TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing and are being disposed of by way of consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Appeal in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 pertaining to the A.Y. 2007-08 may be taken up first, accordingly appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08 is taken as lead case. Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 253/JP/2015. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts an in law in upholding the validity of the order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in disallowing the claim of amortization of mining land of Rs. 92,99,632/- and leasehold land of Rs. 7,26,239/- aggregating to Rs. 1,00,25,871/-. He has further erred in disallowing this claim only on the basis on the finding of his predecessor on this issue in AY 2010-11 ignoring that this claim was allowed in all earlier years and in subsequent years upto AY 2009-10 in regular assessment proceedings and that the claim is also supported by the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of NMDC Ltd. Vs. JCIT in ITA No. 714/Hyd/2012 dt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of apportionment of the expenses and thus made an addition of Rs. 1,98,91,437/- on account of excess deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by this, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions upheld the action of the assessee for reopening of the assessment. Further, in respect of claim of amortization the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of his predecessor sustained the addition. However, in respect of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of receipt from sale of carbon emission reduction certificates (CERs in short), the Ld. CIT(A) held that the sale of Carbon emission reduction certificate are capital in nature. Therefore, the alternate ground taken by the assessee was allowed. However, the claim of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) was with regard to allowability of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of sale of carbon emission reduction certificate was held to be not allowable. The Ld. CIT(A) in respect of apportionment of the expenses for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s 80IA directed the Assessing Officer to apportion the common expenditure of Rs. 15,98,59,668/- related to income from wind power in the ratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the position of law that the Assessing Officer can reopen the assessment, if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. In the present case, in the original assessment, the Assessing Officer had not considered the issue of allowability of the Amortization of Mining Land and Leasehold Land. He had simply without making any enquiry allowed the claim of the assessee, which is not the mandate of the law. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 5. Ground no. 2, is against confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of Amortization of Mining Land of Rs. 92,99,632/- and Leasehold Land of Rs. 7,26,239/- aggregating to Rs. 1,00,25,871/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer with regard to disallowing the claim of amortization of mining land and leasehold land. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim on the basis of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. 329 ITR 479. 5.2 Per contra Ld. Departmental Representatives submitted that this issue was before this Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal of the Assessee pertaining to the year 2010- 11 in ITA No. 124/JP/2014. The Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to reject the claim of the assessee. He submitted that the issue of allowability of expenditure is u/s 37(1) of the Act has already been decided against the assessee. 5.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The identical issue was before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 124/JP/2014 wherein the Tribunal had decided the issue against the assessee as under:- "20.1 The vexed question before us is the amortization of amount paid for getting the mining land/leasehold land by the assessee. Whether it is required to be treated as revenue expenditure and is required to be allowed u/s 37(1) of the Act or not? For the purpose of allowing any expenditure, it is necessary to look into the nature of expenditure. Section 37 of the Act provides as under:- "Sec. 37(1) : Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature descried in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in the matter of Enterprising Enterprises (2007) 160 Taman 188 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and further the said judgment is of later date and, therefore, is required to be followed by the Bench. The judgment of NMDC Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case as in the said judgment the issue was not with respect to applicability of section 37 but was in respect to allowing the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The submission of the Ld. A/R for the Assessee is that the value of wasting asset will depreciate with the extraction of mineral, in our view, is preposterous. In our view, with passage of guidelines for protecting the environment, now it is the duty of the lesser/ assessee to submit and execute the mine closing plan so as to ensure that the land is used subsequent to the closure of the mining operation. Even otherwise, the mining activity is done not on the surface of the earth but on the core towards the lower side of the surface. The surface can be put to use for beneficial purpose after the term of lease/mining activity is over and it can be exploited for commercial purposes by the owner/a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he contention of the assessee that the entire operation and maintenance of wind power plant has been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. Therefore, the assessee was not required to incur any expenditure. He submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the apportionment is to be made in the ratio of turnover of the wind power vis-a-vis the total turnover of the assessee as against the ratio of the total income done by the Assessing Officer. 7.1 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representatives supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that the Ld. Authorized Representative made no submissions before the Assessing Officer, that the entire operation and maintenance of the wind power plant had been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. therefore, the assessee was not required to incur any other expenditure. 7.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the order of the authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions decided the issue as under:- "5.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions off the appellant. The assessee has two streams of income (i) incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly allowed. 7.3 We find that in para 3 of the submissions before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that in respect of the unallocated expenses of Rs. 15,67,45,594/- that none of these expenses pertain to the 80IA undertakings in as much as the entire operation and the maintenance of the power plant had been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. Therefore, the assessee had not to incur any expenditure on salary/employees benefit, travelling conveyance and other expenses debited under the various heads of expense in corporate office/head office. No strategic planning, day to day management and supervision, financial management, marketing management, tendering, work allocation, contract awarding, control etc. was required for operating these power plants by the corporate office/head office. Hence, withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1,98,91,437/- on this account is grossly unjustified. Further, it is stated by the assessee, the ground no. 4.1 before this Tribunal that this issue was not taken while recording the reasons for issuance of notice and the said disallowance is not in the nature of income escaping essessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. After considering th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeds no separate adjudication. 10. Ground no. 7 is prayer for cost; the assessee has not addressed any argument to demonstrated as to why cost should be awarded. Hence, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 11. In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 295/JP/2015 Now, we take up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 295/JP/2015 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee of Rs. 3,50,00,162/- by holding that receipts from Sale of Carbon Emission Certificates are of capital in nature. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee u/s 80IA amounting to Rs. 1,67,18,177/- by not appreciating the facts brought out by the AO in assessment order with regard to establishment and financial expenses. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief of Rs. 1,76,01,218/- expend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctionary also defines a carbon credit as "a certificate showing that a Government of company has paid to have a certain amount of carbon dioxide removed from the environment." The "Investopedia Inc. investment dictionary" defines a carbon credit as a "permit that allows the holder to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide". Such permits (or CERs) "can be traded in the international market at their current market price." Certain industries especially in power, cement, steel, textile, fertilizer sectors rely on fossil fuels (coal, electricity derived from coal, natural gas and oil). The burning of fossil fuels is a major source of GHG emissions. The major greenhouse gases emitted by these industries are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro-fluorocarbon (HFCs), etc., all of which increase the atmosphere's ability to trap infra-red energy and, thus, affect the climate. Under the UN umbrella about 170 countries signed "KYOTO PROTOCOL" under which a cap was put on such carbon and GHGs emissions. Total amount of GHGs emission in the atmosphere by all the countries in a year was fixed and equivalent number of CERs was worked out and distributed among the member countries. The member cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession. There are following two conditions: (i) assessee receives any benefit or perquisite, (ii) they should arise in the course of business. "Benefit" means "advantage; Profit; Gains; Interest; Use; Promotion of welfare or Prosperity; helpful result; A benefaction or deed of Kindness; favour bestowed; privilege. "Benefit" is a word of wide import. It could be express or otherwise. The term "perquisite" means that it is an additional benefit and not a complete substitution of one's income. This is the benefit given to the industry during the course of production it has either not consumed fossil fuel or has consumed less than what was assigned to it. Therefore, sale proceeds of such savings of CERs arise, during the course of business, and as a result of carrying on business. Thus (i) right to receive CERs arises only if business is carried on by the assessee, (ii) such business is carried on by saving fossil fuel, (iii) CERs have a market value, (iv) Quantities of CERs assigned by Govt. vary with the size of the industry or production target, (v) Quantities of saved CERs are variable, depending upon saving....