TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;directing the Assessing Officer to compute assessee's deduction claim u/s.80IA of the Act separately for its land filling and incinerator projects; separately. 3. We come to relevant facts. This assessee is a company engaged in solid waste management. It dumps the solid/semi solid waste in specifically dug pits for the very purpose as well as burns the same at a very high temperature of around 1400centigrade. This later process is called incinerator wherein installation of machinery is required at the site in question. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment on 22.12.2009 holding that the above two projects i.e. land filling and incinerator amounted to a composite project for treatment of solid waste meaning thereby that the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Stipulated Conditions under the provision of section 80IA (4) of the Act; Undertaking wise deduction claimed U/s.80IA(4) of the Act 1 Particulars of Undertakings Land Filling Project- I Incinerator Unit 2- 80IA(2) Allowability of deduction 10 out of 20 Years. 10 out of 20 Years. 3-80)IA(4)(a) Ownership status of the Enterprises/ undertaking Owned by the Company. Owned by the Company. (80)IA(4)(b) Agreement with the Central Government or a local authority or any other statutory body to carry out infrastructure facilities; I. Vide Agreement dated 15th May, 2002 with Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ii. Gujarat pollution Control Board has given permission vide letter dated 22nd Janua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the light of aforesaid discussion and on the facts of the case and respectfully following the decision relied by the assessee, I direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction u/s.801A of the Act separately for both the units and allow the same accordingly." 5. We have heard rival submissions. It emerges that the assessee has amply demonstrated during the course of lower proceedings that two projects in question are in fact separate ones. We afforded amply opportunity to learned Departmental Representative to rebut all the above extracted evidence / pleadings to the effect that the two projects i.e. land filling and incinerator one are very much separate. The Revenue fails to quote any material against the same. We accordingly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....part of the Annual Accounts, the Income of the appellant accrues only when the wastes received is burnt. Accordingly, the Appellant has rightly accounted the proceeds of the solid wastes which are being not burnt till the close of year as advance in the accounts. Further, I find that in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has neither discussed nor given findings that on the adoption of accounting standard AS-9 in respect of the specific nature of business of the appellant, the accounts give incorrect or improper results so as to reject the method adopted for recognizing the revenue in view of the provision of section 145 of the Act. The Appellant has relied upon the following decisions; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hd/2010. 9. We now proceed to deal with assessee's appeal ITA No.2223/Ahd/2010. Its first substantive ground pleads that both the lower authorities have erred in excluding interest income of Rs. 42,88,461/- and one time membership fee for incinerator plan of Rs. 11.20 lacs for the purpose of computing Section 80IA deduction claim by following hon'ble apex court's decision in Pandian Chemical's case 262 ITR 278 (SC) that the same could not be held to have been derived from the abovestated solid waste disposal plant. 10. Heard both sides. It emerges that the assessee's interest income in question arises from fixed deposits maintain with bank in order to comply with Gujarat Pollution Control Boards, norms, terms and conditions since it h....