ITAT Chennai upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on deduction restoration for windmill & turbine divisions.

The ITAT Chennai upheld the decisions of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the restoration of deduction u/s 80IA for windmill and turbine divisions for assessment years 2004-05 and 05-06. The Department's appeals were dismissed as they failed to provide contrary material or higher Court's order to challenge the decisions of the ld. CIT(A). The eligible business was considered the sole source of income for the chosen block period of ten consecutive years, leading to the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer for both divisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the challenge by the Department against the restoration of deduction u/s 80IA as claimed by the assessee for the assessment years 2004-05 and 05-06.

Assessment Year 2004-05:
The assessee claimed deductions under section 80IA for windmill and turbine divisions, which were restricted by the Assessing Officer in reopened assessment. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the plea of the assessee based on the absence of a definition for the term "initial year" u/s 80IA. The decision was influenced by the rulings of Hon'ble Madras High Court and ITAT, concluding that the eligible business is treated as the sole source of income for the chosen block period of ten consecutive years. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted for both divisions.

Assessment Year 2005-06:
Similar to the previous year, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer for windmill and turbine divisions based on the same reasoning and legal precedents. The Department appealed against these decisions, but failed to provide any contrary material or higher Court's order to challenge the decisions of the ld. CIT(A).

Conclusion:
The ITAT Chennai upheld the decisions of the ld. CIT(A) based on the consistent application of legal principles and precedents from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Department's appeals were dismissed as they failed to present any justifiable reason to interfere with the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A).

---