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....569, 570, 505/JP/2012, dated 27.01.2014 has followed the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of My Home Power Ltd and the decisions of the Chennai Tribunal in the cases of Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. and has held that receipt on account of Carbon Credit is capital in nature and not chargeable to tax. The relevant extract of this order is given below "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the evidence on record. We find that Appellate Tribunal in Y Home Power Ltd Vs. DCIT [supra], have, after detailed examination, concluded that the receipts from Carbon Credit are capital in nature. We are inclined to follow the said decision and the other two decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd Vs DCIT [supra] and Ambika Cotton Credit is capital in nature & neither chargeable to tax under the head Business Income nor liable to tax under the head Capital Gains. Our above view is also supported by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings Vs. UOI [supra] wherein Supreme Court has held that treatment of any particular item in different manner in the 1961 Act and D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver of the eligible units from sale of power is Rs. 8,49,48,646/- whereas the total turnover of the assessee is Rs. 530,88,19,416/-. Thus, the total turnover of the eligible units is only 1.60% of the total turnover of the assessee. 13.2 We have heard the rival contentions. We find that the assessee had also challenged the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 and we have restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- "7.3 We find that in para 3 of the submissions before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that in respect of the unallocated expenses of Rs. 15,67,45,594/- that none of these expenses pertain to the 80IA undertakings in as much as the entire operation and the maintenance of the power plant had been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. Therefore, the assessee had not to incur any expenditure on salary/employees benefit, travelling conveyance and other expenses debited under the various heads of expense in corporate office/head office. No strategic planning, day to day management and supervision, financial management, marketing management, tendering, work allocation, contract awarding, control etc. was required for opera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and therefore, is not an admissible expenditure u/s 37 (1) of the I. T Act. The appellant has stated that rural development expenditure has been incurred on repairs of road at different mining areas for the smooth transportation of vehicles, street lighting as well as for organizing medical camps, supply of school bags and stationary items to students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. In my view, the expenditure incurred by the appellant on repairs of road at different mining areas for the smooth transportation of vehicles, street lighting amounting to Rs. 1,76,01,218/- has been incurred for the purposes of the assessee's business as it facilitates smooth transportation of minerals. Disallowance of the above expenditure is therefore, directed to be deleted. The balance expenditure incurred under the head - rural development expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- on account of medical camps, supply of school bags and stationary items to students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. is in the nature of expenditure on corporate social responsibility which has not been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocial responsibility and thus not allowable u/s 37(1). 3.1 the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the said disallowance even when it was not a reason recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 and that the said disallowance is not in the nature of income escaping assessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. 4. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal. 5. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee." 18. The grounds raised in this appeal are identical as were in the ITA No. 253/JP/2015 pertaining to the A.Y. 2007-08. The Parties have adopted the same argument in ITA No. 253/JP/2015. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the Ld. CIT(A). 19. Ground no. 1 is against the validity of order passed by AO u/s 147 of the IT Act. We have decided this issue in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 by observing as under:- "4.2 We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the order of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the position of law that the Assessing Officer can reopen the assessment if he has reason to believe that any inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nditure.] [(2B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no allowance shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee on advertisement in any souvenir, brochure, tract, pamphlet or the like published by a political party.] Section 37, therefore, contemplates that if the nature of expenditure is not the capital/personal in nature, and is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession, then it is required to be allowed by the authority. In our view, the expenditure which were incurred for getting the mining land on leasehold basis on mining basis, is to be treated as capital expenditure because the leas will have the enduring benefit for making such an investment. Our view is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court in the matter of Aditya Mineral vs. CIT(1999) 8SSC 97 and also by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT in the Civil Appeal No. 5655 of 2006 whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "where the entire amount of lease is paid either at a time or in installment, it would be capital expenditure". Therefore, we are bound by the judgments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2010-11. As per the law and principle, the authorities situated in lower ladder/tire of hierarchy is required to abide law/adjudication done by the superior authority. This is only way the judicial system works. The AO is quasi judicial authority and bound to follow the principle laid down by the Tribunal and not the vice versa. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. A/R for the assessee on this count is also rejected. However, it is made clear that the assesee would be entitled to all benefits as available in law and the assessee will not be subjected to double taxation for the A.Y. 2011-12. The AO is directed to give effect to the 69*9above said direction and nullify the effect of double taxation, if any, as claimed by the assessee. In the light of the above, ground no. 2 of the assessee is dismissed." 5.4 Therefore, taking a consistent view, apropos to ground no. 2 is directed to treat the expenditure as capital and grant relief if any available under the law. Thus, ground no. 2 is disposed of in forms indicated hereinbefore." 20.1 For the same reasoning, these grounds of the assessee's appeal is decided in terms of our decision in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 (supra). 21. Ground nos.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,51,24,052/- made by AO on account of afforestation, plantation, & environment expenses. 3. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing." 26. Ground no. 1 is against restricting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on Rural Development Expenses to Rs. 18,70,932. The identical ground was raised in the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 295/JP/2015 as ground no. 3, pertaining to the Assessment year 2007-08 by observing as under:- "14.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on fact by observing as under:- "6.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The Assessing Officer has disallowed rural development expenses amounting to Rs. 2,96,49,172/- and afforestation, plantation and environment expenses amounting to Rs. 60,60,487/- on the ground that these expenses have been incurred for a social cause and general public good. The Assessing Officer has stated that this expenditure has not been laid out o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dismissed. 27. Ground no. 2 is against deleting the disallowance made on account of afforestation, plantation & environment expenses. The identical ground was raised by the Revenue in ITA No 295/JP/2015. The parties have adopted the same argument. This Tribunal in ITA No. 295/JP/2015 decided the issue as under:- "14.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on fact by observing as under:- "6.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The Assessing Officer has disallowed rural development expenses amounting to Rs. 2,96,49,172/- and afforestation, plantation and environment expenses amounting to Rs. 60,60,487/- on the ground that these expenses have been incurred for a social cause and general public good. The Assessing Officer has stated that this expenditure has not been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and therefore, is not an admissible expenditure u/s 37 (1) of the I. T Act. The appellant has stated that rural development expenditure has been incurred on repairs of road at different mining areas f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s appeal i.e. 254/JP/2015 & 296/JP/2015 pertaining to the A.Y. 2008-09 respectively. Assessee's appeal in ITA 254/JP/2015 First we take up assessee's appeal in ITA No. 254/JP/2015 pertaining to the A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. "1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of the order passed by AO u/s 147 of the IT Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in disallowing the claim of amortization of mining land of Rs. 92,99,632/- and leasehold land of Rs. 8,02,482/- aggregating to Rs. 1,01,02,114/-. He has further erred in disallowing this claim only on the basis of the finding of his predecessor on this issue in AY 2010-11 ignoring that this claim was allowed in all earlier years and in subsequent years upto AY 2009-10 in regular assessment proceedings and that the claim is also supported by the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of NMDC Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITA No. 714/HYd/ 2012 dt. 28.02.2014. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO by holding that receipts from sale of CERs cannot be considered as income derived fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 3,15,50,975/- on account of unpaid land tax u/s 43B of the Act ignoring the fact that same is already offered for tax in AY 2010-11 and assessed by the AO. 9. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal. 10. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee." 31. The grounds No. 1,2,3,5 & 6 as raised in this appeal are identical as were in the ITA No. 253/JP/2015 pertaining to the A.Y. 2007-08. The respective Representative of the Parties have adopted the same argument in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 for these grounds. 32. Ground no. 1 is against the validity of order passed by AO u/s 147 of the IT Act. The identical grounds were raised in ITA No 253/JP/2015 pertaining to the Assessement Year 2007-08. The Respective Representative of the Parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in the ITA No. 253/JP/2015. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- "4.2 We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the order of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the position of law that the Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure.] [(2B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no allowance shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee on advertisement in any souvenir, brochure, tract, pamphlet or the like published by a political party.] Section 37, therefore, contemplates that if the nature of expenditure is not the capital/personal in nature, and is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession, then it is required to be allowed by the authority. In our view, the expenditure which were incurred for getting the mining land on leasehold basis on mining basis, is to be treated as capital expenditure because the leas will have the enduring benefit for making such an investment. Our view is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court in the matter of Aditya Mineral vs. CIT(1999) 8SSC 97 and also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ets amounting to Rs. 5,79,10,137/-. In our view the assessee was taxed on the basis of the submissions made by it before the AO before the assessment for the A.Y. 2010-11 is finalized. The mere acceptance of the methodology by the AO for A.Y. 2011-12 will not withhold us to decide the issue on merit and in law for the A.Y. 2010-11. As per the law and principle, the authorities situated in lower ladder/tire of hierarchy is required to abide law/adjudication done by the superior authority. This is only way the judicial system works. The AO is quasi judicial authority and bound to follow the principle laid down by the Tribunal and not the vice versa. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. A/R for the assessee on this count is also rejected. However, it is made clear that the assesee would be entitled to all benefits as available in law and the assessee will not be subjected to double taxation for the A.Y. 2011-12. The AO is directed to give effect to the above said direction and nullify the effect of double taxation, if any, as claimed by the assessee. In the light of the above, ground no. 2 of the assessee is dismissed." 5.4 Therefore, taking a consistent view, apropos to ground no. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aking payment of fixed amount per unit which it generated less. Hence, amounts so received is nothing but the additional amount realized by the assessee in respect of the electricity generated by its power plant. The amount so received is therefore the profit or gain derived by the power undertaking from the business of generation and distribution of power. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Prakash Oils Ltd. 58 DTR 276 (MP) also the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Advance Detergents Ltd. 339 ITR 81 (2011) (Del.) further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. 383 ITR 217. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the damages are directly linked with the business of the assessee. Therefore, the deduction u/s 80IA is allowable on this amount. 35.2 On the contrary, the Ld. Departmental Representatives supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 35.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim on the basis that the first deg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....91,437/- on this account is grossly unjustified. Further, it is stated by the assessee, the ground no. 4.1 before this Tribunal that this issue was not taken while recording the reasons for issuance of notice and the said disallowance is not in the nature of income escaping essessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. After considering the totality of the fact, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the entire expense related to operation and maintenance were borne by Suzlon Energies Ltd. So far the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this item was not subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening. We do not see any merit as law is well settled that once reopening is valid the AO can also consider the other issues as cropped up the assessment proceedings. Thus, Ground no. 4 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. However, ground no. 4.1 is dismissed." 36.1 For the same reasoning, this ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee, with regard to the contention that the entire op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. It is contended that the Assessee had earned tax free dividend income from shares of Rs. 10 lakhs. It is stated that no efforts and loan funds were utilized in making the investment. Accordingly, no disallowance is called for. It is stated that the Assessing Officer accepted that no direct expenses incurred. However, he disallowed Rs. 1,138/- being ½% of the average investment on account of administrative expenses. 38.3 We find merit into the contentions of the assessee that on investment of Rs. 1 lakhs the assessee had earned dividend income on Rs. 10 lakhs only in respect of the shares of Mayura Inorganics Ltd. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. In our considered view, the operation of Rule 8D is not automatic. The assessing officer is required to satisfy himself about the correctness of the claim that no expenditure was incurred by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the present case has accepted that there is not direct nexus between the investment and expenses so incurred. After considering the totality of the fact and keeping in view the sum of Rs. 1,138/- had been disallowed by invokin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, the ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 40. Ground no. 9 is general in nature and needs no separate adjudication. 41. Ground no. 10 is prayer of awarded cost, no supporting evidence is placed by the assessee in support of this claim and identical claim was made in ITA No. 253/JP/2015. "10. Ground no. 7 is prayer for cost; the assessee has not addressed any argument to demonstrated as to why cost should be awarded. Hence, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed." 41.1 For the same reasoning, this ground is dismissed. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 254/JP/2015 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 296/JP/2015 42. Now we take up Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 296/JP/2015 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee of Rs. 88,60,842/- by holding that receipts from sale of Carbon Emission Certificates are of capital in nature. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as much as the entire operation and the maintenance of the power plant had been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. Therefore, the assessee had not to incur any expenditure on salary/employees benefit, travelling conveyance and other expenses debited under the various heads of expense in corporate office/head office. No strategic planning, day to day management and supervision, financial management, marketing management, tendering, work allocation, contract awarding, control etc. was required for operating these power plants by the corporate office/head office. Hence, withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1,98,91,437/- on this account is grossly unjustified. Further, it is stated by the assessee, the ground no. 4.1 before this Tribunal that this issue was not taken while recording the reasons for issuance of notice and the said disallowance is not in the nature of income escaping essessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. After considering the totality of the fact, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the entire expenses related to operation and maintenance were borne by Suzlon Ener....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ighting as well as for organizing medical camps, supply of school bags and stationary items to students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. In my view, the expenditure incurred by the appellant on repairs of road at different mining areas for the smooth transportation of vehicles, street lighting amounting to Rs. 1,76,01,218/- has been incurred for the purposes of the assessee's business as it facilitates smooth transportation of minerals. Disallowance of the above expenditure is therefore, directed to be deleted. The balance expenditure incurred under the head - rural development expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- on account of medical camps, supply of school bags and stationary items to students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. is in the nature of expenditure on corporate social responsibility which has not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellant's business and is not allowable u/s 37 (1) of the IT Act. Disallowance of this expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- is therefore, upheld. 6.4 As regards, expenditure debited under the head - afforestation, plantation and enviro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ming the action of AO in reducing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA by Rs. 1,68,53,256/- by holding that liquidated damages received on account of shortfall in the minimum guaranteed generation of power units is not an income derived from the power generation business of windmills. