TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 626
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08-09. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2014 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law the appellate authorities were correct in holding that only the profit making power generating unit of the assessee should be taken into account and not the loss making units in computing the total income of the assessee for its eligible business to allow deduction under Section 80IA of the Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in eth circumstances an din law the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the deduction under Section 80IA windmiss wise instead of eligible business wise, contrary to the provision of section 80IA(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- as against Rs. 45,01,582/-. Thus, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee as well as the revenue filed the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), which were decided by a common order dated 30.04.2013. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue and remitted the claim of the assessee for disallowance under Section 14A of the Act in respect of Rs. 14,40,470/- to the Assessing Officer. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that Section 80IA(1) of the Act is applicable to eligible business and all profit making and loss making units have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prior to amendment to Section 14A(2) of the Act and therefore, in any case, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is also submitted that the object of introduction of Section 14A which has been dealt by Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P.) LTD.', 326 ITR 1 has not been taken into account by the Tribunal. It is also urged that the Tribunal grossly erred in considering the surplus as on 01.04.2007 and recording a finding that investment is out of surplus and without taking into consideration the fact that investment was made by the assessee much prior to 01.04.2007. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has invited the attention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ME TAX, NEW DELHI, CIVIL APPEAL NOS.104-109 OF 2015. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The order dated 14.03.2014 by which the appeal was admitted reads as under: Mr.K.V.ARavind, learned counsel for the revenue submits that the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal and in I.T.A.No.23/2013 are identical. He submits that I.T.A.No.23/2013 has already been admitted by this court. The assessee in both the appeals is same. Hence, we admit this appeal to consider the substantial questions of law as raised in the memorandum of appeal. 6. I.T.A.No.23/2013 was decided by this court vide order dated 19.03.2020, which reads as under: Mr.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid submission, learned counsel for the revenue was unable to dispute the aforesaid legal proposition. 5. Therefore, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 7. Thus, from conjoint reading of order dated 14.03.2014 and judgment dated 19.03.2020 passed in I.T.A.No.23/2013, it is evident that substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 are identical and have been answered against the revenue by placing reliance on decision of this court in SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS (P.) LTD., supra. The aforesaid position was not disputed by learned counsel for the revenue. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 framed in this ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it was held that this court will not interfere with findings of the court, unless the courts have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence or have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously or the decision is based on no evidence. The aforesaid decisions were referred to with approval in VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. CIT, (2011) 1 SCC 673 supra as well as in 'UNION OF INDIA V. IBRAHIM UDDIN', (2012) 8 SCC 148 and 'MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT', (2016) 2 SCC 556. 9. Now we may advert to the third substantial question of law. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has invested a sum of Rs. 26,61,011/- from its own ca....