TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... receipt" instead of "capital receipt"." 3. The ld. Departmental Representative has no objection to the admission of the aforesaid additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee. Hence, the same was admitted and the parties were allowed to make their submissions thereon. 4. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that this issue was covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08 in ITA Nos.3011, 3012, 3013, 3093/Ahd/2010, order dated 19/12/2013, wherein the Tribunal has restored this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. It was his prayer that in the present year of appeal also the issue should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the very same direction as given in the AY 2007-08. 5. The learned Departmental Representative also agreed to the above submissions of the ld. AR for the assessee. 6. We find that the Tribunal in assessee's own case, vide a consolidated order dated 19/12/2013, has held as under:- "29. The other issue in this appeal pertains to whether deduction u/s. 80IA will be allowable to the assessee on the sale proceeds of sales tax enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Birla VXL Ltd. has held as under: "11. From the above provisions contained in the said Scheme, it can be immediately noticed that the scheme was framed as a part of Government's initiative to encourage modernization of existing industries in under-developed areas. The main purpose of the scheme was to accelerate the industrial development and to disperse industries to under-developed areas as well as to provide additional employment. The Government responded positively to the representations that on account of rapid changes in technology, there was constant need for upgradation of technology in industries. It was, therefore, necessary to encourage modernization. As part of such a scheme, incentives were given to industries existing in under-developed areas to undertake modernization. The scheme thus was primarily concerned with the modernization of the existing industries. It was not a scheme either for development of new industries in specified areas, or for mere expansion of the existing production capacities of the industries. Thus, the main purpose of the resolution was to modernize industries, which ordinarily would come at a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Karnataka of Rs. 55,27,733/-. 9. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08 in ITA Nos.3011, 3012, 3013, 3093/Ahd/2010, order dated 19/12/2013. The ld. Departmental Representative has also agreed upon the same. 10. We find that the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08, vide order dated 19/12/2013, has held as under:- "7. The learned AR submitted that in all these appeals except for the change in figure, the facts are identical and therefore we are quoting the facts in the case of Jivraj Tea Ltd. in ITA No.3013/Ahd/2010 from the order of the learned CIT(A) which reads as under: "6.2 The Assessing Officer has found that the profit included Rs. 59,16,6667- as received on sale of sales tax entitlement in respect of windmill installed at Ahmednagar, Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer further observed that the sales tax entitlement is an incentive which is calculated on the basis of investment made in the project which in this case is 1/6th of the eligible investment. The source of sales tax entitlement lies in the sch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Accordingly, the claim of deduction u/s.80IA for Rs. 92,41,888/-, Rs. 63,69,121/- and Rs. 2,48,928/- respectively was disallowed. 6.4 The appellant has submitted that the profit on sale of sales tax exemption and entitlement is derived from the Industrial Undertaking being the windmill and on this u/s.80IA is allowable. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Limited was in respect of profit received from DEPB and Duty Draw Back Scheme and it was held that such profit cannot be treated as having been derived from the eigible industrial undertaking. It was further submitted that liberal interpretation should be made of the benefiting sections so that the assessee can claim and avail various deductions given to him. 6.5 Regarding the application of the provision of section 80IA(5), the appellant has submitted that the initial assessment year shall be the assessment year falling within a period of 15 years beginning from the year in which the industrial undertaking commences operation, for which for the first time, the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act is claimed by the assessee, and not the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the source of the sales tax exemption entitlement lies in the scheme formed by the Maharashtra State Government for sales tax. Thus, the entitlement flows from the sales tax exemption scheme. Hence, by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the profit on sale of sales tax exemption entitlement, is not derived from the industrial undertaking and thus, not eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 7. Regarding application of section 80IA(5), the section reads as under: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year up to and including the assessment year for which the determination is to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80IA which in this case is the units/undertaking, the units of the windmill generating electricity for the assessee. As per the wording of the sub section (5) of section 80IA, for the purposes of computation of the deduction, it has to be assumed that the only source of income of the assessee is the eligible business. The income or loss of this business alone is to be considered as if that were the only source. This means neither the income of the undertaking nor the loss thereof can be set off or carried forward and set off or adjusted against any other source of income or loss. As a corollary, the income or the loss of the other business or source cannot be considered or set off for determining the quantum of the deduction of the eligible business". Para 33) 7.2 Thus, it is evident that for calculating the deduction u/s.80IA, we have to treat that the appellant is having only the eligible business i.e. the windmill, as the only source of income and has no other business activity. Hence, the unabsorbed depreciation and business loss from the date of installation and running of windmill has to be taken into consideration and set off against this year's income. There is no ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same treatment will be met out for both the assesses in the above example. 7.4 Further, the deduction u/s.80IA is allowed to an undertaking or an enterprise or an eligible business and not to an assessee. Hence, for allowing deduction u/s.80IA, only the windmill unit has to be considered separately ignoring the other businesses. 7.5 The amendment in section 80IA by Finance Act, 1999, has not made any material change on this point. The new section 80IA(2) is only in respect of period for claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. Earlier it was from ten years beginning from the year of installation/commencement of business of eligible unit. Now, it has been spread and the assessee can opt and claim the deduction for ten years out of 15 years starting from the year of installation to fifteen years therefrom. This benefit was given so that the assessee can claim the deduction even if the break-even point is reached after five or even after ten years. Thus, intention was only to make the assessee eligible for claiming deduction even if the unit requires much more time to achieve the break-even point. However, there is no indication that the initial year should not be taken as y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmine Shares & Finance (P) Ltd. (supra) would apply to the 10 consecutive years starting from the initial year in which the assessee exercises its option to avail the deduction u/s. 80IA. 9. