TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 896
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....obacco Jarda, allied by-products, Lime and Generation of power through windmill. It filed the return of income on 31-10-2004 declaring total income of Rs. 26,22,35,980/-. A search action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the Malpani group of cases on 06-10-2009. In response to notice u/s.153A, the assessee filed the return of income on 24-06-2010 disclosing total income of Rs. 23,95,15,482/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 2,27,20,498 u/s.80IA(4) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 2,27,20,498/- u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a) towards profit earned from wind power generation from its windmill. However, no such claim was made by the assessee in its original return. The assessee has claimed the benefit of deduction of Rs. 2,27,20,498/- by way of claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4) in the return filed in response to notice u/s.153A. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why such allowance should be given to the assessee especially when there was no claim in the original return of income filed on 31-10-2004. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions the AO disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business which have been set off against other income in earlier years. 7.1] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 80IA(5) were applicable only from the initial asst. year i.e. the asst. year in which deduction u/s. 80IA was first claimed by the assessee and only for the years starting from the initial asst. year and thereafter, the provisions of section 80IA(5) were applicable and hence, there was no reason to set off the notional brought forward losses/depreciation while computing the deduction u/s. 80IA for the present asst. year. 8] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal." 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue stands decided against the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Vs. ACIT vide ITA Nos.727 to 730/PN/2012 order dated 31-10-2013 for A.Yrs. 2003-04 and 2006-07 to 2008-09 respectively. It has been held in the said decision that in respect of the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Karkhana Ltd. and M/s. Vanaz Engineering Ltd. On account of these transfer of benefit the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 2,04,16,666/- from Kopargaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Rs. 58,33,332/- from M/s. Vanaz Engineering Ltd. with liability to return these amounts to the said parties after 10 years in 5 equal annual instalments. As per the terms agreed between the parties the assessee was to treat the amount received from the purchaser as loan which was to be repaid as per the terms mentioned above without any interest. Further, the agreement shows that in case there was delay in payment within a given time the assessee was entitled to receive interest @14% per annum and 18% per annum respectively from Kopargaon SSK Ltd. and M/s. Vanaz Engg. Ltd. As per clause 1.11.1 the assessee was to treat the amount as loan and accordingly showed the amount in the balance sheet as unsecured loan. Since the assessee has paid interest @12.5% to Kopargaon SSK Ltd. and @9% to M/s. Vanaz Engg. Ltd. as discount amounting to Rs. 32,50,743/- and claimed the same as finance charge in the profit and loss account, the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Murali Agro Products Ltd. vide ITA No.36/2009 order dated 29-10- 2010 and in the case of CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation vide ITA No.523/2013 order dated 21-04-2015 has held that the AO while passing the assessment order u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) cannot disturb the assessment order which has been finalized earlier in absence of any incriminating material unearthed during the search or during 153A proceedings. Respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court cited (Supra) and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 14. So far as ground of appeal No.2 by the Revenue is concerned, the Pune Benches of the Tribunal are consistently taking the view that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act are applicable even when no amount is payable at the end of the year. Therefore, ground of appeal No.2 by the Revenue has to be allowed. However, in view of the Ist ground being dismissed, the 2nd ground become only academic in nature. ITA No.1150/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07) (By As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o justify its claim of depreciation at higher rate of 80% on the expenditure on civil works as well as electrical items, transformers, erection and commissioning, if any. It was explained that the entire expenditure being cost of windmill is entitled to depreciation @80%. 21. However, the AO did not accept the same on the ground that in the provisions of I.T. Rules, 1962 for allowing depreciation different types of assets have been found specified thereby giving different rates of depreciation. According to him windmill and any special designed types which run on windmills has been allowed depreciation @80% and the block of assets which constitutes building has been allowed depreciation @10%. From the details furnished by the assessee he noted that cost of electrical yard fencing and cost of preparation of temporary approach road totaling to Rs. 29,06,008/- has been included in the cost of windmills. According to him electrical yard fencing and preparation of approach road cannot be considered as part of windmills because they are nothing but building. Their use is not depending on windmill. Relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d while supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that the AO has jurisdiction u/s.153A to reassess the income. 26. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. Admittedly, in the instant case the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 29-12-2008. No incriminating material was found during the course of search for the impugned assessment year. However, during proceedings u/s.153A it was found that assessee has claimed higher depreciation on electrical fencing and temporary approach road. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd. reported in 118 TTJ 68, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 10,17,103/- is upheld. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed. ITA No.1184/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07) (By Revenue) : 27. Grounds of appeal No.1 & 2 by the Revenue are as under : "1. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment completed u/s.143(3) prior to the search the AO had allowed the additional depreciation claimed by the assessee. No incriminating material was found during the course of search. The disallowance is not based on any incriminating material. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Murali Agro Products (Supra) no disallowance is called for. 32. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. 33. After hearing both the sides, we find the claim of the assessee regarding additional depreciation was allowed by the AO in the assessment made u/s.143(3) on 29-12-2008 which is prior to the date of search on 06-10-2009. The disallowance of additional depreciation by the AO is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search or post search enquiry. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation (Supra) the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 34. Even on merit also we find the issue s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eciation @5% on the above amount and disallowed the balance depreciation of Rs. 10,17,103/-. 38. In appeal the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Tribunal in the cases of Poonawala Finvest Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 118 TTJ 68 and Vanaz Engineering Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT vide ITA No.987/PN/2006 order dated 31-10-2008 held that on power evacuation, infrastructure, transformer, erection and commissioning of the structures, line work, electrical items will qualify for depreciation @80% whereas MEDA charges, site development expenses, cost of construction of controlled beam, civil work, internal road, development application charges, professional fees and bank charges will not qualify for higher rate of depreciation. She accordingly directed the AO to verify these expenses and allow depreciation on above items accordingly. 39. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 40. After hearing both the sides, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who has directed the AO to allow the depreciation in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finvest Agro Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and Vanaz Engineering Ltd. (Supra). No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that each phase of wind mills was to be considered as a separate undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and hence, the deduction u/s 80IA(4) should have been computed independently for each phases and not on consolidated basis. 8] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in view of the provisions of section 80IA( 5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business which have been set off against other income in earlier years. 8.1] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 80IA(5) were applicable only from the initial asst. year i.e. the asst. year in which deduction u/s. 80IA was first claimed by the assessee and only for the years starting from the initial asst. year and thereafter, the provisions of section 80IA(5) were applicable and hence, there was no reason to set off the notional brought forward losses /depreciation while computing the deduction u/s. 80IA for the present asst. year. 9] The le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 200 ITR 300 wherein it has been held that the assessee could not claim deduction which was neither claimed nor allowed in the original assessment during reassessment proceedings. He further held that the claim was not allowable in view of a specific prohibition u/s.80AC wherein for A.Y. 2006-07 and subsequent years no such deduction shall be allowed u/s.80IA unless the assessee furnishes a return of his income on or before the due dates specified u/s.139(1). The AO further referred to the specific provisions of section 80IA(5) according to which in order to determine the quantum of deduction u/s.80IA(4) the income of the assessee has to be computed as if such eligible business was only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year upto and including the assessment year for which such deduction is claimed. The AO computed the income of the year by considering both the scenarios, i.e. in a consolidated manner, by considering all windmill undertakings as a single unit of an eligible business and also by considering each windmill undertaking as a single unit of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or before the due date specified u/s.139(1). 47. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 48. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed his return of income u/s.139(1) on 30-10-2007. The search took place on 06-10-2009. The assessment for this year was pending as on the date of search and therefore the same gets abated in view of second proviso to section 153A. Relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the assessee can make a new claim for the assessment years which have abated since the AO retains the original jurisdiction. Accordingly, the assessee is entitled to make a fresh claim. 49. So far as the second objection of the CIT(A) that in view of the provisions of section 80AC the assessee can claim the deduction u/s.80IA(4) only if the same has been claimed in the return filed within the due dates stipulated u/s.139(1), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only condition of section 80AC is that the assessee must have filed its return u/s.139(1).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....original return filed u/s.139(1) of the I.T. Act. Relying on the provisions of section 80AC and 80IA (5) the AO disallowed the claim made by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice u/s.153A. We find the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the above action of the AO. We find the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of B.G. Shirke Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) had an occasion to decide such an issue. The relevant observation of the Tribunal from para 9 onwards read as under : "9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In this case, search u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 18.12.2008. On the basis of the second proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act, which reads as under :- "Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this [sub-section] pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate." In the present case, the assessments which are pending on the date of initiation of search are for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, and thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment years 2003-04 and 2006-07 in denying assessee's claim for excluding income on account of retention money. 11. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 and 2006-07 are dismissed. 12. Now, in so far as the assessments for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are concerned, the original assessments were pending on the date of initiation of search, and the same stand abated in terms of the second proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act. Following the reasoning laid down in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), in so far as assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are concerned, the Assessing officer retains the original jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction conferred on him u/s 153A of the Act. In this context, the preliminary issue is as to whether the scope of assessments u/s 153A(1)(b) of the Act for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 can include consideration of assessee's plea to exclude income on account of retention money, considering the fact the returns of income filed by the assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 u/s 139(1) of the Act did not contain any such claim. In the assessments u/s 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment years A.Y. 2003-04, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 2007-08 and 2008-09 are concerned, the income-tax authorities erred in not entertaining the impugned claim of the assessee merely because it was made in the course of an assessment u/s 153A(1)(b) of the Act and was not made in the returns of income originally filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 14. For the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, another objection raised by the Revenue is to the effect that the claim was not made in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act, but was submitted by way of a letter during the assessment proceedings and therefore following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Assessing Officer was justified in not entertaining such a claim. 15. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the return of income submitted in response to notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act, assessee had enclosed a Note dated 14.09.2009, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at page 1 to 2, putting-forth its claim for excluding income on account of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction otherwise than by a revised return and does not put fetters on such powers of the appellate authorities." 16. On the basis of aforesaid, it is sought to be made out that the claim of the assessee ought to have been entertained by the lower authorities and decided on its merits. 17. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue has contended that the lower authorities were justified in not entertaining the impugned claim as it was a fresh claim made only during the assessment proceedings and not in the return of income. 18. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) opined that a fresh claim of the assessee can be entertained at the time of assessment only if it is made by way of a revised return of income; and, the aforesaid proposition has been invoked by the income-tax authorities in the present case to deny assessee's claim for exclusion of income on account of retention money, a claim which was made during the assessment proceedings. 19. Factually speaking, we find that in terms of a communication dated 14.09.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from copy of assessee's communication to the Assessing Officer placed in the Paper Book at pages 3-6. In this factual background, can it be said that the assessee made a fresh claim during the assessment proceedings so as to fall within the purview of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra)? In our view, the fact situation in the present case is qualitatively different than that considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). Ostensibly, the assessee company made a claim for excluding income on account of retention money in the return of income itself, though the quantification was absent, and the actual quantification of such claim was made during the assessment proceedings; thus, substantively speaking it cannot be said that assessee made a new claim during assessment proceedings which was not made in the return of income. Considering the above fact situation, in our view, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in refusing to entertain the impugned claim based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowed. 54. Ground of appeal No.7 relates to methodology of computation of deduction u/s.80IA(4) as adopted by the AO by considering difference phases of windmills as separate undertaking. The Ld.CIT(A) following his order for A.Y. 2005-06 held that in a fresh claim made by the assessee unless it is supported by some incriminating material found during the course of search the claim cannot be entertained during proceedings u/s.153A. He accordingly dismissed the above ground raised by the assessee. 55. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J-Sons Foundry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and vice versa vide consolidated order dated 30-01-2013 for A.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision held that each windmill is to be considerate as a separate undertaking. 56. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 57. After hearing both the sides, we find the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J-Sons Foundry Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) while dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue has observed as under : "15.