TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 216
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e being clear evidence to the contrary ? (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation on the inflated cost of windmills purchased by the assessee? (C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing excess lease rentals on the basis of inflated cost of windmills ?" 2. These three identical questions pertain to assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. In Income Tax Appeal No.1515/13 and 1713/13, these three questions are common. There is however, an additional question which is common in appeal Nos. ITXA Nos.1713/13 & 1511/13 which is reproduced below: "D. Whether on the facts and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 5,80,51,788/-. The assessee claimed reliefs under Section 40(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer stating that during the search and seizure of the business premises, no evidence of the assessee's complicity in the transactions with NEG Micon was gathered. It was also noticed that the assessment order did not indicate that the assessee had paid a higher price for the purchase of windmills. Apropos, the lease rentals, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance. All payments were made by crossed account payee cheques and it was fully accounted for in the books of account. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the case of the Revenue is completely consistent with the record which will show that the Assessing Officer had proceeded merely on the basis of conjecture without any evidence as the assessee causing the costs to be inflated in order to enable the group company to benefit. According to Mr. Mistri, the contention of the revenue is that subsequent transactions have been put into place all of which enure to benefit of the Weizmann group is incorrect. It is the revenue's contention that the commission involved in the deal has been indirectly handed back to the Weizmann group. According to Mr. Mistri, these contentions are misconceived. He supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the ITAT an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed back to Weizmann Group, while the assessee, also a Weizmann group company claimed 100% depreciation. The collusion between NEG Micon and Weizmann group it is alleged was in order to deprive the Revenue. 12. A comparative chart has been prepared of the transactions entered into by the Respondent as well as Precot Mills Ltd. claiming difference in prices of windmills pegged at about Rs. 98 lacs. However, comparison with companies like Rajasthan State Power Corporation Ltd. reveals that the price is easily justifiable given the difference in specifications. It is necessary to mention that in the course of the comparison provided between the price paid by Weizmann and Savita Chemicals Ltd. and the assessee, it revealed that Savita Chemicals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was not based on any cogent material but only based on assumption and presumption. In fact, the lease rents were fixed in accordance with the formula provided by Indian Renewable Energy Development, a Government of India Company which provided support to Electricity Project. 15. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in holding that there is nothing on record to prove the excessive amount of lease rent was paid. The said issue is identical in all appeals and the appeals came to be rejected while upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeals filed for the year 2002-03 and 2005-06 were also dismissed. The cross objections filed by the assessee for the year 2002-03 were ....