TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances, no common head quarter expenses were required to be allocated to Captive Power Plant for calculating profit eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IA. It is submitted that it be so held now." 5. It was fairly conceded by the Ld. A.R. that this issue is covered against the assessee by the tribunal order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 and also by the tribunal order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 in I.T.A.No. 4091/Ahd/2008 and 213/Ahd/2009 dated 25.11.2011. He submitted a copy of this tribunal order. He has submitted that as per para 6 of this tribunal order in assessment year 2006-07, similar issue was decided against the assessee by following tribunal order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2004-05 but still he placed reliance on the tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs DCW Ltd. 132 TTJ 442 (Mum.). 6. Ld. D.R. of the revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. Since, admittedly, this issue is covered against the assessee by the tribunal order in assessee's own c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) has erred in confirming the addition based on total salary expenditure of the company instead of considering only salaries of common personnel stationed at Headquarters in Kalol. In view of the fact that the appellant had already apportioned such common salaries while calculating deduction u/s. 80IB in the ratio of sales, no addition ought to have been made. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of allocation of salary expense, which is directly attributable to units other than Daman & Baddi. The amount allocated by the Assessing Officer represents salary expenses, directly attributable to units other than Daman & Baddi and therefore no addition ought to have been made. 4.3 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 132.42 Lacs & 49.49 Lacs towards allocation of salary expenses for Daman & Baddi unit respectively. In the facts and circumstances, the addition ought to have been made only for the amount in excess of allocation already made by the assessee. It is submitted that it be so held now." 13. It is submitted by the Ld. A.R. that the A.O. has allocated the entire ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate office only should be made. It is submitted that it be held now. 5.4 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 57.93 Lacs & Rs. 21.33 Lacs for Daman & Baddi unit respectively towards allocation of salary expenses for Daman & Baddi unit respectively. In the facts and circumstances, the addition ought to have been made only for the amount in excess of allocation already made by the assessee. It is submitted that it be so held now." 16. It was fairly conceded by the Ld. A.R. that this issue is covered against the assessee by the tribunal order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07 and in this regard, he drawn our attention to para 8 on page 4 of the tribunal order. For this ground also, he placed reliance on the decision of the tribunal rendered in the case of DCW Ltd. (supra). Ld. D.R. supported the orders of authorities below. 17. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the tribunal decision in assessee's own case of the assessment year 2006-07. Admittedly, this issue is covered against the assessee by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2006-07, this issue was not pressed by the assessee as the amount involved was small. For the current year, reliance was placed by him on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. as reported in 9 Taxman.com 148 (Kerala). He also placed reliance on the tribunal decision rendered in the case of ACIT Vs Vepar Pvt. Ltd. in I.T.A.No. 1374/Ahd/2009 dated 08.07.2011. Ld. D.R. supported the orders of authorities below. 23. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and have gone through the orders of authorities below. In the present case, the A.O. has made disallowance of Rs. 3,25,868/- u/s 14A in respect of various indirect expenses incurred by the assessee such as Directors' remuneration, traveling expenses etc. On this similar issue, the tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs Vepar Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under in para 12 of this tribunal order which is reproduced below.:- "12. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. In the assessment order, the AO disallowed Rs. 2,38,430/-, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 27. Now, we take up the revenue's appeal in I.T.A.No. 4357/Ahd/2007: 28. Ground No.1 is as under:- "The Id, Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in holding that the expenses towards repairs as also staff salary of corporate office, general charges of corporate office and miscellaneous expenses which are incurred not for this CPP Unit and hence the same cannot be apportioned thereby the assessee got relief of Rs. 22.81 lacs." 29. Ld. D.R. supported the assessment order whereas it is submitted by the Ld. A.R. that his issue is related to ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal and the matter involved is covered against the assessee by the tribunal order in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07. Accordingly, this ground of the revenue is allowed. Order of Ld CIT (A) on this issue is reversed and that of the A.O. is restored. 30. Ground No.2 is a under: "The Id. Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the interest expenses attributable to Baddi Unit to Rs. 10.14 lacs as against Rs. 40.26 lacs and for Daman Unit to Rs. 20.91....