2018 (10) TMI 1442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2018 and Cross Objections are filed by the assessee supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13 to 2015-16. Since the grounds raised in the appeals are common, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. 2. All the appeals are related to the allocation of cost of husk consumption between the rice mill unit and power generation plant. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had claimed the deduction u/s 80IA for the assessment year 2012-13 to 2015-16 and the same is restricted as under : A.Y. Deduction (Rs.) Allowed (Rs.) 2012-13 2,37,57,317 1,08,66,587 2013-14 4,56,55,781 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to 2009-10 which reads as under : "8.4 Thus, based on the ratio of the judicial decisions cited, and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case for the A.Ys.2008-09 and 2009-10, it is held that the AO is not justified in restricting the deduction u/s. 8OIA(iv), disregarding the decision of ITAT, Visakhapatnam, which was not stayed in its operation and as such is binding. It is not correct on the part of the AO to not implement the said order, merely on the ground that such decision was not accepted by department. Thus, on similarity of facts, the AO is directed to calculate the profits and expenditure for allowing deduction u/s. 80IA(iv) of the Act, by adopting allocation of husk at 10%....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r point and cost incurred after a particular point. This to our mind is not logical. Thus the allocation made by the assessee to our mind is justified. Hence, we allow this ground of the assessee." 5.1. The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 also in I.T.A.No.509/Viz/2016 dated 21.02.2018 following the order of this Tribunal cited supra. 6. Since the facts are identical, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal in the assessee's own case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. 6.1. However, the AO has not given the details of the initial assessment year in which the deduction u/s 80IA was claimed and the expiry of time limit fo....