TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2433/Ahd/2012 (assessee's appeal) 2. The assessee has raised following substantive ground of appeal:- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO in considering consumption of machinery spares of Rs. 13,49,877/- as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the A.O. in disallowing deduction u/s. 80IB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 37,80,015/-." 3. In this case the return of income declaring income of Rs. 3, 03,11,580 was filed on 28th of September 2009. Subsequently the case was selected under scheduling by issuing of a notice under section 143(2) of the act on 19th August 2010. During the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner controller, flame detector, billet heater etc. (Rs.1,49,835/-) and Item No.7 i.e. Extrusion tool container (Rs.3,87,333/-)- These items constitute capital expenditure and cannot be considered to be towards 'current repairs'. It is held that Item Nos. 3,4,7 & 8 totalling to Rs. 13,49,877/- were rightly considered to be of capital nature by the Assessing Officer. In respect of remaining items, appellant's contention that the expenditure was towards small items, which were spares or towards repairs is accepted and the expenditure towards the same is held to be revenue expenditure. Assessing Officer is directed to modify the addition made accordingly." 5. During the course of appellate proceedings, ld. counsel contended that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vered in favour of the assessee in its own case by the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide a consolidated order dated 20.07.2016 in Tax Appeal No. 471 to 474 of 2009, In Tax Appeal No. 471 and 473, the common question of law referred to by the Revenue is as under:- "Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in not appreciating that deduction u/s 80IA(4) is not allowable to the assessee for generating power for captive consumption?" 17.2 The ITAT allowed the assessee's claim u/s 80IA(4) at the rate of selling price charged by Gujarat State Electricity Board and other distributing companies from its captive power plant. Against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue preferred the appeal before the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mity in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we answer question (C) and (D) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." 17.4 The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the authorities below. 18. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In view of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment on the same issue in assessee's own case, the issue in question that the assessee is eligible for computation of deduction u/s 80IA(4) on the rates charged by it at selling price is no more res integra. Respectfully following the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court judgment in assessee's own case (supra), this ground of the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 74,45,539/- treating expenses claimed on dies and tools as revenue expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition made by the assessing officer by observing as under:- "2.2 I have considered facts of the case and appellant's submissions. Appellant is in the business of manufacturing aluminum extruded sections requiring use of dies of different sizes as per customer's specifications. Due to frequent change in design of products and heavy wear & tear at the time of, use, life of dies & tools under consideration was very short. Appellant had all along claimed consumption of dies as revenue expenditure and there was no major change in the cost of dies & tools as a proportion of turnover in the year under appeal vis-a-vis pre....