TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 237
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Department. Therefore, impugned delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal requires to be condoned, and the appeal of the Revenue may be adjudicated on merit. For support of his submission, the ld.DR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motto Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in MA No.29 of 2022 dated 10.01.2022 by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into consideration prevailing circumstances due to COVID-19 pandemic extended period of limitation from 15.3.2020 till 28.02.22 and the present appeal is filed on1 8.11.2020 which is within the extended period only. On the other hand, the ld.Sr.Advocate, Shri S.N.Soparkar has no objection if the delay is condoned. 3. In view of the above submissions of the ld.DR, more so when the Hon'ble Supreme Court took suo-moto cognizance of the difficulties faced by litigants in filing petitions/applications/ suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central or State) during the outbreak of COVID-19, and in the suo moto Writ Petition cited (supra) extended period of lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....143 Crore Revenue & Surplus Rs.179.13 Crore Rs. 197.16 Crore Share capital Rs.26.70 Crore Rs.26.70 Crore Interest bearing fund Rs.25.09 Crore Rs.103.32 Crore Net assets Rs.188.39 Crore Rs. 195. 87 Crore Investment Rs.23.42 Crore According to the Ld. AR, investment of Rs.23.42 Crore consists of followings: Sr. No. Particulars Amount [Rs. In lakhs] Financial Year 1. 12% IFCI bonds [1000 bonds of Rs.1000 each] 10 2010-11 2. « Alembic Pharmaceutical Ltd. (5,50,00,000 equity shares of Rs.2 each) 1100 2010-11 3. IMarayu Pvt. Ltd. (5,00,000 pref shares of Rs. 100 each) 501.25 2011-12 .4. ' Sierra Investments Ltd. (3,00,000 pref shares of Rs. 100 -each) 240.60- 2011-12 The above data shows there was no fresh investment made during the year. Further, the appellant has made a detailed explanation about outstanding investment and its sources of fund utilized in previous years. The AO has no where pointed out that the interest bearing funds were utilized for making investment in FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12. The AO's only allegation is that fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oted that the assessee sold electricity at Rs.3.70 per unit to its group associate company i.e M/s.Shreno Ltd., which was more than GSECL at R.3.62 per unit (average rate). The AO further noted that the assessee has taken rate of Rs.4.70 per unit in the computation of power for R&D electricity use. Thus, finally referring to sub-section (8) of section 80IA and sub-section (10) of section 80IA, the AO rejected entire deduction under section 80IA(4) being excessive and unreasonable, and added the same to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee was in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the Asst.Year 2009-10 vide ITA No.1912, 1913 & 1939/Ahd/2012 for Asst.Year 2009-10; in ITA No.2928 & 285/Ahd/2013 for Asst.Year 2010-11; ITA No.622 & 550/Ahd/2016 for Asst.Year 2011-12 and ITA No.2229 & 2317/Ahd/216 for Asst.Year 2012-13, and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds mentioned above. 8. At the outset, the ld.Sr.Advocate placed before us copy of common order dated 15.9.2017 passed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The above view of the Co-ordinate Bench is further fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power I1H 340 followed in HDEC Ltd. 366 ITR 505. 11. Drawing support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra) and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court (supra), in our considered opinion, the suo motu disallowance of Rs. 2 lacs should meet the ends of justice. We, .accordingly direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Act Ground no. 1 is allowed and accordingly ground no. 1 in revenue's appeal in ITA No. 2855/Ahd/201 3 is dismissed." 10. The ld.DR appearing for the Revenue neither controvert this position and nor brought any decision in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in the assessee's own case cited (supra), we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 11. So far as second issue is concerned, the ld.Senior Advocate for the assessee submitted that, the issue of disallowance under section 80IA(4) of the Act, the Revenue's appeal in Tax appeal No.1249 of 2014 dated 20.7.2016, the Revenue has raised the following t....