TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1438
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 52 taxman.com 268 (Mum-Trib). It is held that "we do not find any error in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) therefore, this ground of appeal of Revenue is dismissed." It is also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench has dismissed the C.O. No. 41/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee stating that Cross Objection has not been pressed. 2. However, it is submitted that decision of West Coast Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. was referred in connection to the Cross Objection of the assessee for the year under consideration and Ld. CIT(A) has already held that steam was not power for sec. 80IA(iv) and there was no appeal by the Revenue on that ground or point. Considering above the relevant part of the miscellaneous application of the assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of various benches of Hob'ble ITAT including the decision in 52 taxmann.com 268 and have held that Steam in any form is power and the profit from the same is eligible for deduction vide section 80IA. The lower authorities may be directed to compute the deduction vide section 80IA accordingly after considering that A.Y. 2011-12 being the initial assessment year as held by Ld. CIT(A) the brought forward losses which are already absorbed against other income are not to be deducted for computing the relief vide section 80IA, the finding given on that aspect by learned CIT(A) being correct." The CO clearly agitates the finding of the lower authorities that steam is not power Thus, it was incorrect to record the finding that CO wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Central Council for research v. Dr. K. Santhakumari (Supreme Court of India) Appeal (Civil) 3595 of 2001 The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax v. K.S. Suresh (Madras High Court) Writ Appeal No. 766 to 771 of 2005 We therefore request to rectify the mistake by passing the order vide section 254(2)." 3. In the light of the above facts and circumstances we observe that there is apparent error in adjudication of ground of appeal no. 4 of the Revenue and not adjudicating of C.O. No. 41/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee. And further the assessee filed his submission dated 21.06.2019 has further referred the other decision which are reproduced as under:- "In the recent decision in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Limited the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inate bench as discussed above shall be applied in the case on hand with full strength. The Id. DR and the Id. AR has not brought any decisions varying from similar or identical facts or circumstances. Therefore, the ratio decidendi rendered by the earlier ITA Nos.922 & 1234/Ahd/2017 (By Revenue) and ITA Nos.929 & 1237/Ahd/2017 (By Assessee) DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst Years - 2010-11 & 2012. Order of the Tribunal has necessarily to be followed by us in line and tune with the judicial discipline and decorum. In view of the above and respectfully following the ITAT order as discussed above, we allow the ground of appeal of the assessee and dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue." In the end we shall like ....