TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Commissioner of Income Tax-14(3)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The ground Nos. 1-3 raised by the Revenue are challenging the deletion of disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act. 2.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee company is engaged in the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The assessee is a leading player in the country in the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) segment of the power and infrastructure sectors. The assessee is also engaged in implementation, operation and maintenance through Special Purpose Vehicles in various infrastructural areas. 2.2. We find that assessee had earned dividend income of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this regard. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to consider only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income for the purpose of making disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules and recompute the disallowance accordingly and thereafter reduce the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee in the return of income. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1 - 3 raised by the Revenue are partly allowed. 3. The ground No.4 raised by the Revenue is challenging the deletion of expenses incurred on replacement of electricity meters amounting to Rs. 7,66,72,484/-. 3.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee had capitalised in its books of accounts, the cost of 88,186 meters ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eleting the addition made on account of proportionate apportionment and allocation of head office expenses while calculating deduction u/s.80(IA) of the Act. 4.1. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that during the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO sought explanation from the assessee as to why the head office expenses should not be allocated among the various units to arrive at the correct profits derived from the eligible undertakings. The ld. AO disregarding the contentions of the assessee proceeded to allocate the head office expenses of Rs. 114,00,77,526/- to various units and accordingly, deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was reduced to Rs. 828,92,70,272/- as against Rs. 942,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y 2008-09. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) had also relied on the order passed his predecessor for A.Y 2012-13 and granted relief to the assessee. We find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case for A.Y 2006-07 in Income Tax Appeal No. 2180 of 2011 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... and the Judgment dated 25 March 2010 in Income Tax Appeal No.184 of 2007 in the matter of CIT v/s. M/s. Eskay KNIT (India) Ltd.. In view of the above, the issue being concluded in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court, we see no reason to entertain Question (d). 5.2. Since this issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case, which has been followed by the ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regards. Accordingly, the ground No.6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. The ground No.7 raised by the Revenue is challenging the deletion of disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act while computing....