in the partial allowance of the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes and the remittance of specific issues back to the AO for further examination. The Revenue's appeal was also allowed for statistical purposes, necessitating a re-evaluation of the bad debts claim under section 36(1)(vii).