Graphite India's Section 80IA Deduction Application Rejected: Procedural Bar

The application by Graphite India Limited for a deduction under section 80IA for profits from its furnace undertakings was not admitted by the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) due to a procedural bar. The Revenue had raised objections citing a prior notice under section 143(2) for the assessment year 2018-19, which included the specific issue of the deduction claimed under section 80IA. As the matter was already under scrutiny, the application was rejected based on the procedural bar under clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the generation of heat by the Applicant in its furnace undertakings amounts to the generation of power within the meaning of Sec. 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act.
2. Whether the Applicant is eligible for deduction under section 80IA in respect of its furnace undertaking on the profits and gains derived from the generation of power.
3. Whether the Applicant has rightly applied the Profit Split Method as the Most Appropriate Method for computing Arm's Length Price under section 80IA(8) read with Sections 92F(ii), 92BA, and 92C of the Act to determine the eligible deduction.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Generation of Heat as Generation of Power
The Applicant, Graphite India Limited, engaged in the manufacturing of various graphite products and power generation, contended that the generation of heat in its furnace undertakings should be considered as the generation of power under Sec. 80IA(4)(iv)(a) of the Act. The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) did not specifically address the technical interpretation of this issue due to the procedural bar under section 245R(2) of the Act.

Issue 2: Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80IA
The Applicant claimed a deduction under section 80IA for the profits derived from the generation of power from its furnace undertakings. The Revenue objected, arguing that the issue was already pending before the Income-tax Authority due to a prior notice under section 143(2) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19. The AAR found that the notice under section 143(2) dated 22.09.2019 included the specific issue of "Deduction Claimed for Industrial Undertaking u/s 80IA," indicating that the matter was already under scrutiny. Consequently, the application was barred from admission under clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2).

Issue 3: Application of Profit Split Method
The Applicant sought to determine the Arm's Length Price using the Profit Split Method as the Most Appropriate Method under section 80IA(8) read with Sections 92F(ii), 92BA, and 92C. However, the AAR did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the procedural bar mentioned above.

Additional Observations:
- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) did not initially raise the issue of pendency in their report dated 31.12.2020. However, the Department later clarified that the scrutiny for A.Y. 2018-19 included the specific issue of the deduction under section 80IA.
- The Applicant argued that the notice under section 143(2) was general and did not specifically address the eligibility of the deduction under section 80IA. The AAR, however, found that the notice explicitly included the issue of the deduction, thus constituting a pending matter.
- The AAR referenced several case laws, including CIT-I (IT) Vs. Authority for Advance Ruling, Hyosung Corporation vs. AAR, and Sage Publications Ltd, UK vs. DCIT, International Taxation, to distinguish the present case. The AAR concluded that the facts of the present case were distinct, as the notice under section 143(2) specifically mentioned the issue of the deduction under section 80IA.

Conclusion:
The application was not admitted due to the procedural bar under clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2), as the issue of the deduction under section 80IA was already pending before the Income-tax Authority. Consequently, the application was rejected.

---