TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 16.01.2017 2. Both the parties have agreed that the facts and circumstances of all four AYs are similar and quite identical. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking up ITA No.879/Ahd/2017/SRT of Revenue and C.O No.01/SRT/2017 for AY 2006-07 as lead cases to decide the sole issue. The ld. Assessee's Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee wants to withdraw the C.O hence, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. The sole ground in the appeal of the Revenue reads as follows: "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in ddleting disallowance of Rs. 1,25,80,915/- made on account of deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the IT Act." 3. We have heard the arguments of both sides a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e CIT(A)-VI, Baroda's separate orders dated 01.11.2013 & 06.12.2013 in case nos. CAB/VI-238/2010-11 & CAB/VI-463/2011-12, respectively, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". Heard both sides. Case files perused. ITA Nos. 475 & 779/Ahd/2014 (DCIT vs. Pragati Glass Works P. Ltd.) A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10 -2- 2. It is evident from Revenue's pleadings that it seeks to raise two substantive grounds identical in both of its appeals. First substantive ground reads that the Revenue endeavors to restore Section 80IA deduction disallowance of Rs. 33,45,281/- in former and Rs. 43,24,778/- in latter assessment year as made in assessment orders and deleted in the lower appellate pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....low. We have also gone through the decisions cited by the respective representative before us. It is not in dispute that the assessee was consuming power from two sources i.e GEB and Captive generation plant of its own. The GEB was being paid at the rate of 4.9 per ITA Nos. 475 & 779/Ahd/2014 (DCIT vs. Pragati Glass Works P. Ltd.) A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10 -3- unit while the power procured from Captive Unit installed by the assessee for the purpose of computing eligible profit the assessee has taken the market value of the power produced by Captive plant at the rate of 4.9per unit. We noted that the similar issue has arisen before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Ltd V/s JCIT reported in (2006) 100 TTJ (M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duces consumed by the agriculturist-assessee in his business as raw material. The rule provides that in the case of income which is partially agricultural income and partially income chargeable as business income, in determining that part which is chargeable to income- tax, the market value of any agricultural produce which has been raised by the assessee and utilized as a raw material in such business shall be deducted at the prevalent market value. This principle has been considered and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars ltd V/s CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 9: (1997) 2271TR 432 (SC). Therefore, we direct the assessing Authority to work out the profits on the basis of the price of the power generated by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment order, impugned order, order of the Tribunal dated 05.05.2017, assertions made by the Ld. Respective counsel and the material facts, available on record, are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, we find that the tribunal in the aforesaid order, while deliberating upon the issue has followed the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of the assesse itself for assessment year 21003-04 and 2004-05 on identical issue of claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act along with various decisions. In the present appeal also the Ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the claimed deduction of Rs. 3,81,47,465/- u/s. 80IA of the Act. The main reason of disallowance is that the captive plant is not eligible for deduction. However we find that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F. Varghesevs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsangvs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing & Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 3.3 The sum and substance of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that on the basis pi principle of judicial discipline, consistency has to be followed and once in a particular year, if any view is taken, in the absence of any contrary material, no contrary view is to be taken as finality to the li....