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goldmine Shares and Finance (P.) Ltd (supra) and submitted that Section 80IA(5) would apply and the losses of the earlier years were to be brought forward notionally and adjusted against the profit of the initial year of the assessee from eligible business as if this was the only business carried on by the assessee. It was the argument of the learned DR that the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswany Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) was not a good law because the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hyderabad Chemicals Supplies Ltd. vs ACIT, (2012) 20 taxmann. com 289 (Hyd) held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswany Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) though not of the jurisdictional High Court prevail over order of the Special Bench even though the jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal. However,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 116 ITD 241 (Chennai). He also relied upon the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rangamma Steel & Malleables Vs. ACIT, 132 TTJ 365 (Chennai). He further relied upon the decision of the Bangalooru Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anil H. Lad Vs. DCIT, (2012), 25 taxmann.com 454 (Bang). He further relied upon the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shevie Exports Vs. JCIT, 33 taxmann.com 446 (Mum). 12. Learned DR also relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Bench (3rd Member) in the case of Kanel Oil and Export Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT (2009) 121 ITD 596 (Ahd) (TN) and submitted that it has been held that judgment of the non Jurisdictional High Court though the only the judgment on the point has been rendered was not binding on the Tribunal and therefore, it was the submission of the learned DR that following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goldmine Shares and Finance (P.) Ltd (supra) the issue should be decided in favour of the assessee. 13. Learned AR of the assessee countered the argument of the learned DR by pointing out that in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idy in the hand of the recipients whether revenue or capital will have to be determined having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. The source of fund is quite immaterial. If the purpose is to help the assessee to set up its business or complete a project the monies must be treated as having been received for capital purposes. But, if monies are given to the assessee for assisting him in carrying out the business operations and given after the satisfaction of the conditions of commencement of production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of trade. He referred to pages 4 to 13 of the paper book no.2 and pointed out there from that it contains eligibility certificate for sales tax incentive wherein it is stated that the total project cost was Rs. 5 crores and that sales tax benefit for the year 2006-07 was 1/6 of eligible investment which was Rs. 83,33,33/- Thus it was his submission that the sales tax entitlement was given for setting up of the windmill farm project by the assessee for a period of six year, and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was applicable to the assessee and hence, the receipt was a capital re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has the option to choose the initial year for claiming the deduction u/s. 80IA for 10 consecutive years within 15 consecutive years from the date of the commencement of the eligible unit. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it was the submission of the learned DR that once the assessee selects the initial year for claiming deduction under section 80 IA (4) then the earlier years brought forward losses and depreciations need not be adjusted against the profits of initial year from the eligible unit for allowing deduction under section 80IA to the assessee. The provisions of section 80 IA (5) shall apply for the years after the initial year for computing the deduction allowable to the assessee under section 80IA of the Act. 18. We find force in the submission of the learned AR of the assessee. We also find that it is an undisputed fact that in all the appeals under consideration the initial year chosen by the assessee for claiming deduction is after 1-4-2000 when the amended provision of section 80IA was applicable. 19. Section 80IA, which has been substituted w.e.f. 1st April 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear" has been specifically taken away. Now, when the assessee exercises the option of choosing the initial assessment year as culled out in sub-section (2) of Section 80IA from which it chooses its 10 years of deduction out of 15 years, then only the losses of the years starting from the initial assessment year alone are to be brought forward as stipulated in section 80IA(5). The loss prior to the initial assessment year which has already been set-off cannot be brought forward and adjusted into the period of ten years from the initial assessment year as contemplated or chosen by the assessee. It is only when the loss have been incurred from the initial assessment year, then the assessee has to adjust loss in the subsequent assessment years and it has to be computed as if eligible business is the only source of income and then only deduction under section 80IA can be determined. This is the true import of section 80IA(5). 21. In the decision of Goldmine Shares and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), decided by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, the claim of deduction by the assessee had started from assessment year 1996-97 onwards and the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment of this Court cited supra considered the scope of sub-s. (6) of s. 8o-I, which is the corresponding provision of sub-s. (5) of s. 80-IA. Both are similarly worded and therefore we agree entirely with the Division Bench judgment of this Court cited supra. In the case of CIT vs. Mewar Oil &.General Mills Ltd. (2004) 186 CTR (Raj) 141: (2004) 271ITR 311 (Raj), the Rajasthan High Court also considered the scope of s. 80-I and held as follows:- "Having considered the rival contentions which follow on the line noticed above, we are of the opinion that on finding the fact that there was no carry forward losses of 1983-84, which could be set off against the income of the current asst. yr, 1984-85, the recomputation of income from the new industrial undertaking by setting off the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation or depreciation allowance from previous year did not simply arise and on the finding of fact noticed by the CIT(A), which has not been disturbed by the Tribunal and challenged before us, there was no error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which could be rectified. That question would have been germane only if there would have been carry forwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nit in the year 2000-01. With regard to Gujarat Unit, the Tribunal held that pre-amendment definition of initial assessment year would be applicable i.e., provisions which were prior to 1st April 1999 will apply because the assessee had started commercial production in the financial year 1996-97. Regarding second unit, the Tribunal held that the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) will not be applicable because the income from non eligible business was set-off from the loss of eligible business in the year of commencement. In this case, it was not an issue as to whether the losses pertained to prior to initial assessment year or after the initial assessment year. If the losses have been incurred in the eligible unit and has been set-off against the non- eligible unit after the initial assessment year, then the ratio laid down by the Tribunal is in full consonance with the law. However, this is not the case in the instant case because the loss pertained to prior to initial assessment year which have been set-off against the profits of non-eligible units. The beginning of the initial assessment year as adopted by the assessee is assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., amounting to Rs. 1,62,460/-. 13. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown exempted dividend income of Rs. 900/- during the year under consideration. No expenditure in relation to the investments made to earn exempt income has been shown. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of expenditure incurred in relation to the investments made to earn the exempt income. The assessee stated that no expenditure has been incurred to earn the exempt income. The Assessing Officer held that the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. It is not possible to earn any income (exempt or non-exempt) without incurring certain expenditures. The Assessing Officer further observed that sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Income-tax Act envisages that for the purpose of computing total income, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income. The assessee has not shown any expenditure in relation to the investments made to earn the exempt income and also not proved nexus of investment made out of own fund, expenditure attributable to exemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad sufficient funds for making investments and it had not used borrowed funds for such purposes, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest expenditure. He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (I) Ltd., reported in 221 Taxman 109 (Gujarat)(MAG.), wherein it was held that where assessee's interest free funds far exceeded investments made for earning exempted dividend income, and Assessing Officer had also failed to establish nexus between borrowed funds and investments made, no disallowance could be made under section 14A. 18. Thus, it was the submission of ld. AR of the assessee that no disallowance of interest can be made in view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. As regards the disallowance of administrative expenses of Rs. 12,750/-, he did not make any serious arguments. 19. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the similar addition made in the AY 2007-08 was deleted by the CIT(A) vide order dated 01.09.2010 by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself in ITA No.3007/AHD/2008-09 dated 26.03.2010, for AY 2006-07. 24. The CIT(A), following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for the AY 2006-07, deleted the addition made by it. 25. The DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, whereas the AR supported the order of the CIT(A). 26. We have heard the rival submission and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has purchased tea from outside parties at an average rate of 103.56/kg, whereas tea was purchased from related parties at an average rate of 127.67/kg. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the difference amount of Rs. 24.11/kg paid by the assessee to related parties which worked out to Rs. 7,56,73,020 (31,38,657kg x Rs. 24.11) to the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee's own case for AY 2006-07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,095/- the Gross Profit will become 19.93% on sales of Rs. 90,13,60,187/- while the net profit will increase to 11.96% from 4.72%. Such Gross Profit and Net Profit rates are unreasonably high considering the fact that presumptive profit rate of 8% has been provide for turnover of less than Rs. 60 lakhs. The further argument of the assessee is that for purchases from other parties transportation cost is also incurred by the assessee leading to lower purchase price. 30. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, decided the issue against the assessee by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, as observed by him in paragraphs 6.3 to 7 of the appellate order which read as under:- "6.3.1 The first contention of the appellant is that this ground of appeal is covered by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT for AY 2006-07 and the Order of the CIT(A)-I for AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09. As regards these, three Asstt. Years, the additions in those orders were made u/s 40A(2)(a) / 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act by comparing the average purchase price for the entire year by dividing the total purchase value by the total quantity of Tea purchased from associate co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince week is a very small sample, as compared to the entire year, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble ITAT in AY 2006-07 that mere comparison of the yearly average purchase price cannot be a basis for addition does not apply to the present appeal i.e. AY 2009-10. 6.3.6 Considering the turnover and the scale of operations of the appellant, the weekly average purchase price pattern is more appropriate. The effect of fluctuations in the tea price, for reasons other than the quality of tea purchased, do not affect the weekly average price, as these factors including market conditions do not vary much during such a short period. The appellant's contention that the payment of tea to its associate concern is not higher than the market value, can be true only if the appellant establishes that it has been purchasing only high quality tea from associate concern and only low quality tea from other parties and while it is selling only high quality tea to outside parties and only low quality tea to associate concern. 6.3.7 Before examining this aspect, it is necessary to understand how the of tea is graded. The main varieties of tea on the basis of the area in which the Tea is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r grading than BOP. The purchases from both i.e. associate concern and outside parties therefore falls broadly in the main grades BOP, BP and DUST for the 20th week. 6.3.11 Apart from above no further classification is mentioned in most of the cases except that name of garden is mentioned in some cases. However, the name of the garden does not lead to larger variation in the price of Tea from the same geographical area. There will be a different names of garden for different owners / proprietors. All the tea grown in a particular area can always be classified into the broad categories (supra) in which tea industry classifies them. While there are minor differences in the classification of tea in different nations and for black, green and Oolong tea, price of the tea is mainly governed by the size of the tea leaves and the method of production of tea. The traditional method of production is by hand while, the modern method is called CTC process (Crush, Tear and Curl). The mechanized process damages the tea leaves and results in lower grading. Over all the tea classification mainly depends on the size and type of leaf though for green tea and Oolong tea, classification is slightly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly then the section can be applied. The only requirement is that the expenditure should be excessive or unreasonable having regard to (a) fair market value of goods (b) legitimate needs of the business (c) benefit derived by the assessee therefrom. Therefore, this contention of the appellant is also rejected. 