TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of operating container, freight station, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 19,45,646/-. Since, the return was selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143 (2) was issued by the AO. In response to the said notice, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and filed details called for. It was noticed from the details submitted by the assessee that an amount of Rs. 20,75,964/- pertaining to Dadri Unit (eligible for deduction u/s 80IA) has not been reduced from the profit of Dadri Unit for claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, detail of which are as under:- 1. Rent received Rs. 13,06,520/- 2. Interest on fixed deposit Rs. 1,46,742/- 3. Balance Return back Rs. 3,95,807/- 4. Miscellaneous Income Rs. 2,26,895/- 3. The AO relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 and Orissa State Warehousing Corporation 237 ITR 589 held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA holding that since the afo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the other hand the Ld. departmental representative (DR) did not controvert the facts stated by the Ld. counsel however, contended that since the issue involved pertains to a separate assessment year the assessee cannot take advantage of the order pertaining to the earlier years. 7. We have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below in the light of the rival submissions. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee in assessee's own appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 holding that the income from rent received by the assessee is directly related to the main business of the assessee and the amount is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Ld. DR did not point out any difference of facts in the assessee's case for both the years. Admittedly, the issues involved in AY 2010-11 and the assessment year under consideration are identical. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any reason for taking a view inconsistent with the view taken in the earlier year on the identical issue. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to agree with the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the facts relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) is differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and gains derived from industrial undertaking'; was used and the claim was not allowed by following the principle that the expression ';derived from'; industrial undertaking should be given restricted meaning and whenever the Legislature wanted to give wider expression, it employed the expression ';attributable to';. But there was no occasion before the Courts, brought to our notice, to consider further wider expression as used in section 80-IA, i.e., ';profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking';. As such the Rulings of these courts are not applicable to the instant case before us." 11. The issue involved in this case is identical to the issue involved in the case of ACIT vs. Max care Laboratories Ltd. (supra). In the present case also the assessee had to make deposits under business compulsion. The revenue has not brought to our notice any decision contrary to the findings aforesaid rendered in similar set of facts. Hence, we respectively following the decision of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal allow this ground of appeal and direct the AO to allow the interest so earned by the assessee for the purpose of deductio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stion are not eligible for the claim u/s 80IA of the Act. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the findings of the AO discussing the general principles of the law without giving specific reasons as to why the amounts in question cannot be treated as profits and gains derived from the eligible business of the assessee. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any reason for taking a view contrary to the view already taken in the assessee's appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 in the similar set of facts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not based on cogent and convincing reasons. Hence, keeping in view the nature of income earned by the assessee in this case i.e., balance written back and miscellaneous income, we hold that the said amounts should be treated as profits and gains derived from the eligible business. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to treat the said amounts as profits and gains derived from the eligible business of the assessee. ITA No. 6205/MUM/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) This appeal of assessee pertains to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee enga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the grounds of assessee's appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 and since we have partly allowed this ground of appeal of the assessee in assessee's appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 and directed the AO to compute the total income after netting off the interest paid and interest received by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, consistent with our findings, we partly allow this ground of appeal and direct the AO to compute the total income of the assessee after netting off the interest paid and interest received by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration 5. So far as the interest received on IT refund is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that in this case the IT refund arises as a result of tax deducted at source by various customers of the assessee who used CFS facilities. Therefore, the interest of Rs. 3,13,385/-being related to the business of the assessee, eligible for the benefits u/s 80IA of the Act. The Ld. counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in the case of ITO vs. Hiranandani Builders (2015) TT....