TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following grievance:- "1. The order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Baroda, is bad in law, contrary to legal pronouncement and same be quashed. The additions/disallowances confirmed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)-I, Baroda, are unwarranted and unjustified. It be held so now and same be deleted. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-I, Baroda, has erred in confirming of Rs. 14,51,000/- on account of amortization of lease rent treating the same as of capital nature. It is submitted that disallowance made is unwarranted and same be deleted now." 4. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon'ble jurisdictional Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strated, as in the facts of this case. We are, however, not swayed by this submission as this issue is no longer res integra and as binding judicial precedent disapprove the propositions so strenuously canvassed by the learned Departmental Representative. We have noted that the CIT(A) has merely followed his order for the assessment year 2009-10 but that has now been reversed by a co-ordinate bench and the matter is said to be pending before Hon'ble High Court. Respectfully following the co-ordinate bench, we uphold the plea of the assessee and restrict the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- as was done in the assessment year 2009-10. 8. Ground no.3 is also thus allowed in the terms indicated above. 9. In ground no.4, the assessee has raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omes to Rs. 2.99 per unit. In the case of assessee itself, it has sold electricity to the GUVNL at the rate of Rs. 2.9769 per unit. Taking this price for sale consideration, the undertakings of the assessee resulted in the loss and therefore, the question of deduction u/s 80IA(4) does not arise. Particulars KWH Rate per KWH (Rs.) Amount (Rs./Lacs) Revised amount @ Rs. 2.81 (in lacs) Captive Usage at Dahej Plant 66,43,54,783 5.6623 37618.08 19777.17 Captive Usage at Baroda Plant (Wheeled from Dahej CPP) 4,32,37,993 6.2021 2681.66 1287.15 Sale to GUVNL 3,62,98,045 2.9769 1080.57 1087.57 Other-from sale of Utilities - - 1878.41 1878.41 74,38,90,821 43258.72 24030.30 On taking t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n appellant's own case in- AY 2008-09 in CAB-I/25/10-11 through order dated 03/11/2011. Facts of the case being same for the year under consideration also, it is held that the AO was justified in rejecting 'market value' of electricity captively consumed to be rate charged by DGVCL and MGVCL The AO is directed to instead adopt market value for electricity units actually sold by it to be the actual rate, i.e. Rs. 2.23 per unit and for electricity units captively consumed to be average rate of purchase of power by GUVNL during FY 2009- 10 from various generating companies i.e. Rs. 3.11 per unit. Assessing Officer would accordingly re-compute the profit of eligible undertakings for the purpose of section 80IA(4). Since the same wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised the following grievance:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,69,30,658/- made on account of disallowance of expenditure for replacement of re-membraning cells - II disregarding the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 201 (SC)." 17. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgment dated 01.08.2016 (ITA No.577 of 2016) in assessee's own case. Respectfully following the same, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 18. Ground N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that it is not covered under clause (ii) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act." 23. Learned representatives fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is covered, in favour of the assessee, by the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the co-ordinate bench in ITA No.2550/Ahd/2012, in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09. 24. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the co-ordinate bench. Respectfully following the views so taken by the co-ordinate bench (supra) in assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 in ITA No.2550/Ahd/2012, we reject the grievance of the Assessing Officer. 25. Ground No.4 is thus dismissed. 26. In ground no. 5, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievance:- "5....