6.3.15 Another contention regarding increase or decrease of GP as compared t earlier years is also a very general explanation and submissions made by the appellant do not help the case of the appellant. The GP variation is an indication of only the overall variation of purchase and sale rates. It has no S application for the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) / 40A(2)(b). 6.3.16 The appellant's reliance of presumptive profit rate of 8% is also without legal basis. The presumptive profit rate is a deemed profit rate for entities having very small turnover and appellant's turn over is not comparable to such cases. 6.3.17 The argument of transportation cost in respect of purchase from outside parties is also a general explanation and not subject to verification. 6.3.18 Considering the detailed discussion (supra), it is held that the Assessing Officer was correct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition, it can be said that the Department has not accepted the decision of the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Hon'ble ITAT of deleting the addition and filed appeal before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 33. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the issue under consideration and the facts involved are similar to the issue and facts involved in the above case of the assessee in the AY 2006-07. The DR attempted to make a distinction in the facts by pointing out that in the AY 2006-07 the yearly average was only considered by the Revenue but in the year under consideration though the AO compared yearly average but CIT(A) has also taken into consideration the weekly average. We do not find any force in this argument of the DR and comparison of weekly average also does not help the case of the Revenue. We find that by comparing weekly average the CIT(A) found that the average price of the assessee from its associate concerns in week No.33 and 39 were lower than the average price of purchase from others. After reaching this finding also the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO in its entirety....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08 in ITA Nos.3011, 3012, 3013, 3093/Ahd/2010, order dated 19/12/2013. The ld. Departmental Representative also agreed upon the same. 38. We find that the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the AY 2007-08, vide order dated 19/12/2013, has held as under:- "7. The learned AR submitted that in all these appeals except for the change in figure, the facts are identical and therefore we are quoting the facts in the case of Jivraj Tea Ltd. in ITA No.3013/Ahd/2010 from the order of the learned CIT(A) which reads as under: "6.2 The Assessing Officer has found that the profit included Rs. 59,16,6667- as received on sale of sales tax entitlement in respect of windmill installed at Ahmednagar, Maharashtra. The Assessing Officer further observed that the sales tax entitlement is an incentive which is calculated on the basis of investment made in the project which in this case is 1/6th of the eligible investment. The source of sales tax entitlement lies in the scheme formed by the Maharashtra State Government. Hence, it is not profit derived by the Industrial Undertaking and thus, not eligib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.4 The appellant has submitted that the profit on sale of sales tax exemption and entitlement is derived from the Industrial Undertaking being the windmill and on this u/s.80IA is allowable. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Limited was in respect of profit received from DEPB and Duty Draw Back Scheme and it was held that such profit cannot be treated as having been derived from the eigible industrial undertaking. It was further submitted that liberal interpretation should be made of the benefiting sections so that the assessee can claim and avail various deductions given to him. 6.5 Regarding the application of the provision of section 80IA(5), the appellant has submitted that the initial assessment year shall be the assessment year falling within a period of 15 years beginning from the year in which the industrial undertaking commences operation, for which for the first time, the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act is claimed by the assessee, and not the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the industrial undertaking commences operation. The appellant first time claimed deduction in A.Y.2004-05 for the unit Ahmednagar Mahara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thus, the entitlement flows from the sales tax exemption scheme. Hence, by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the Assessing Officer was justified in holding that the profit on sale of sales tax exemption entitlement, is not derived from the industrial undertaking and thus, not eligible for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. 7. Regarding application of section 80IA(5), the section reads as under: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year up to and including the assessment year for which the determination is to be made." 7.1 The Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs Goldmine Shares and Finance Pvt. Ltd. has held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding of the sub section (5) of section 80IA, for the purposes of computation of the deduction, it has to be assumed that the only source of income of the assessee is the eligible business. The income or loss of this business alone is to be considered as if that were the only source. This means neither the income of the undertaking nor the loss thereof can be set off or carried forward and set off or adjusted against any other source of income or loss. As a corollary, the income or the loss of the other business or source cannot be considered or set off for determining the quantum of the deduction of the eligible business". Para 33) 7.2 Thus, it is evident that for calculating the deduction u/s.80IA, we have to treat that the appellant is having only the eligible business i.e. the windmill, as the only source of income and has no other business activity. Hence, the unabsorbed depreciation and business loss from the date of installation and running of windmill has to be taken into consideration and set off against this year's income. There is no justification for treating it as being set off with other business in earlier years, even if this was actually set off with the othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to an undertaking or an enterprise or an eligible business and not to an assessee. Hence, for allowing deduction u/s.80IA, only the windmill unit has to be considered separately ignoring the other businesses. 7.5 The amendment in section 80IA by Finance Act, 1999, has not made any material change on this point. The new section 80IA(2) is only in respect of period for claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. Earlier it was from ten years beginning from the year of installation/commencement of business of eligible unit. Now, it has been spread and the assessee can opt and claim the deduction for ten years out of 15 years starting from the year of installation to fifteen years therefrom. This benefit was given so that the assessee can claim the deduction even if the break-even point is reached after five or even after ten years. Thus, intention was only to make the assessee eligible for claiming deduction even if the unit requires much more time to achieve the break-even point. However, there is no indication that the initial year should not be taken as year of installation/commencement but the year when the first time the assessee opts for deduction u/s.80IA of the I.T. Act. Even o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcises its option to avail the deduction u/s. 80IA. 9. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goldmine Shares and Finance (P.) Ltd (supra) and submitted that Section 80IA(5) would apply and the losses of the earlier years were to be brought forward notionally and adjusted against the profit of the initial year of the assessee from eligible business as if this was the only business carried on by the assessee. It was the argument of the learned DR that the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswany Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) was not a good law because the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hyderabad Chemicals Supplies Ltd. vs ACIT, (2012) 20 taxmann. com 289 (Hyd) held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswany Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) though not of the jurisdictional High Court prevail over order of the Special Bench even though the jurisdictional Bench of the Tribunal. However, where the judgment of non Jurisdictional High Court, though the only judgment on the point has been rendered without having been inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rangamma Steel & Malleables Vs. ACIT, 132 TTJ 365 (Chennai). He further relied upon the decision of the Bangalooru Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anil H. Lad Vs. DCIT, (2012), 25 taxmann.com 454 (Bang). He further relied upon the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shevie Exports Vs. JCIT, 33 taxmann.com 446 (Mum). 12. Learned DR also relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Bench (3rd Member) in the case of Kanel Oil and Export Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT (2009) 121 ITD 596 (Ahd) (TN) and submitted that it has been held that judgment of the non Jurisdictional High Court though the only the judgment on the point has been rendered was not binding on the Tribunal and therefore, it was the submission of the learned DR that following the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goldmine Shares and Finance (P.) Ltd (supra) the issue should be decided in favour of the assessee. 13. Learned AR of the assessee countered the argument of the learned DR by pointing out that in the decision of the 3rd Member of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kanel Oil and Export Industries Ltd. (supra), it was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy is given. The source of fund is quite immaterial. If the purpose is to help the assessee to set up its business or complete a project the monies must be treated as having been received for capital purposes. But, if monies are given to the assessee for assisting him in carrying out the business operations and given after the satisfaction of the conditions of commencement of production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of trade. He referred to pages 4 to 13 of the paper book no.2 and pointed out there from that it contains eligibility certificate for sales tax incentive wherein it is stated that the total project cost was Rs. 5 crores and that sales tax benefit for the year 2006-07 was 1/6 of eligible investment which was Rs. 83,33,33/- Thus it was his submission that the sales tax entitlement was given for setting up of the windmill farm project by the assessee for a period of six year, and therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was applicable to the assessee and hence, the receipt was a capital receipt not liable to tax as held by the Hon'ble High Court. 15. On the other hand, the learned Department Representative submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of the commencement of the eligible unit. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it was the submission of the learned DR that once the assessee selects the initial year for claiming deduction under section 80 IA (4) then the earlier years brought forward losses and depreciations need not be adjusted against the profits of initial year from the eligible unit for allowing deduction under section 80IA to the assessee. The provisions of section 80 IA (5) shall apply for the years after the initial year for computing the deduction allowable to the assessee under section 80IA of the Act. 18. We find force in the submission of the learned AR of the assessee. We also find that it is an undisputed fact that in all the appeals under consideration the initial year chosen by the assessee for claiming deduction is after 1-4-2000 when the amended provision of section 80IA was applicable. 19. Section 80IA, which has been substituted w.e.f. 1st April 2000, provides that where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking from any eligible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in sub-section (2) of Section 80IA from which it chooses its 10 years of deduction out of 15 years, then only the losses of the years starting from the initial assessment year alone are to be brought forward as stipulated in section 80IA(5). The loss prior to the initial assessment year which has already been set-off cannot be brought forward and adjusted into the period of ten years from the initial assessment year as contemplated or chosen by the assessee. It is only when the loss have been incurred from the initial assessment year, then the assessee has to adjust loss in the subsequent assessment years and it has to be computed as if eligible business is the only source of income and then only deduction under section 80IA can be determined. This is the true import of section 80IA(5). 21. In the decision of Goldmine Shares and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), decided by the Special Bench of the Tribunal, the claim of deduction by the assessee had started from assessment year 1996-97 onwards and the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IA starting from the first year itself i.e., assessment year 1996-97. Thus, the Special Bench was dealing with the operation of section 80I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 80- IA. Both are similarly worded and therefore we agree entirely with the Division Bench judgment of this Court cited supra. In the case of CIT vs. Mewar Oil &.General Mills Ltd. (2004) 186 CTR (Raj) 141: (2004) 271ITR 311 (Raj), the Rajasthan High Court also considered the scope of s. 80-I and held as follows:- "Having considered the rival contentions which follow on the line noticed above, we are of the opinion that on finding the fact that there was no carry forward losses of 1983-84, which could be set off against the income of the current asst. yr, 1984-85, the recomputation of income from the new industrial undertaking by setting off the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation or depreciation allowance from previous year did not simply arise and on the finding of fact noticed by the CIT(A), which has not been disturbed by the Tribunal and challenged before us, there was no error much less any error apparent on the face of the record which could be rectified. That question would have been germane only if there would have been carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed development rebate or any other unabsorbed losses of the previous year arising out of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicable i.e., provisions which were prior to 1st April 1999 will apply because the assessee had started commercial production in the financial year 1996-97. Regarding second unit, the Tribunal held that the judgment of Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) will not be applicable because the income from non eligible business was set-off from the loss of eligible business in the year of commencement. In this case, it was not an issue as to whether the losses pertained to prior to initial assessment year or after the initial assessment year. If the losses have been incurred in the eligible unit and has been set-off against the non- eligible unit after the initial assessment year, then the ratio laid down by the Tribunal is in full consonance with the law. However, this is not