TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s consolidated order. First we shall deal with the appeal in ITA No.389/Chd/2013. ITA No. 389/Chd/2013 : 1. Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing appeal of the assessee without appreciating the fact of the case? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,43,40,143/- which was made by the Assessing Officer by denying the benefit of deduction claimed by the assessee 2,43,40,143/- was not "derived from" the eligible business of the assessee? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the receipts from sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to generate such CER's could sell them in the international market. The sale of such CER was in the nature of business income which was directly related to the business of the assessee through which assessee has put up a electric generation project which produces lesser amount of green house gases and assessee became entitled to credit of carbon units. The Assessing Officer examined the issue in detail and was of the opinion that generation of such CER has nothing to do with the business of the assessee and it was because of environment protocol, therefore, deduction u/s 80IA was denied of this amount. 4. On appeal, the assessee raised ground that assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80IA on such sales. In addition an additional gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of CIT v My Home Power Ltd at 365 ITR 82(A.P). He also pointed out that this decision has been followed by Chennai Bench in the case of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd v DCIT 27 ITR (Trib) 44 (Chennai) and Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd v DCIT 27 ITR (Trib) 106 and Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Cement Ltd Vs. Addl CIT 31 ITR (Trib) 513. 7. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. The facts of the case are identical to the facts of the case decided by Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of My Home Power Ltd Vs. DCIT (supra). In that case it was held as under:- "Held, that carbon credit was in the nature of "an entitlement" received to improve world atmosphere and environment r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Chennai Bench in two cases of Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd v DCIT (supra) and Sri Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd v DCIT (supra). Even Jaipur Beach has followed this decision in the case of Shree Cement Ltd Vs. Addl CIT (supra). No doubt the DR has been able to point out the contrary decision rendered by Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd v ACIT (supra). Since the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal Bench has already been confirmed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and there is no contrary decision from any other High Court, in our opinion, we are bound to follow the decision of High Court. Therefore, following this decision we decide this issue against the Revenue. 10. Ground No.4 : After hearing both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., therefore, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the nature of insurance receipts and if the same was in the Revenue field, then deduction u/s 80IA should be allowed otherwise the issue may be decided in accordance with law. 15. In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 16. ITA No. 390/Chd/2013: In this appeal three issues have been raised by the Revenue namely:- (a) Treatment of sale of CER unit is capital receipt. (b) Allowance of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of insurance receipt. (c) Allowance of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of interest subsidy. 17. The first issue is identical to the issue raised in ground Nos. 1 to 3 in ITA No 389/Chd/2013 in....