TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Assessee's Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee wants to withdraw the C.O hence, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.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 and carefully perused the relevant material placed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 proceedings. Relevant facts thereto are in a very narrow compass. This assessee manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 (Mumbai) 833, in which the Tribunal, on this issue, what should be the price attributable to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 at the average of the annual landed cost of electricity purchased by the assessee from Karnataka State El....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 facts/issue is identical therefore in the absence of contrary facts, we are expected to follow the decision of the coordinate benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 litigation is also a principle which has to be followed. Before us, no contrary facts or any adverse material was brought on record by the .Revenue, therefore, on the principle of consistency also, the assessee is having a good ....