the case in the instant case because the loss pertained to prior to initial assessment year which have been set-off against the profits of non-eligible units. The beginning of the initial assessment year as adopted by the assessee is assessment year 2008-09 only and, therefore, the loss of assessment year 2007-08 cannot be notionally carried forward within the meaning of section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving as under:- "8.1 The Assessing Officer has discussed facts related to this addition in para 2 of the assessment order. The relevant part is reproduced herein below:- '..... On verification of the case records and the details furnished, it was noticed that the assessee has sold tea to various parties including parties specified u/s 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act. Further, it was noticed that the assessee company has sold tea to various outside parties at an average rate of Rs. 166.32 per kg whereas from the related parties M/s. Jivraj Tea Company at an average rate of Rs. 147.94 per kg. Therefore, vide notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act the assessee was asked to explain as to why the excess payment @ Rs. 18.38 per kg on account of tea purchase which comes to Rs. 1,79,24,452/- (975215 kg x Rs. 18.38) should not be treated as excessive and unreasonable within the meaning of the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act and disallowed and added to the total income.....' 8.2 The appellant during the course of appellate proceedings, submitted that provisions of section 40A(2)(a) / 40A(2)(b) cannot be applied on sales. The appellant further submitted that the issue is cover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised following additional grounds of appeal. "1. The appellant prays that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) ought to have treated the amount received on sale of Sales Tax Entitlement as "capital receipt" and therefore not liable to tax at all. He has erred in holding the same as taxable by treating it as 'revenue receipt' instead of 'capital receipt'. 2. The appellant submits that as the payee Shri Sureshchandra Shah has paid due tax considering compensation payable as per the agreement with appellant, as per the amended provision of section 40(a)(ia) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 applicable retrospectively, no disallowance is required to be made. 44. At the time of the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative had no objection to the admission of the above additional grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the additional grounds raised by the assessee were admitted and parties were allowed to make their submissions thereon. 45. The Ground No.1 and the additional ground No.2 read as under:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was further submitted that the appellant has already paid an amount of Rs. 7,75,060/- and only Rs. 10,66,062/- was payable as compensation. As per decision of Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited vs. DCIT 26 DTR 79, the provision of Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only to the specified amount outstanding to be payable as on the year ending date. Hence, alternatively the addition may be restricted to Rs. 10,66,062/-. 48. After considering the facts and submissions, the ld. CIT(A) was held as under:- "7. I have considered the facts and the submissions. I do not agree with the appellant's views. Although the expenditure is claimed to be made for the compensation to Shri Suresh Chandra Shah, but the real intent coming out from the agreement entered, is that it is paid for the use of premises alongwith fixtures. As per the CBDT's Circular No.715 dated 08.08.1995, it was clarified that the tax is to be deducted from the rent paid by whatever name called for hire of a property. The incident of tax at source does not depend upon the nomenclature but on the content of the agreement and further it was clarified that eve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count for AY 2007-08 in case of Sureshchandra Shah. 2. Assessment order in case of Shri Sureshchandra Shah passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2007-08. The same evidences that the recipient of the amount paid by the assessee has shown the same as its income in the return of income filed and paid the tax due thereon. Therefore in view of the Second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), no disallowance of expenditure claimed by the assessee could be made. It was his submission that the additional evidences should be accepted and the matter should be restored back to the file of AO for re- adjudication of the issue afresh, after considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee. 50. The DR on the other hand agreed the submission of the ld. AR of the assessee. 51. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction for Rs. 18,41,122/- paid to Shri Sureshchandra Shah as rent as the assessee failed to deduct TDS u/s 194I of the Act and therefore, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were applicable. On appeal, CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement is an incentive which is calculated on the basis of investment made in the project which in this case is 1/6th of the eligible investment. The source of sales tax entitlement lies in the scheme formed by the Maharashtra State Government. Hence, it is not profit derived by the Industrial Undertaking and thus, not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the IT Act. For this, the Assessing Officer placed the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Limited vs. CIT 183 Taxman 349 (SC). 54. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held as under:- "11. I have considered the facts and the submissions. I do not agree with the appellant views. The sales tax exemption entitlement are the incentives given by the Maharashtra Government on the investment made by the assessee for installation of windmill and is calculated on the investment which in this case is 1/6th of the investment. It is not based on the turnover or the profit of the unit. The source of the sales tax exemption entitlement lies in the scheme formed by the Maharashtra State Government for sales tax. Thus, the entitlement flows from the sales tax exemption scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee during the course of hearing submitted that the main contention of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) was that the sales tax incentive was a capital receipt of the assessee and hence not liable to tax and for this proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Birla VXL Ltd. (supra). He contended that the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon this contention of the assessee and neither has recorded the same in his order which was submitted to him by way of a written submission. He therefore contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court it has to be held that the sales tax incentives are capital receipt in the hands of the assessee not liable to tax. In the alternate submission he contended that if it is so held that its sales tax incentive was liable to tax that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Meghalaya Steel Ltd., (2013) 217 Taxmann.com 184 (Gau), the assessee is entitled for deduction on the sale of sales tax entitlement u/s.80IA of the Act because in that case the Hon'ble High Court has held that transport subsidy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be computed in terms of the percentage of the fixed capital investment. Benefits were to last for specified periods and upto exhausting maximum limit computed in terms of the percentage of the fixed capital investment. 