TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the expenses incurred for replacement of electricity meters as deduction in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee had capitalized in its books of accounts the cost of 45514 meters amounting to Rs. 5,62,87,331/-, out of which Rs. 3,19,61,732/- pertained to replacement of 25988 meters. These expenses were not debited to profit and loss account. The assessee claimed the cost of Rs. 3,19,61,732/- on replacement of old meters as deduction in its computation of income. The Ld. AO show caused the assessee as to why the said expenditure should not be treated as capital expenditure. The assessee made a d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iture?" The Hon'ble High Court held as under:- 3.(i) So far as question (a) is concerned, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondentassessee by following its order for the Assessment Years 19992000, 200001 and 200102. In response to our specific query whether revenue has challenged the order of the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 199900, 200001 and 200102 in respect of the issue raised in question (a), the learned Counsel for the revenue states that in spite of having sought information on the above aspect from the revenue by his letter dated 15 April 2013, he has received no response from the department. (ii) In any view of the matter, the expenditure incurred on the replacement of the electricity meters was held to be capital ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to the present Assessment Year. The Counsel for the revenue has also not been able to show that the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse and/or erroneous. In the above view, we see no reason to entertain Question (a)". 2.4 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly the ground No.1, raised by the revenue is dismissed. 3. The next issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the proportionate apportionment and allocation of Head Office expenses amongst Goa and Windmill Units respectively while calculating profits eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of the said units. 3.1 We hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 dated 17.04.2014 had decided this issue in favour of the assessee, wherein it was held as under: "5. In so far as the question (c) in relation to head office expenses is concerned, the findings of the facts by the ITAT for the prior assessment years have been referred to and if at all any reference needed, paragraphs 17 and 18 of the ITAT's order are complete answers". Therefore, the factual findings do not raise any substantial question of law in relation to disclaim as well. 3.2 Respectfully following the said decision, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee. Accordingly the ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 4. The ground Nos. 3 to 6 raised by the revenue are wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3301.43 crores at the beginning and closing of the year respectively. We find that the Ld CIT(A) observed that the assessee's own interest free funds were in far excess of total investments made. Accordingly by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., reported in 313 ITR 340 and in the case of HDFC bank, reported in 366 ITR 505, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the interest disallowance made by the Ld. A.O under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. We find that the factual findings given by the ld CITA on the availability of interest free funds with the assessee company remain uncontroverted by the revenue before us and hence do not find any infirmity in the said finding of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with regard to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act under normal provisions of the Act would apply for this ground also. We find that the Ld. AO had disallowed a sum of Rs. 86,79,00,838/- u/s 14A of the Act while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. We find that Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the said disallowance by following the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments (supra). But we find that the Special Bench had only held that the computation mechanism provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules cannot be imputed in clause (f) of Explanation (1) to Sec. 115JB(2) of the Act. The special Bench also held that the actual expenses debited to profit and loss account which are incurred for the purpos....