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in reducing claim of deduction u/s 80IA with reference to the receipts of the liquidated damaged even when it was not a reason recorded for issuance o notice u/s 148 and that the said reduction is not in the nature of income escaping assessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts an in law in directing the AO to apportion the establishment and financial expenditure of Rs. 21,24,40,947/- on the basis of turnover of the mining activity and wind power generation activity for allowing deduction u/s 80IA on the income from generation of power ignoring the fact that expenditure relatable to power generation undertaking has already been debited for working out the income of the said units. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the said disallowance even when it was not a reason recorded for issuan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e law. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed." 49.1 Taking a consistent view, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 50. Ground no. 2 to 2.1 is against confirmation of disallowance of amortization of expenses of mining land and leasehold land. Ground no. 2.1 is with regard to the confirmation of disallowance even when issue was not recorded in the reasons for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. Respective Representatives of the Parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 qua the ground no. 2 therein. 50.1 We have heard the rival contentions; the issue in this year is identical as was in the Assessment Year 2007-08 in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 as ground no. 2. We have decided this issue by observing as under:- 5.2 Per contra Ld. Departmental Representatives submitted that this issue was before this Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal of the Assessee pertaining to the year 2010-11 in ITA No. 124/JP/2014. The Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to reject the claim of the assessee. He submitted that the issue of allowability of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter of Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT in the Civil Appeal No. 5655 of 2006 whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "where the entire amount of lease is paid either at a time or in installment, it would be capital expenditure". Therefore, we are bound by the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus the expenses laid by the assessee for the purposes of getting the mining land and leasehold land, are required to be treated as capital expenditure. The AO is, therefore, directed to treat the amount paid for getting the mining land and leasehold land as capital expenditure. The AO is further directed to give all benefits as a capital expenditure. The judgment relied upon by the assessee of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Enterprising Enterprises (2007) 160 Taman 188 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and further the said judgment is of later date and, therefore, is required to be followed by the Bench. The judgment of NMDC Ltd. vs. JC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and grant relief if any available under the law. Thus, ground no. 2 is disposed of in the terms indicated hereinbefore. 50.2 For the same reasoning, this ground of the assessee's appeal is disposed off. So far as the contention that the issue was not subject matter of reasons recorded is concerned, we have already decided this issue by holding that once the assessment is validly re-opened the AO can decided other issues as well. Hence, the ground no. 2.1 is dismissed. 51. Ground no. 3 is against reducing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA by holding that liquidated damages received on account of shortfall in the minimum guaranteed generation of the power units is not an income derived from the power generation business of windmills. 51.1 Ground no. 3.1 is connected to ground no. 3, which is against reducing the claim when the issue was not a reason recorded for issuance of notice u/s 148 and the reduction is not in the nature of income escaping assessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. 51.2 The identical grounds were raised in ITA No 254/JP/2015 pertaining to the Assessement Year 2008-09. The Respective Representative of the Parties have adopted the same argument as were a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim on the basis that the first degree nexus with the operation of the undertaking is missing. The Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of his predecessor pertaining to the A.Y. 2010-11. Admittedly, this payment is related to the contract between the assessee and the supplier. The contract is related to the wind mill independent of operation of the wind mill the payment of liquidated damages would not arise. It is only on the operation of the wind mill and the output of the equipment so installed this liability of the payment of damages arises. In the absence of operation, the issue of payment of such damages would not arise. It is only when the wind mill becomes operational on short fall on the production such payment is made. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prakash Oils Ltd. (supra) held that the payment made as an liquidated damages for not honouring the contract for sale of oil and deoiled cake, such income is directly derived from industrial undertaking, hence eligible deduction u/s 80IA. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that such income is not derive from the business of the undertaking. Therefore, we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent as per Explanation 3 to section 147. After considering the totality of the fact, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the entire expense related to operation and maintenance has been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. So far the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this item was not subject matter of the reasons recorded for reopening. We do not see any merit as law is well settled that once reopening is valid the AO can also consider the other issues as cropped up the assessment proceedings. Thus, Ground no. 4 of the assessee 's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. However, ground no. 4.1 is dismissed." 52.3 For the same reasoning ground no. 4 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee, while deciding the issue afresh. However, the ground no. 4.1 is dismissed. 53. Ground no. 5 to 5.1 is against confirmation the disallowance of Rural Development Expenses. The identical issue was raised in 235/JP/2015 as ground no. 5 to 5.1, the ld. Representatives of the parties have adopted the same argument as were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable on record. It is contended that the Assessee had earned tax free dividend income from shares of Rs. 10 lakhs. It is stated that no efforts and loan funds were utilized in making the investment. Accordingly, no disallowance is called for. It is stated that the Assessing Officer accepted that no direct expenses incurred. However, he disallowed Rs. 1,138/- being ½% of the average investment on account of administrative expenses. 38.3 We find merit into the contentions of the assessee that on investment of Rs. 1 lakhs the assessee had earned dividend income on Rs. 10 lakhs only in respect of the shares of Mayura Inorganics Ltd. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. In our considered view, the operation of Rule 8D is not automatic. The assessing officer is required to satisfy himself about the correctness of the claim that no expenditure was incurred by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the present case has accepted that there is not direct nexus between the investment and expenses so incurred. After considering the totality of the fact and keeping in view the sum of Rs. 1,138/- had been disallowed by invoking the provision of Rule 8D without being satisfied ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has erred in allowing relief of Rs. 64,01,492/- under the head 'afforestation, plantation and environment expenses' without appreciating the fact that these expenses have not been incurred in connection with the business of the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief to the assessee u/s 80IA amounting to Rs. 1,85,03,376/- by not appreciating the facts brought out by the AO in assessment order with regard to establishment and financial expenses. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the payment of MR Cess to the State Government is a liability of the assessee independent of its customers and is cover u/s 43B of the Income tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing." 60. Ground no. 1 is allowing the relief on expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head 'Rural Development Expenses'. Similar ground was raised in ITA No. 295/JP/2015 by the revenue pertaining to AY 2007-08 as Ground No. 3. We have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, obtaining mining area lease, fees paid to Pollution Control Board, for assessing the quality of water etc. This expenditure therefore, has been made out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes off the assessee's business. The above disallowance is therefore, directed to be deleted". 14.3 This finding on fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. The ground of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 60.1 Since no change into facts and circumstances was pointed out. Therefore, taking a consistent view, this ground of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 61. Ground no.2, is against allowing relief o Rs. 64,01,492/- under the head 'afforestation, plantation and environment expenses'. We find that identical ground was raised in ITA No. 295/JP/2015, wherein the issue has been decided against the revenue as ground no. 3 by observing as under:- "14. Ground no. 3 is against deleting the disallowance in respect of rural development and afforestation, plantation and environment expenses of Rs. 1,76,01,218/-. The Ld. Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted under the head - afforestation, plantation and environment expenses, it is seen from the ledger account that this expenditure has been incurred for maintaining the gardens at its corporate office, mining sites offices, obtaining environmental clearances, obtaining mining area lease, fees paid to Pollution Control Board, for assessing the quality of water etc. This expenditure therefore, has been made out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes off the assessee's business. The above disallowance is therefore, directed to be deleted". 