TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cientific and Industry Research (DSIR) and also failed to fulfill the prescribed conditions to claim depreciation under Rule 5(2)." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 3,60,92,087/-, ignoring that the assessee has failed to produce the copies of agreement entered with the prescribed authority and the report in Form 3CL was also incomplete." 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of interest on advances given to Subsidiary M/s. Aarti Healthcare Ltd. amounting to Rs. 1,99,34,904/-, ignoring that mere existence of some interest free funds cannot justify the assessee's claim that interest free loans given were not out of interest bearing funds." 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the I T Rules by merely relying on the decisions in the case of Reliance Utilities Ltd. vs. CIT [313 ITR 340 (Bom)], ignoring the facts stated in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d no. 2 raised by the revenue may be dismissed. The ld DR on the other hand fairy agreed that the issue is covered in assessee's own case but relied on the ground of appeal. 9. After perusing the facts of the assesse case and order of coordinate bench in AY 2011-12 as stated above we find that identical issue has been decided vide para no. 7 to 10 in ITA No. 4943/Mum/2017. Following the said decision of the coordinate bench we inclined to uphold the order of CIT(A) by dismissing the ground no. 2 of revenue appeal. 10. The issue raised in ground no. 3 is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition as made by the AO on account of interest on loans to subsidiary M/s. Arti Healthcare amounting to Rs. 1,99,34,904/- 11. At the outset, the ld Counsel of the assesse submitted issue is fully covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in assesse own case in ITA No. 4943/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 & others and prayed that ground no. 3 raised by the revenue may be dismissed. 12. The ld DR on the other hand fairy agreed that the issue is covered in assessee's own case but relied on the ground of appeal. 13. After perusing the facts of the assesse case and order of coordinate benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut relied on the ground of appeal. 21. After perusing the facts of the assesse case and order of coordinate bench in AY 2011-12 as stated above we find that identical issue has been decided vide para no. 15 to 17 in ITA No. 4943/Mum/2017. Following the said decision of the coordinate bench we inclined to uphold the order of CIT(A) by dismissing the ground no. 5 of revenue appeal. 22. The issue raised in ground no. 6 is against the order of ld. CIT(A) allowing additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of Rs. 1,89,51,631/-. 23. At the outset, the ld Counsel of the assesse submitted that issue is fully covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in assesse own case in ITA No. 5077/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 & others and prayed that ground no. 6 raised by the revenue may be dismissed. 24. The ld DR on the other hand fairy agreed that the issue is covered in assessee's own case but relied on the ground of appeal. 25. After perusing the facts of the assesse case and order of coordinate bench in AY 2011-12 as stated above we find that identical issue has been decided vide para no. 10 to 12 in ITA No. 5077/Mum/2017. Since the facts before us are similar to one as decided by the coordinate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 35. The issue raised in ground no. 5 is against the order of ld CIT(A) not allowing the deduction of u/s 80-IA in respect of profits and gains derived from undertaking engaged in generation of power in the form of steam. 36. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials on records we find that we have restored identical issue in M.A. 256/Mum/2020 arising out of ITA No. 5077/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 to the file of the AO to decide the same as the ground was raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Since the issue before is also identical, we are inclined to restore the same to the file of the AO to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assesse. The ground no. 5 is allowed for statistical purpose. 37. The issue raised in ground no. 6 is against the order of ld CIT(A) not appreciating the fact that fertilizer subsidy and other incentives on export received by the appellant are capital receipt and not liable to tax. 38. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials on records we find that we have restored identical issue in M.A. 256/Mum/2020 arising out of ITA No. 5077/Mum/2017 A.....