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mean "business" or "undertaking or enterprise". In our opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) in his well reasoned order has rightly held that every unit constitute a separate undertaking engaged in the eligible business and losses from one unit cannot be set off against the profits. Another unit engaged in the same business for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s.80IA. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same are confirmed and grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed." 58. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited (Supra) and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice we hold that each phase of windmill has to be considered as separate undertaking eligible for deduction u/s.80IA and therefore deduction u/s.80IA(4) should have been computed independently for each phase and not on consolidated basis. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue is accordingly allowed. 59. Grounds of appeal No.8 to 8.1 relates to whether initial assessment year u/s.80IA(5) means year of installation of windmill or year in which the claim of deduction u/s.80IA is first made. 60. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in 340 ITR 477 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, this being a covered matter the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. 63. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 64. After hearing both the sides, we find the issue as to whether initial assessment year u/s.80IA(5) means year of installation of windmill or year in which the claim of deduction u/s.80IA is first made has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawalla Estate Stud & Agro Farm Pvt. Ltd. following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. has observed as under : "13. We have heard both the parties and perused the factual matrix of the case and orders of the Revenue and the paper book. We have also examined the legal position on the matter. Before adjudicating the issue in question, it is necessary to examine the scope of the provisions relating to the initial assessment year : "80-IA. Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see's option to select the 'initial assessment year', we have perused the citations relied upon by the assessee's counsel. The conclusion by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench decision in ITA No. 4620/Mum/2007 (asst. yr. 2004-05) in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Ushdev International Ltd., is straight on this issue of initial assessment year and the option to the assessee and the held portion of the decision reads as under : "In view of the above learned CIT(A)'s order to the extent of holding that initial assessment year and subsequent succeeding assessment years can only be considered for the purpose of computing deduction under s. 80-IA. Coming to the facts of the case, however, as seen from the schedule of details available in the learned CIT(A)'s order the assessee has incurred losses in the asst. yrs. 1997-98 and 1998-99 only. Subsequently in all the years there were profits till asst. yr. 2004-05. It is not clear whether the assessee has claimed any deduction in earlier years under s. 80-IA. This being the 8th year of starting the project, assessee would be left with only another 7 years of claim out of the 10 years available to the assessee. Considering this we are of the opinion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awala Finvest and Agro Pvt. (Supra). In view of the above, grounds of appeal No. 9 to 9.1 by the assessee are dismissed. 68. Ground of Appeal No.10 being general in nature is dismissed. ITA No.1185/PN/2013 (2007-08) (By Revenue) : 69. Grounds raised by the Revenue are as under : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that no addition can be made u/s.153A, if the same is not in assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act and if it is not based on any incriminating seized materials pertains to such A.Y. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that power generation from windmill is manufacturing activity. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that assessee can claim additional depreciation on windmill if assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities, although windmill has no connection with its manufacturing business. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that assessee is eligible to claim depreciation @80% on electrical fittings used for windmill, although depreciation on electrical fittings is @10% only as per I.T. Rules, 1962. 5. The appellant craves to add, alter or amend any or all the grounds of appeal." 70. So far as ground of appeal No.1 is co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in ITR 336 is squarely on the related ground that has been taken by the Assessing Officer for denial of additional depreciation that even if the windmill has no connection with the business of manufacture carried out by the assessee (In this ___ manufacture of jarda), it is entitled to claim additional depreciation on the cost of the windmill. Grounds No. 13 to 13.6 are therefore, treated as allowed." 74. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 75. After hearing both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale (Supra) as well as the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of V.T.M. Ltd. (Supra) . Further, we have already decided this issue in favour of the assessee in ITA No.1184/PN/2013 for A.Y. 2006- 07 and the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue has been dismissed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 76. In ground of appeal No.4 the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in allowing depreciation @80% on electrical fittings used for windmill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lify for higher rate of depreciation. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify these expenses and allow as per above items accordingly. Since the disallowance for earlier A.Yrs. 2006-07 to 2009-10 have been partly confirmed subject to the quantification as per the above remarks, the appellant gets consequential relief. Grounds No. 11 to 11.2 therefore, is partly allowed, subject to the above remarks." 80. Since the Ld.CIT(A) while along higher rate of depreciation on electrical fittings used for windmill has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, therefore, in absence of any contrary material, we find no infirmity on this issue. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.1152/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) (By Assessee) : 81. Grounds of appeal No. 1to 6 by the assessee read as under : "The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other - On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in denying the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of Rs. 5,49,98,855/-. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that in view of the provisions of section 80AC, the assessee can claim the deduction u/s 80IA( 4) only if t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a separate undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and hence, the deduction u/s 80IA(4) should have been computed independently for each phases and not on consolidated basis." 85. After hearing both the sides, we find the above ground is identical to ground of appeal No.7 in ITA No.1151/PN/2013 for A.Y. 2007-08. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the assessee has been allowed. Following similar reasonings, the above ground by the assessee is allowed. 86. Grounds of appeal No.8 to 8.1 by the assessee read as under : "8] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in view of the provisions of section 80IA( 5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the profit from the eligible business for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business which have been set off against other income in earlier years. 8.1] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 80IA(5) were applicable only from the initial asst. year i.e. the asst. year in which deduction u/s. 80IA was first claimed by the assessee and only for the ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Revenue read as under : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that power generation from windmill is manufacturing activity 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that assessee can claim additional depreciation on windmill if assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities, although windmill has no connection with its manufacturing business." 94. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 in ITA No.1185/PN/2013. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the Revenue have been dismissed. Following the same reasonings the above grounds by the Revenue are dismissed. 95. Ground of appeal No.3 by the Revenue reads as under : "3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that assessee is eligible to claim depreciation @80% on electrical fittings used for windmill, although depreciation on electrical fittings is @10% only as per I.T. Rules, 1962." 96. After hearing both the sides, we find the above ground is identical to ground of appeal No.4 in ITA No.1185/PN/2013. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the Revenue has been dismissed. Following the same reasonings t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led in response to notice u/s.153A. 99. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to grounds of appeal No.1 to 6 in ITA No.1151/PN/2013. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed. Following similar reasonings, the above grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 100. Ground of appeal No.7 by the assessee read as under : "7] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that each phase of wind mills was to be considered as a separate undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and hence, the deduction u/s 80IA(4) should have been computed independently for each phases and not on consolidated basis." 101. After hearing both the sides, we find the above ground is identical to ground of appeal No.7 in ITA No.1151/PN/2013 for A.Y. 2007-08. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the assessee has been allowed. Following similar reasonings, the above ground by the assessee is allowed. 102. Grounds of appeal No.8 to 8.1 by the assessee read as under : "8] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in view of the provisions of section 80IA( 5) of the Income ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....% was rightly claimed by the assessee. 107. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the above issue is decided against the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd. reported in 118 TTJ 68. In view of the above, the above grounds by the assessee are dismissed. 108. Ground of appeal No.11 by the assessee being general in nature is dismissed. ITA No.1187/PN/2013 (By Revenue) (A.Y. 2009-10) : 109. Grounds of appeal No. 1 and 2 by the Revenue read as under : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that power generation from windmill is manufacturing activity 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that assessee can claim additional depreciation on windmill if assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities, although windmill has no connection with its manufacturing business." 110. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 in ITA No.1186/PN/2013. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the Revenue have been dismissed. Following the same reasonings the above grounds by the Revenue are dismissed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee at the outset submitted that the above grounds have been decided against the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Poonawala Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). In view of the above, the above grounds by the assessee are dismissed. 117. Ground of appeal No.6 by the assessee being general in nature is dismissed. ITA No.1188/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2010-11) (By Revenue) : 118. Grounds of appeal No. 1 and 2 by the Revenue read as under : "1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that power generation from windmill is manufacturing activity 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deciding that assessee can claim additional depreciation on windmill if assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities, although windmill has no connection with its manufacturing business." 119. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 in ITA No.1186/PN/2013 for A.Y.2008-09. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the Revenue have been dismissed. Following the same reasonings the above grounds by the Revenue are dismissed. 120. Ground of appeal No.3 by the Revenue reads as under : ....