14.3 This finding on fact is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. The ground of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed." 61.1 Taking a consistent view, as no change into facts and circumstances were pointed out by the Revenue. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 62. Ground no. 3 is against allowing the relief to the assessee u/s 80IA amounting to Rs. 1,85,03,376/- by n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief and submitted that the addition has been made by the AO for the difference in MR Cess paid and the MR Cess recovered from the customers. Payment of MR Cess to the Government is an independent liability of the assessee. The recovery of MR Cess from its customer is independent of its liability of payment of such cess to the Government. Therefore, whether the assessee could collect the MR cess from its customer or not would not reduced his liability of the payment of the same. There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee has paid MR Cess of Rs. 60,31,23,017/- to the Government in the year under consideration but could recover only Rs. 13,99,44,564/- from its customers which was credited to income. He submitted that the observation of the AO that since the assessee had not collected difference from its customers to this extent the amount was not payable u/s 43B is far fetched in the absence of any statutory provisions. 63.2 We have heard the rival contentions, the Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in para 8.3 of his order which is reproduced herein for the sake of clarity:- "8.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rospective effect which could not be recovered from the customers. Moreover, expenditure on account of MR Cess, paid to the State Government of Rajasthan, is clearly an allowable expenditure like other cess, levies or indirect taxes. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is not correct. The AO is directed to verify whether the MR cess of Rs. 60,31,23,017/- has been paid in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 43B, and allow deduction, accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue by observing that the provision of section 145A are not applicable because the cess has been levied with retrospective which could not be recovered from the customers. The factum of levy of MR Cess with retrospective effect is not controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no infirmity into the order of the Ld. CIT(A) same is hereby affirmed. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 64. Ground no. 5 is general in nature and needs no separate adjudication. 65. In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose. 66. Now we take up ITA No. 256/JP/2015 & ITA No. 298/JP/2015 pertaining to the A.Y. 2011-12. Assessee's a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the assessee." 67. Ground no. 1, the facts and ground are identical in ITA No. 295/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2007-08. The Respective Representative of the Parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in the ITA No. 295/JP/2015 as ground no. 3. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- "14. Ground no. 3 is against deleting the disallowance in respect of rural development and afforestation, plantation and environment expenses of Rs. 1,76,01,218/-. The Ld. Departmental Representatives supported the order of the Assessing Officer, he submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance as these expenses were not relatable to the business of the assessee. 14.1 On the contrary, the Ld. Counsel for the assesee reiterated the submissions ad made in the written brief. 14.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on fact by observing as under:- "6.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The Assessing Officer has disallowed rural development expenses amounting to Rs. 2,96,49,172/- and afforestation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. The ground of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 67.1 Therefore, taking a consistent view, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 68. Ground no. 2 the facts are identical in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2007-08. The Respective Representative of the Parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in the ITA No. 253/JP/2015 as ground no. 2. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- "5.2 Per contra Ld. Departmental Representatives submitted that this issue was before this Hon'ble Tribunal in Appeal of the Assessee pertaining to the year 2010-11 in ITA No. 124/JP/2014. The Hon'ble Tribunal was pleased to reject the claim of the assessee. He submitted that the issue of allowability of expenditure is u/s 37(1) of the Act has already been decided against the assessee. 5.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The identical issue was before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 124/JP/2014 wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue against the assessee. The Tribunal has decided the issue as under:- "20.1 The vexed question befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and leasehold land, are required to be treated as capital expenditure. The AO is, therefore, directed to treat the amount paid for getting the mining land and leasehold land as capital expenditure. The AO is further directed to give all benefits as a capital expenditure. The judgment relied upon by the assessee of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Enterprising Enterprises (2007) 160 Taman 188 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and further the said judgment is of later date and, therefore, is required to be followed by the Bench. The judgment of NMDC Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case as in the said judgment the issue was not with respect to applicability of section 37 but was in respect to allowing the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The submission of the Ld. A/R for the Assessee is that the value of wasting asset will depreciate with the extraction of mineral, in our view, is preposterous. In our view, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e adopted in the ITA No. 253/JP/2015 as ground no. 3. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- "6. At the time of hearing Ground no. 3 was not pressed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, ground no. 3 is dismissed as not pressed." 69.1 For the same reasoning, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 70. Ground no. 4 is confirming the action of the AO disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 4,69,61,000/- in respect of mine closure expenses made in course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission as made in the written submissions. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per this guidelines the assessee was fastened a liability of Rs. 4,69,61,000/- such liability which is an ascertained liability is allowable under the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee. For allowability of claim of expenditure, there is no requirement that it should be debited in the books of accounts for this proposition the Ld. Counsel for the assesssee relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Satluj Cotton Mills vs CIT 116 ITR 1. He submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1,98,91,437/- on this account is grossly unjustified. Further, it is stated by the assessee, the ground no. 4.1 before this Tribunal that this issue was not taken while recording the reasons for issuance of notice and the said disallowance is not in the nature of income escaping assessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. After considering the totality of the fact, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the entire expenditure related to operation and maintenance was borne by Suzlon Energies Ltd. 71.1 For the same reasoning, this ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purpose, and issue is restored to the file of AO for decision afresh. 72. Ground no. 6, is against confirming the disallowance of Rs. 5,49,980/- claimed as social welfare expenses. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief and he submitted that expenditure was incurred by the assessee either for publicity or toward its economic and social obligation. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shri Venkat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o separate adjudication. 75. Ground no. 9 is prayer for cost, the assessee has not placed any material on record under the facts of the present case, we do not see any reason to award the cost to assessee. Hence, this ground is dismissed. 76. In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 256/JP/2015 is partly allowed for statistical purpose ITA No. 298/JP/2015 77. Now, we take up Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 298/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2011-12. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards contribution made by the assessee towards State Renewal Fund. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief of Rs. 1,19,54,26/- out of expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head 'Rural Development Expenses' and Rs. 94,43,560/- under the head 'afforestation, plantation and environment expenses' without appreciating the fact that these expenses have not been incurred in connection with the business of the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for A.Y. 2010-11. The main points of the submissions of the appellant, on this issue, have been narrated the above appeal order. Therefore, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant are not being again narrated in this order for the sake of brevity. In AY 2010-11, the CIT(A)-II, Jaipur, has held as under- "Assessing Officer disallowed contribution made to State Renewal Fund by treating the same as diversion of income. However, appellant submitted that this issue is covered in its favour by the order of ITAT. It is seen that similar addition was made in AY 2006-07 in the case of the appellant, but it was decided by Hon'ble ITAT Bench 'A' Jaipur in ITA No. 783/JP/2009 & 740/JP/2009 in AY 2006-07 through order dated 31.03.2010 in f avour of the appellant, where in para 15 Hon'ble Tribunal relied upon its decision dated 22.05.2009 in case of Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd, wherein relying upon Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 274 ITR 465 and CIT vs. Shri Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. 