12. It can thus be straightaway seen that the benefit, though computed in terms of the Sales Tax liability in the hands of the recipient, the same was not mean to give any benefit on day-to- day functioning of the business, or for making the industry more profitable. The principle aim of the scheme was to cover the capital outlay already made by the assessee in undertaking special modernization of its existing industry." 33. We, therefore, set aside this issue back to the file of the AO to re-adjudicate the same after considering the scheme of sales tax entitlement of the Government of Maharastra under which the assessee has received sales tax entitlement and also after taking into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Birla VXL Ltd. (supra) quoted above. Needless to mention that the AO shall allow reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before re-adjudicating the issue afresh. We order accordingly thus gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. For this, the Assessing Officer placed the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India Limited vs CIT 183 Taxman 349(SC). 6.3 Further, the Assessing Officer observed that for calculating the amount of deduction u/s.80IA, the provision of section 80IA(5) has to be applied and thereby unabsorbed business losses and depreciation of earlier year in respect of windmills has to be considered by treating it as the only unit existing from the year of installation, notwithstanding with the fact that unabsorbed business loss and depreciation was set off in the earlier year against the profit of other units. The Assessing Officer observed that the windmill at Ahmednagar Maharashtra was installed and commenced operations in AY.2002-03 and unabsorbed depreciation / business loss of this unit in isolation comes to Rs. 3,53,59,339/- up to A.Y.2007-08. Similarly, windmill at Jodha Rajasthan was installed /commenced production in A.Y.2004-05 and the unabsorbed depreciation /business loss carried forward till A.Y.2007-08 comes to Rs. 2,88,81,178/-, and windmill at Chitra Durga Karnataka was installed in A.Y.2005-06 up to A.Y.2007-08 the unabsorbed deprec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmill and in A.Y.2007-08 for Karnataka windmill, which becomes the initial year. The losses and depreciation of the years earlier to the initial assessment year (i.e. A.Y.2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 respectively), which have already been absorbed against the profits of the other business, cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible business for computing the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act. For this, the appellant has relied on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 38 DTR 57 (Mad). It was further submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of ACIT vs Goldmine Shares & Finance P. Ltd. 116 TTJ (Ahd)(SB), is not applicable as that decision was delivered before the amendment to the section by Finance Act, 1999. Before the amendment, initial assessment year was defined in the Act but after the amendment, there is no definition for initial assessment year in the Act and there is option to the assessee in selecting the year for claiming relief u/s.80IA of the Act. 6.6 I have considered the facts and the submissions. I do not agree with the appellant's views. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction, the eligible business as the only source of income of the assessee during the initial assessment year as well as subsequent years and has an over riding effect on all other provisions of the Act", (para 23) "Section 80IA(5) bids one to treat the eligible business as the only source of income of an undertaking as real, which is an imaginary state of affairs. One must surely (imagine) as also real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flown from or accompanied it i.e., there was no other source of income of the assessee. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs (eligible business being the only source); it does sot say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of the state of affairs, that there are other sources and that against those sources the unabsorbed depreciation or losses of eligible business were set off", (para 30) "It is implicit from the tenor and phraseology implied in section 80IA(5) that in substance, a legal fiction is created by which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant that initial assessment year has to be taken as the year in which the appellant first claimed deduction u/s.80IA and not the year of installation, is not acceptable. The appellant has relied on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 38 DTR 57 (Mad), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the initial assessment year means the year when first time the assessee opted for the deduction u/s.80IA and not the year of setting up/commencement of the business of the unit, because the initial year has not been defined in the Act and thus, liberal interpretation has to be made for the term 'initial assessment year' so that the appellant is allowed possible benefits given by the Act. With due respect to the Hon'ble Court, it is submitted that when any term is not defined and interpretation is to be made, the point of equity has also to be taken into consideration and it should not lead to discrimination among various assesees. If we take the initial year as not the year of installation/commencement but the year of first claim opted for, it will be disadvantageous to those assessees who do not have any other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'initial year' means the year of installation/commencement of business of the eligible unit. 7.6 Therefore, in my humble opinion, even after the amendment in section 80IA by Finance Act 1999, the Special Bench decision in the case of ACIT vs Goldmine Shares & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra), will remain applicable without any change in the situation, and the initial year has to be taken as the year of installation / commencement of the business of eligible windmill units. 7.7 In view of this, it is held that the Assessing Officer was justified in disallowing the claim of the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act which is upheld and the appellant's ground is rejected." 8. Learned AR submitted that the issue regarding the initial year for deduction u/s. 80IA was decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2012), 340 ITR 477, wherein the Hon'ble High Court after considering the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 1.4.2000 and also considering the amended Section 80IA on para 16 of page 489 of the order concluded that loss in the year earlier to the initial as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat are directly relevant, it is not to be followed. In our opinion, judgment of Special Bench in the case of Goldmine Shares and Finance (P.) Ltd (supra) was squarely applicable to the assessee and following the same we are inclined to decide the issue against the assessee relating to the allowability of deduction u/s.80IA that in terms of the provisions u/s.80IA(5) of the IT Act the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of determination of quantum of deduction u/s. 80IA has to be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of the eligible business even though they have been allowed set off against other income in earlier years. 10. In the rejoinder, the learned AR for the assessee submitted before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1999 to Section 80IA, the initial year of deduction was defined in Section 80IA(2)(iv)(b) as the year in which the eligible undertaking begins to generate power any time during the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1999 and ending on 31st day of March, 2000. He submitted that by the Finance Act, 1999 the original Section 80IA was split into two Sections i.e., Section 80IA and Section 80IB. