TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim on the other income received from contractors at 5 production units. It was submitted that this other income consists of electricity recovery from the contractors for the power consumed and other recoveries from the contractors. 5. At the outset, both the parties brought to our notice that the issue stands adjudicated by the order of Co-ordinate bench of the ITAT in assessee's own case for the earlier years. 6. We have gone through the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT for the A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No. 466/Del/2016 and 297/Del/2016 order dated 26.07.2019 wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant part of the said order involving the same issue is reproduced below: "9. AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,99,54,875/- by not considering the same for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act on the ground that only profit obtained from generation and distribution of power and not from other income is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. 10. Ld. CIT(A) by following his own order rendered in AY 2010-11 upheld the order passed the AO that income derived from sources other than generat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 104 , 848 589 , 243 Total 16 , 388 , 093 3 , 447 , 950 6 , 557 , 760 3 , 561 , 072 29 , 954 , 875 14. The ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 388 ITR 371 wherein meaning of word "derived from" while computing deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act has been explained. 15. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2010-11 (supra) decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by returning following findings:- "47. We find that the AAR in the case of National Fertilizers Limited 193 CTR 498(AAR) held that the expenses incurred to earn these other incomes should be excluded from the debit side of the profit and loss account for computing the deduction u/s. 80-I of the Act. The relevant extract of the judgment is as below: "(2) question No. 2 in AAR/532/2001 that the expenses of Rs. 2,76,03,364 and Rs. 12,12,74,426 (it is stated that the correct figure is Rs. 11,02,56,561) allocated by marketing office and corporate office and interest expenditure of Rs. 71,65,99,045 allocated by the cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A). 10. The Assessee filed appeals and the Revenue filed cross appeals before the ITAT. The ITAT in the impugned orders concluded that with sub-section (2A) beginning with a non-obstante clause, the legislative intention of making available to an undertaking, providing telecommunication services, the benefit of deduction of 100% of the profits and gains "of the eligible business" was explicit. Indeed, the legislature appears to have made a conscious departure in adopting for sub-section (2A) a wording different from that appearing in sub-section (1). Under Section 80IA (1), what is available for deduction are profits and gains "derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any business referred to in sub-section (4)" whereas in Section 80-IA (2A) what is available for deduction is "hundred percent of the profits and gains of the eligible business". The following conclusion reached by the ITAT in para 13.11 of the impugned order correctly encapsulates the legal position as far as the interpretation of Section 80IA (2A) is concerned. "13.11 Thus, we find that the legislature being alive to providing tax deductions to business enterprises and undertakings, it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the total income of the assessee, a deduction from such profits and gains of an amount equal to the prescribed percentage is to be allowed. That, in fact, the gross total income of the assessee included profits and gains from such business, and this is apparent on a plain glance at the computation in the assessment order. Both in relation to Vatva Unit and Mandali Unit the computation commences by taking profit as per statement of income filed along with return of income. Therefore, the same item of receipt cannot be treated differently: once while computing the gross total income, and secondly at the time of computing deduction under s. 80-I of the Act. Therefore, on this limited count alone, the order of the Tribunal suffers from a basic fallacy resulting in an error in law and on facts. The Tribunal instead of recording findings on facts proceeded to discuss law. This litigation could have been avoided if the parties had invited attention to basic facts. 28. Neither the approach nor the reasons advanced by the Tribunal deserve acceptance. It is an incorrect proposition to state that interest paid by the debtors for late payment of the sale proceeds would not form part o....