221 CTR 410 held that the contribution made by the assessee to a Public Welfare Fund which is connected or related wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. In my view, the expenditure incurred by the appellant on repairs of road at different mining areas for the smooth transportation of vehicles, street lighting amounting to Rs. 1,76,01,218/- has been incurred for the purposes of the assessee's business as it facilitates smooth transportation of minerals. Disallowance of the above expenditure is therefore, directed to be deleted. The balance expenditure incurred under the head - rural development expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- on account of medical camps, supply of school bags and stationary items to students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. is in the nature of expenditure on corporate social responsibility which has not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellant's business and is not allowable u/s 37 (1) of the IT Act. Disallowance of this expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- is therefore, upheld. 6.4 As regards, expenditure debited under the head - afforestation, plantation and environment expenses, it is seen from the ledger account that this expenditure has been incurred fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenses have crystallized in the year under consideration. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition 81.2 We have heard the rival contention, we have find that in Ld. CIT has given finding on fact in para 6.1 and 6.2 of his order as under:- "6.1 In this year, the assessee has claimed prior period expenditure of Rs. 1,75,79,531/-. This issue also arose in the cae of appellant in AY 2010-11 and earlier years. The main points of the Assessment order, on this issue, have been narrated in the appeal order of CIT(A)-II, Jaipur (Appeal no. 325/12-13, dated 05.12.2013) for AY 2010-11. The main points of the submissions of the appellant, on this issue, have been narrated the above appeal order. Therefore, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant are not being again narrated in this order for the sake of brevity. In AY 2010-11, the CIT(A)-II, Jaipur, has held as under- "From the submission of the appellant it is clear that Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has been allowing Prior Period Expenses in the case of various Government Undertakings in the year in which such expenses are finally sanctioned and approved. Even in the appellant's own case the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as ground no. 2. We have decided this issue by observing as under:- "13.2 We have heard the rival contentions. We find that the assessee had also challenged the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 and we have restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- "7.3 We find that in para 3 of the submissions before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that in respect of the unallocated expenses of Rs. 15,67,45,594/- that none of these expenses pertain to the 80IA undertakings in as much as the entire operation and the maintenance of the power plant had been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. Therefore, the assessee had not to incur any expenditure on salary/employees benefit, travelling conveyance and other expenses debited under the various heads of expense in corporate office/head office. No strategic planning, day to day management and supervision, financial management, marketing management, tendering, work allocation, contract awarding, control etc. was required for operating these power plants by the corporate office/head office. Hence, withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1,98,91,437/- on this account is grossly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n account of written back excess amortization. Ld. Departmental Representatives supported the order of the AO. 85.1 On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 85.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that appellant has written back excess amortization during the year on account of change in the method of amortization and credited its income by this amount. Amortization of mining and leasehold land has been disallowed by the AO in the precedent year, which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). This fact is not controverted by the Revenue. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. Thus, this ground of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 86. Ground no. 9 is general in nature and needs no separate adjudication. 87. In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 88. Now, we take up Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 257/JP/2015 & Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 299/JP/2015 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The parties have a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the action of AO in disallowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 7,96,71,000/- in respect of mine closure expenses provided in the books of accounts. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance only on the basis of finding of his predecessor in AY 2010-11 and also erred in not allowing the claim of mine closure expenses made in AY 2010-11 of Rs. 2,49,04,000/- and in AY 2011-12 of Rs. 4,69,61,000/- which is provided in the books in the year under consideration but disallowed in the respective years for the reason that the same is not provided in the books in those years. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,20,073/- out of social welfare expenses. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 35,475/- u/ 14A of the IT Act, 1961. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance at Rs. 35,475/- even when the amount of dividend earned is only Rs. 10,000/- 9. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of the appeal. 10. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee." 90. Ground no. 1, is against confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,30,98,423/- on acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance of mines development expenses made by the AO is unheld. This ground is dismissed." 91.3 This finding is not controverted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record as the Ld. CIT(A) has given finding on fact, that no commercial production had commenced. Under these facts, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. Therefore, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. 92. Ground no. 3 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. 92.1 On the contrary, Ld. Departmental Representatives, supported the order of the authorities below. 92.2 We have heard the rival contentions and we find that identical ground was raised in ITA No. 253/JP/2015. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- 5.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The identical issue was before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 124/JP/2014 wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue against the assessee. The Tribunal has decided the issue as under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purposes of getting the mining land and leasehold land, are required to be treated as capital expenditure. The AO is, therefore, directed to treat the amount paid for getting the mining land and leasehold land as capital expenditure. The AO is further directed to give all benefits as a capital expenditure. The judgment relied upon by the assessee of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Enterprising Enterprises (2007) 160 Taman 188 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and further the said judgment is of later date and, therefore, is required to be followed by the Bench. The judgment of NMDC Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case as in the said judgment the issue was not with respect to applicability of section 37 but was in respect to allowing the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The submission of the Ld. A/R for the Assessee is that the value of wasting asset will depreciate with the extraction of mineral, in our v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7/- written back in the year under consideration on account of change in method of amortization upon the finalization of appeal proceedings on this issue. 92.5 On the contrary, Ld. Departmental Representatives supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 92.6 We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on record. We find merit into the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee when the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the change in method of amortization. He ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the same in computing total income. Therefore, we direct the AO to reduced the excess amortization of mining and leasehold land written back in the year under appeal. Thus, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 93. Ground no. 4 is against reducing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA by Rs. 2,71,43,220/- by holding that liquidated damages received on account of shortfall in the minimum guaranteed generation power units is not an income derived from the power generation business of windmills. The identical ground was raised in ITA No. 254/JP/2015 as ground no. 4. The parties have adopted the same arguments. We have decided the issue by observing a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rporate office/head office. No strategic planning, day to day management and supervision, financial management, marketing management, tendering, work allocation, contract awarding, control etc. was required for operating these power plants by the corporate office/head office. Hence, withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1,98,91,437/- on this account is grossly unjustified. Further, it is stated by the assessee, the ground no. 4.1 before this Tribunal that this issue was not taken while recording the reasons for issuance of notice and the said disallowance is not in the nature of income escaping essessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. After considering the totality of the fact, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the entire expenditure related to operation and maintenance was borne by Suzlon Energies Ltd." 94.1 Therefore, taking a consistent view, this issue is also allowed for statistical purpose. The ground is restored to file of AO for decision afresh in the light of above direction. 95. Ground no. 6, is in respect of confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowed." 95.1 Therefore, taking a consistent view, this issue is also allowed. The AO is directed to allow deduction on mine closure expenses. 96. Ground no. 7 is against the disallowance out of social welfare expenses. The facts are identical in ITA No. 256/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2011-12. The Respective Representative of the Parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in the ITA No. 256/JP/2015 as ground no. 6. We have decided this issue by observing as under:- "72. Ground no. 6, is against confirming the disallowance of Rs. 5,49,980/-. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written brief and he submitted that expenditure was incurred by the assessee either for publicity or toward its economic and social obligation. He placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. Vs. CIT 223 ITR 101(SC) and also the decision the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT 96 ITD 186 (Mum.), the Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Madras Refinery Ltd. 266 ITR 170 (Mad.) (HC) and CIT Vs. India Radiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gument as were adopted in the ITA No. 256/JP/2015 as ground no. 9. We have decided this issue by observing as under:- "75. Ground no. 9 is prayer for cost, the assessee has not placed any material on record under the facts of the present case, we do not see any reason to award the cost to assessee. Therefore, we do not seen any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed." 99.1 Therefore, taking a consistent view, this ground is dismissed. 100. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 299/JP/2015 101. Now, we take up Revenue's appeal is ITA No. 299/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2012-13. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards contribution made by the assessee towards State Renewal Fund. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief of Rs. 11,37,196 out of expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head 'R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....favour by the order of ITAT. It is seen that similar addition was made in AY 2006-07 in the case of the appellant, but it was decided by Hon'ble ITAT Bench 'A' Jaipur in ITA No. 783/JP/2009 & 740/JP/2009 in AY 2006-07 through order dated 31.03.2010 in f avour of the appellant, where in para 15 Hon'ble Tribunal relied upon its decision dated 22.05.2009 in case of Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd, wherein relying upon Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 274 ITR 465 and CIT vs. Shri Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. 221 CTR 410 held that the contribution made by the assessee to a Public Welfare Fund which is connected or related with his business is an allowable deduction u/s 37 as it was provided for the benefit of the employees. Hon'ble Tribunal distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Co-operative Marketing Society 275 ITR 372 (Raj) stating that in that case the amount was set apart for the shareholders of the society whereas in the present case amount was provided for the benefit of the employees and the contribution made to State Renewal Fund was found allowable u/s 37(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. In my view, the expenditure incurred by the appellant on repairs of road at different mining areas for the smooth transportation of vehicles, street lighting amounting to Rs. 1,76,01,218/- has been incurred for the purposes of the assessee's business as it facilitates smooth transportation of minerals. Disallowance of the above expenditure is therefore, directed to be deleted. The balance expenditure incurred under the head - rural development expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- on account of medical camps, supply of school bags and stationary items to students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. is in the nature of expenditure on corporate social responsibility which has not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellant's business and is not allowable u/s 37 (1) of the IT Act. Disallowance of this expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- is therefore, upheld. 6.4 As regards, expenditure debited under the head - afforestation, plantation and environment expenses, it is seen from the ledger account that this expenditure has been incurred for maintai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ground no. 4, the ground and the facts are identical in ITA No. 298/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2011-12. The Respective Representative of the Parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in the ITA No. 298/JP/2015 as ground no. 4. We have decided this issue by observing as under:- "81. Ground no. 4, is against deleting the addition of Rs. 1,75,79,531/- on account of prior period expenses. Ld. D/R supported the order of the AO. 81.1 On the contrary, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of the AO and submitted that this issue also cropped up in the Assessment Year 2010-11 and matter traveled up to the stage of Tribunal. The facts are identical in this year also since the expenses have crystallized in the year under consideration. 81.2 We have heard the rival contention, we have find that in Ld. CIT has given finding on fact in para 6.1 and 6.2 of his order as under:- "6.1 In this year, the assessee has claimed prior period expenditure of Rs. 1,75,79,531/-. This issue also arose in the cae of appellant in AY 2010-11 and earlier years. The main points of the Assessment order, on this issue, have been narrated in the appeal order of CIT(A)-II, Jaipur (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....much as the entire operation and the maintenance of the power plant had been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. Therefore, the assessee had not to incur any expenditure on salary/employees benefit, travelling conveyance and other expenses debited under the various heads of expense in corporate office/head office. No strategic planning, day to day management and supervision, financial management, marketing management, tendering, work allocation, contract awarding, control etc. was required for operating these power plants by the corporate office/head office. Hence, withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1,98,91,437/- on this account is grossly unjustified. Further, it is stated by the assessee, the ground no. 4.1 before this Tribunal that this issue was not taken while recording the reasons for issuance of notice and the said disallowance is not in the nature of income escaping essessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. After considering the totality of the fact, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the entire expenditure related to operation and maintenance was borne by Suzlon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come from generation of power ignoring the fact that expenditure relatable to power generation undertaking has already been debited for working out the income of the said units. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,77,218/- out of social welfare expenses. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 64,225/- u/s 14A of the Act, 1961. He has further erred in confirming the disallowance at Rs. 64,225/- even when the amount of dividend earned is only Rs. 10,000/- 8. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the appeal. 9. The appropriate cost be awarded to be assessee." 111. Ground no. 1, is against confirming the disallowance of Rs. 23,95,996/-. We find that identical ground was raised in ITA No. 257/JP/2015 as ground no. 1, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- "90. Ground no. 1, is against confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,30,98,423/-. We find that identical ground was raised in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 in Assessment Year 2007-08. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- "8.3 We do not see any merit into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor does not enable the appellant to discharge its onus that commercial production has commenced during the year under consideration. Therefore, the disallowance of mines development expenses made by the AO is unheld. This ground is dismissed." 91.3 This finding is not controverted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record as the Ld. CIT(A) has given finding on fact, that no commercial production had commenced. Under these facts, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. Therefore, this ground of the assessee's appeal is dismissed." 112.1 For the same reasoning, this ground is dismissed. 113. Ground no. 3, the ground and the facts are identical in ITA No. 257/JP/2015 as ground no. 3 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- "92. Ground no. 3 the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. 92.1 On the contrary, Ld. Departmental Representatives, supported the order of the authorities below. 92.2 We have heard the rival contentions and we find that identical ground was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Enterprising Enterprises vs. DCIT in the Civil Appeal No. 5655 of 2006 whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "where the entire amount of lease is paid either at a time or in installment, it would be capital expenditure". Therefore, we are bound by the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus the expenses laid by the assessee for the purposes of getting the mining land and leasehold land, are required to be treated as capital expenditure. The AO is, therefore, directed to treat the amount paid for getting the mining land and leasehold land as capital expenditure. The AO is further directed to give all benefits as a capital expenditure. The judgment relied upon by the assessee of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT, 225 ITR 802 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Enterprising Enterprises (2007) 160 Taman 188 (SC) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and further the said judgment is of later date and, therefore, is required to be followed by the Bench. The judgment of NMDC Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rant relief if any available under the law. Thus, ground no. 2 is disposed of in the terms indicated hereinbefore. 92.3 For the same reasoning, this ground of the assessee is also disposed of in terms of the above direction." 113.1 For the same reasoning, this ground of the assessee is also disposed of in terms of the above direction. 114. Ground no. 4, the facts are identical in ITA No. 257/JP/2015 as ground no. 4, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2012-13. We have decided this ground by observing as under:- 93. Ground no. 4 is against reducing the claim of deduction u/s 80IA by Rs. 2,71,43,220/- by holding that liquidated damages received on account of shortfall in the minimum guaranteed generation power units is not an income derived from the power generation business of windmills. The identical ground was raised in ITA No. 254/JP/2015 as ground no. 4. The parties have adopted the same arguments. We have decided the issue by observing as under:- "35.