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Jurisdictional High Court though the only judgment on the point had been rendered without having been informed about certain statutory provisions which are directly relevant, the judgment rendered without noticing a previous binding precedent or a relevant statutory rule was "per incuriam", and therefore, was not binding on the Tribunal. He submitted that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) had considered the amended provisions of Section 80IA of the Act while rendering the decision and it was the only decision of the High Court. No contrary decision has been cited by the learned DR and therefore respectfully following the same the issue should be decided in favour of the assessee. 14. Learned AR further argued that amount received on sale of sales tax entitlement was capital receipt, therefore, was not liable to tax. For this he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Birla VXL Ltd. (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 330 Gujarat and submitted that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court after considering the scheme of sales tax entitlement held that from the provisions of the said sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was considering the sales tax deferment scheme of the Government of Gujarat whereas in the case of the assessee the eligible unit was in the State of Maharastra, and therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of Birla VXL Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the assessee. The other argument of the learned Departmental Representative was that since the assessee had sold the sales tax entitlement, therefore, the assessee would not be eligible to claim the same as capital receipt not liable to tax. 16. In the rejoinder, the learned AR argued that the scheme in the case of the assessee of sales tax deferment was exactly the same as that of Gujarat Government and the Revenue has placed no material on record to show any distinguishing factors in the same. He submitted that merely because the assessee sold the sales tax incentive which is a capital asset as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Birla VXL Ltd. cannot be a ground to treat the receipt as revenue. 17. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the order of the lower authorities and material available on record. In the case of Jivraj Tea Ltd., the assessee claimed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed in computing the deduction of an amount equal to 100% of the profits and gains derived from such business for 10 consecutive years. Substituted sub- section (2) of section 80IA, provides that an option is given to the assessee for claiming any 10 consecutive assessment year out of 15 years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or the enterprise develops and begin to operate. The 15 years is the outer limit within which the assessee can choose the period of claiming the deduction. Sub-section (5) is a non-obstante clause which deals with the quantum of deduction for an eligible business. The relevant provision of sub-section (5) of section 80IA, reads as under:- "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aimed the deduction in the assessment year 1996-97 and for subsequent assessment years. This aspect of the matter has been very well elaborated by the Madras High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra) after considering the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in Goldmine Shares And Finance Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and relevant provisions of the Act i.e., pre amendment and post amendment have come to the same conclusion:- "From reading of the above, it is clear that the eligible business were the only source of income, during the previous year relevant to initial assessment year and every subsequent assessment years. When the assessee exercises the option, the only losses of the years beginning from initial assessment year alone are to be brought forward and no losses of earlier years which were already set off against the income of the assessee. Looking forward to a period of ten years from the initial assessment is contemplated. It does not allow the Revenue to look backward and find out if there is any loss of earlier years and bring forward notionally even though the same were set off against other income of the assessee and the set off against the current incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to be set off against the income of the current year. It is not at all required that losses or other deductions which have already been set off against the income of the previous year should be reopened again for computation of current income under s.80-I for the purpose of computing admissible deductions thereunder. 23. In view thereof, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not erred in holding that there was no rectification possible under s. 8o-I in the present case, albeit, for reasons somewhat different from those which prevailed with the Tribunal. There being no carry forward of allowable deductions under the head depreciation or development rebate which needed to be absorbed against the income of the current year and, therefore, recomputation of income for the purpose of computing permissible deduction under s. 8o-I for the new industrial undertaking was not required in the present case. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs." 24. From reading of the above, the Rajasthan High Court held that it is not at all required that losses or other deductions which have already been set off against the income of the previ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the learned Departmental Representative on the decision of Pidilite Industries (supra), will not be applicable in the present case. 27. The other decision heavily relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative in Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Ltd. (supra) will also not apply to the facts of the present case, as in that case, the wind mill started its operation on 3ist March 1999 and the first year of operation was assessment year 1999-2000. Thus, in the assessment year 1999-2000, the definition of "initial assessment year" was already there in the Act and there was no provision through which the assessee could have chosen its initial assessment year. This provision was brought in statute w.e.f.1st April 2000, by virtue of section 80IA. Thus, this decision also will not help the case of the M/s. Shevie Exports Department. In asseessee's case, as specifically stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the assessee's claim for initial assessment year i.e., assessment year 2008-09 and its claim for deduction under section 80A made for the first time from assessment year 2008-09, has not been disputed. Thus, the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned Departmental Repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 5426480 45063 120.42 31159596 219,774 141.78 15 10964183 91021 120.46 30737031 218.433 140.72 16 17511098 144500 121.18 22924847 164.503 139.36 17 15413768 129060 119.43 2046740 15440 132.56 Document 2 18 8221374 67130 122.47 20194749 19 4660622 41183 113.17 0 143113 0 141,11 0 20 5798455 51608 112.36 3917622 27374 143.11 21 11941476 100719 118.56 4740780 34980 135.53 22 5894795 47618 123.79 8226699 60177 136.71 23 7825457 64844 120.68 14183307 102820 137.94 24 6557093 53667 122.121 5491292 40819 134.53 25 11822305 96746 1220.20 3474873 26795 129.68 26 9014002 62578 124.20 4348522 34245 126.98 27 14913750 119547 124.75 6911138 53538 129.09 28 12143636 91670 132.34 865511 6300 137.38 29 6847303 54999 124.50 2435939 18280 133.26 30 16560685 129388 127.99 513911 3860 133.14 31 5875116 43372 135.46 0 0 0 32 799196....