TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "C" Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in ITA/1054/Kol/2011 for the assessment year 2007- 08. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law in allowing the claim of the assessee towards expenditure under Section 10(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.3,91,57,316/- by disregarding that the assessee failed to prove the basis of agricultural operation being carried out in raising clonal plants, Sugarcane and coconuts in relation to assessment year 2007-08 ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal has correctly interpreted Explana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F/ESI act even though the same was not claimed in the return of assessment year 2007-08? We have heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, learned Advocate for the assessee. We need not labour much to answer the substantial question of law framed for consideration on account of certain earlier decisions in the assessee's own case. So far as substantial question of law Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned the issue stands squarely covered by the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Soundarya Nursery [241 ITR 530] as well as the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Green Gold Tree Farmers (P) Ltd [2008] 299 ITR 262. Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the revenue. So far as the substantial question no. 3 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the said question is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2002-03 in the case of CIT Kolkata III V. ITC [2015] 64 taxmann.com 214 (Calcutta). The Hon'ble Division Bench held in favour of the assessee in the following terms:- "4. The aforesaid provision contemplates or does not militate against supply of electricity by the eligible unit to any other business of the assessee. Therefore the contention that the unit is not eligible because "the assessee has not sold power genrated by the power undertaking to any outsider but has consumed 100% generated by its unit" does not appear t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In so far as the substantial question of law No. 4 is concerned CITA reversed the order passed by the assessing officer having found that the assessee was an eligible undertaking and entitled to the benefit of Section 80IC which is a special provision in respect of certain undertakings or industries in certain special category states. It is not in dispute that the said eligible undertaking was not manufacturing any of the goods as listed in 13th schedule to the Act. The principle which was laid down in the assessee's own case in the issue relating to Section 80IA as reported in [2015] 64 taxmann.com 214 (Calcutta) will equally apply to the claim of deduction under Section 80AC of the Act. The CITA rightly took note of the fact that Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, the decision arrived at by the CITA was wholly justified. The Tribunal decided the correctness of the said finding and in paragraph 5.1 of the impugned order took note of the Section 80IA (8) and held that the said provision is applicable to Section 80IC and accordingly approved the finding recorded by the CITA. In the light of the above, we find there is no error in the approach of the CITA or the Tribunal for us to interfere. Accordingly substantial question of law No. 4 is answered against the revenue. This leaves us with only substantial question of law No. 5 which pertains to claim made by the assessee for deduction under Section 43B of the Act being amount of employees' contribution towards provident fund/employees' State i....