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim on the basis that the first degree in nexus with the operation of the undertaking is missing. The Ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debited under the various heads of expense in corporate office/head office. No strategic planning, day to day management and supervision, financial management, marketing management, tendering, work allocation, contract awarding, control etc. was required for operating these power plants by the corporate office/head office. Hence, withdrawal of deduction u/s 80IA to the extent of Rs. 1,98,91,437/- on this account is grossly unjustified. Further, it is stated by the assessee, the ground no. 4.1 before this Tribunal that this issue was not taken while recording the reasons for issuance of notice and the said disallowance is not in the nature of income escaping essessment as per Explanation 3 to section 147. After considering the totality of the fact, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after verifying the claim of the assessee that the entire expenditure related to operation and maintenance was borne by Suzlon Energies Ltd." 94.1 Therefore, taking a consistent view, this issue is also allowed for statistical purpose. The ground is restored to file of AO for decision afresh in the light of above direction." 115.1 For the same reasoning, this g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TA No. 254/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2008-09. The Respective Representative of the Parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in the ITA No. 254/JP/2015 We have decided this issue by observing as under:- "38.3 We find merit into the contentions of the assessee is that on investment of Rs. 1 lakhs the assessee has earned dividend income on Rs. 10 lakhs only in respect of the shares of Mayura Inorganics Ltd. This fact is not disputed by the Revenue. In our considered view, the operation of Rule 8D is not automatic. The assessing officer is required to satisfy himself about the correctness of the claim that no expenditure was incurred by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the present case has accepted that there is not direct nexus between the investment and expenses so incurred. After considering the totality of the fact and keeping in view the sum of Rs. 1,138/- had been disallowed by invoking the provision of Rule 8D without being satisfy about the claim of the assessee that no administrative expenses were incurred for earning of the exempt income. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. This ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed." 97....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their land for mineral extraction without appreciating the fact that the expenditure is of capital in nature. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting disallowance of mines development expenses to Rs. 6,64,150/- as against addition of Rs. 33,41,648/- made by AO. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding prior period expenses of Rs. 11,43,417/- as allowable expenses even when it was not in accordance with the accounting policies followed by the assessee. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 8,36,54,000/- in respect of mines closure expenses even the expenditure has not been debited in the books of accounts. 8. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing excess deduction u/s 80IA of Rs. 1,19,29,213/- by reducing head office expenses towards the income derived from power generating undertaking. 9. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Corporation Ltd, wherein relying upon Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. 274 ITR 465 and CIT vs. Shri Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. 221 CTR 410 held that the contribution made by the assessee to a Public Welfare Fund which is connected or related with his business is an allowable deduction u/s 37 as it was provided for the benefit of the employees. Hon'ble Tribunal distinguished the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Co-operative Marketing Society 275 ITR 372 (Raj) stating that in that case the amount was set apart for the shareholders of the society whereas in the present case amount was provided for the benefit of the employees and the contribution made to State Renewal Fund was found allowable u/s 37(1). Respectfully following the decision of ITAT in appellant's own case, addition made by the AO is deleted. 2.2 Following the above order of the CIT(A)-II, Jaipur and the order of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of the assessee, the disallowance made by the AO is directed to be deleted. This ground is allowed." 78.3 Since the Ld. CIT(A) rightly followed the judgment of the Rajasthan Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expenditure is therefore, directed to be deleted. The balance expenditure incurred under the head - rural development expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- on account of medical camps, supply of school bags and stationary items to students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. is in the nature of expenditure on corporate social responsibility which has not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellant's business and is not allowable u/s 37 (1) of the IT Act. Disallowance of this expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- is therefore, upheld. 6.4 As regards, expenditure debited under the head - afforestation, plantation and environment expenses, it is seen from the ledger account that this expenditure has been incurred for maintaining the gardens at its corporate office, mining sites offices, obtaining environmental clearances, obtaining mining area lease, fees paid to Pollution Control Board, for assessing the quality of water etc. This expenditure therefore, has been made out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes off the assessee's business. The above disallowance is therefore, directed to be deleted"....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortation of minerals. Disallowance of the above expenditure is therefore, directed to be deleted. The balance expenditure incurred under the head - rural development expenses, amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- on account of medical camps, supply of school bags and stationary items to students of rural areas, construction of teen shades, meeting halls etc. is in the nature of expenditure on corporate social responsibility which has not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellant's business and is not allowable u/s 37 (1) of the IT Act. Disallowance of this expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,20,47,954/- is therefore, upheld. 6.4 As regards, expenditure debited under the head - afforestation, plantation and environment expenses, it is seen from the ledger account that this expenditure has been incurred for maintaining the gardens at its corporate office, mining sites offices, obtaining environmental clearances, obtaining mining area lease, fees paid to Pollution Control Board, for assessing the quality of water etc. This expenditure therefore, has been made out and expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes off the assessee's business. The above dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). 84.2 We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has given finding on fact in para 5.3 of his order as under: "5.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The AO has disallowed mines development expenditure of Rs. 32,75,233/- on the mistaken belief that it pertains to the Sonari Lignite Mines. The appellant has clarified that this expenditure pertains to Kasanu and Matasukh Mines at Nagor which are already operational and mines development expenses are allowable u/s 35E. The appellant has stated that it has itself added back the mine development expenses of Sonari Lignite Mines and therefore, there is no question of any further disallowance. The contention of the appellant is correct. The AO is directed to delete the disallowance of the above mine development expenses since it does not pertain to Sonari Lignite Mines but to operational Mines which have not completed ten years of operations. This ground is allowed." 84.3 This finding is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any ontrary material on record. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elete the addition of Rs. 4,40,113 because the table in the appellant's submission shows that the liability for the expenses got crystallized in the year under consideration. 6.2 following the above order of CIT(A)-II, Jaipur and the orders of the ITAT, Jaipur, in the case of the assessee, the above disallowance is directed to be deleted. This ground is allowed." 81.3 This finding is not controverted by the Revenue by placing any contrary material on record and also no change into facts and circumstances is pointed out. Therefore, this ground of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed." 127.1 For the same reasoning, this ground is dismissed. 128. Ground No. 7, the ground and the fact are identical in ITA No. 257/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2012-13. The Respective Representatives of the parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in ITA No. 257/JP/2015 as ground no. 6. We have decided this issue by observing as under:- (95) "95. Ground no. 6, is in respect of confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of Rs. 7,96,71,000/- in respect of mine closure expenses provided in the books of accounts. We find that identical issue was raised in ITA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 For the same reasoning, this ground is also allowed, the AO is directed to allow deduction of mine closure expenses. 129. Ground No. 8, the ground and fact are identical in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2007-08. The Respective Representatives of the parties have adopted the same argument as were adopted in ITA No. 253/JP/2015 as ground no. 4. We have decided this issue by observing as under:- "7.3 We find that in para 3 of the submissions before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee stated that in respect of the unallocated expenses of Rs. 15,67,45,594/- that none of these expenses pertain to the 80IA undertakings in as much as the entire operation and the maintenance of the power plant had been given to Suzlon Energies Ltd. Therefore, the assessee had not to incur any expenditure on salary/employees benefit, travelling conveyance and other expenses debited under the various heads of expense in corporate office/head office. No strategic planning, day to day management and supervision, financial management, marketing management, tendering, work allocation, contract awarding, control etc. was required for operating these power plants by the corporate office/head office. Henc....