Tribunal affirms separate treatment of projects for tax deduction, clarifies income classification.

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax,

Bharuch Enviro Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, - TMI Issues:
1. Assessment of deduction claim u/s.80IA for land filling and incinerator projects.
2. Treatment of non-refundable receipts as income.
3. Exclusion of interest income and membership fee for Section 80IA deduction claim.
4. Disallowance of provision made for post-closure expenses.
5. Disallowance of provision made for pit covering expenses.

Analysis:

1. Assessment of deduction claim u/s.80IA for land filling and incinerator projects:
The dispute revolved around whether the land filling and incinerator projects should be considered as separate entities for the purpose of granting Section 80IA deduction. The Assessing Officer treated them as a composite project, while the CIT(A) reversed this decision. The CIT(A) based the reversal on the appellant's submission, supported by various case laws, demonstrating that the two units were different and independent in terms of process, method, machinery, and infrastructure. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the absence of evidence from the Revenue to counter the appellant's claims.

2. Treatment of non-refundable receipts as income:
The Revenue sought to include a non-refundable receipt as income, which the Assessing Officer treated as such during assessment. However, the CIT(A) accepted the appellant's argument that the income accrues only when the waste received is burnt, following the mercantile method of accounting. Citing relevant decisions, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to treat the amount as advance received instead of income for both normal income and book profit computation.

3. Exclusion of interest income and membership fee for Section 80IA deduction claim:
The appellant contested the exclusion of interest income and membership fee for the Section 80IA deduction claim. The tribunal reversed the exclusion of interest income, considering it as eligible profits for the deduction. Additionally, the tribunal accepted the appellant's arguments regarding the membership fee, treating it as business profits.

4. Disallowance of provision made for post-closure expenses:
The appellant challenged the disallowance of the provision made for post-closure expenses. Both parties agreed that a previous decision had deleted a similar disallowance in earlier assessment years. The tribunal accepted the appellant's grounds, dismissing the disallowance.

5. Disallowance of provision made for pit covering expenses:
The appellant contested the disallowance of the provision made for pit covering expenses. The tribunal noted the appellant's success on similar issues in previous years and the Revenue's failure to provide new evidence. Consequently, the tribunal accepted the appellant's grounds, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the appellant's cross-appeal succeeded partially. The tribunal's decision was pronounced on February 27, 2017.