AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Ground no.1: reassessment is bad in law and in utter disregard of the express provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')": a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals-3) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Large tax payer Unit) [hereinafter referred to as ÁO'] in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s.147/148 of the Act. b) The appellant prays that the reassessment order of the AO be set-aside as bad in law." 3. The Assessee has challenged reassessment notice issued by Assessing Officer u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) has discussed the issue at Para No 4.3 of his order as under: - "4.3 Decision on Ground of appeal No.2 and 3: I have considered the AO's contentions, detailed submissions of the appellant and case laws relied upon by the appellant. The AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s.148 after recording the reasons for reopening and after taking necessary administrative approval u/s.151 of the I.T Act 1961 vide No.Addl.CIT(LTU)1 /Approval/ 2013- 14 dated 17.04.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iii) CIT v. Daulat Mota (ITA No. 1031 of 2008) (Bombay HC) (iv) Ms. Rubab M. Kazerani v. JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 (Mum.) (v) ITO v. Smt. Lalitaben B. Kapadia (2008) 115 TTJ 938 (Mum) (vi) Peninsula Land Ltd. v. DCIT [IT APPEAL NOS. 3440 AND 3696 (MUM.) OF 2009] 5. The Ld.AR has also stated that reopening was made based on change of opinion is bad-in-law for which reliance is placed on following decisions" (i) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Limited [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] (ii) ITO v. Techspan India (P.) Ltd. [(2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC)]. (iii) PCIT v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. [(2018) 99 taxmann.com 205 (Bombay HC)]SLP dismissed in [(2018) 259 Taxman 360] (iv) Marico Ltd. v. ACIT [(2020) 425 ITR 177 (Bombay HC)] (v) GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. ACIT [(2015) 371 ITR 255 (Bombay HC)] (vi) Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT [(2017) 393 ITR 673 (Bombay HC)] 6. The Ld.AR has further stated that if income for which Assessing Officer had initially formed a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, has, in fact not escaped assessment, then it is not open for Assessing Officer to ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r normal provisions and book profit of Rs. 17,91,85,65,400/- u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. During the year the Company has sold land at Village Kikatpally and Village Moosapet (Sanathanagar), Andhra Pradesh for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 12.50 crores. The land was stated to be acquired prior to 01.04.1981 at a total cost of Rs. 0.04 crores. Further, the assessee submitted the valuer's report who valued the cost of property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs. 2.14 crores. Long Term Capital Loss on the same was accordingly computed at Rs.0.15 crores. 3. The valuer's report appeared to be higher side, therefore, the same had been referred u/s. 55A of the I.T. Act to the District Valuation Officer (DVO), Hyderabad on 03.12.2012 for having the valuation done as on 01.04.1981. The DVO passed the order u/s.55A of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w.s. 16A (5) of the WT Act, 1957 vide Order No. SE(V)/Hyd/2514/CG/1674 dated 26.03.2013 in respect of a plot of land of ACC Ltd. at Village Kukatpally and Village Moosapet (Sanathnagar), Andhra Pradesh received in this on 01.04.2013. The District Valuation Officer estimated the FMV of the said property at Rs.16,30,765/- as on 01.04.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her inquiry and/or material available with the Assessing Officer to form an independent opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment for the Assessment Year 2005-06. As held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dhariya Construction Co. (supra) opinion given by the District Valuation Officer is not per se information for the purpose of reopening an assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Rajivraj Ranbirsingh Choudhary v. Asstt. CIT rendered in Special Civil Application No. 21470/2016. Under the circumstances, solely relying upon and/or on the basis of the information in the form of DVO's report, the Assessing Officer is not justified in reopening the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act......." 11. It is relevant to refer to decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Munir Ismail Voraji [2017] 82 taxmann.com 92 wherein it is held as under: "7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment for A.Y 2011-2012 are sought to be reopened sol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e material available with the Assessing Officer to form a believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment. 7.3 Even otherwise, it appears from the DVO's report that the Assessing Officer has erred in relying upon DVO's report to form an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The DVO has mechanically and on the basis of rate in the case of other two properties situated in the same Town Planning Scheme has determined the fair market value of the land as on 1st April 1981 at Rs. 65/- per sqm. However, from the report, it does not appear that the DVO has applied his mind with respect to the location etc., of the land in question. As observed hereinabove, there is no further application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the information received by him in the form of DVO's report and has mechanically and solely relied upon the DVO's report, formed an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped. Thus, there was no tangible material available with the assessing officer to form an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 8. Under the circumstances, on the afore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra) and other decisions and quashed reassessment notice issued by AO. The Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT v. SAIDAN KAPOOR in ITA No 4496/Del/2012 has also quashed reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. 13. It is observed that in assessment order, Assessing Officer has referred to decision of Delhi High court in case of assessee for A.Y.2007-08 wherein assessee's writ petition was dismissed and observed that receipt of DVO's order after completion of assessment does not make reference invalid. It is relevant to refer to said decision reported at 21 taxmann.com 488 (2012); "12. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhariya Construction Co. (supra) and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Suraj Devi (supra). In these cases, it has been held that the reopening of an assessment under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of the report of the DVO is bad in law. A deeper study of the judgment of the Supreme Court discloses that what has been held therein is that "the opinion of the DVO per se is not an information for the purpose of reopening assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961" and that "t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gains nor was the Court concerned with the validity of a reference made to the DVO under Section 55A, which was pending when the assessment order was passed (proceedings were completed). This judgment does not touch upon the point raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 13. In any case we do not think we would be justified in preventing the Assessing Officer from collecting evidence which may be used by him for the purpose of bringing what in his opinion is the proper amount of capital gains on the sale of Okhla land. As to how he proposes to use the evidence against the assessee is a matter of speculation which we refrain from indulging in. The petitioner would be at liberty to strain every nerve in opposing and challenging any action sought to be taken by the Assessing Officer or any other departmental authority under the Act, if and when such an action is taken. We say nothing about the validity of any such action that may be taken under the Act. If the petitioner raises any objections to any such action that is taken under the Act, it would be the duty of the income tax authorities to examine and deal with them in accordance with law. Non-acceptance of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment by merely placing reliance upon the DVO's report without any other material, would amount to mere change of opinion and, therefore, also, the invocation of the provisions of section 147 of the Act is not justified. 14. Insofar as the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ACC Ltd (supra) is concerned, the court has specifically observed that, the report of the DVO, as and when received by the Assessing Officer, may be acted upon by the Income Tax authorities and if they do so, the validity of that action can be questioned by the assessee on grounds which he may be advised to take. The court has also observed that it was not concerned with the said aspect of the matter. Under the circumstances, the said decision does not lay down any proposition of law to the effect that the report of the DVO made during the pendency of the assessment can be relied for the purpose of reopening the assessment. ..................... 17. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Grover Nursing Home (supra), on the contrary supports the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the court has opined that, even though the report of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act. It is observed that in original assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer has referred matter to DVO but assessed Income from Capital gain as shown in return of income as DVO's report was not received by then. The Assessee has challenged such action of Assessing Officer and consequent re-computation of Long Term Capital Gain based upon DVO's report in ITA No 3135/M/2019 as well as in Ground No 2 in present appeal. It is observed that considering detailed discussion made in assessee's appeal in ITA No 3135/M/2019 and mainly relying upon decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT v. Puja Prints 360 ITR 697 and Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT V. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl 367 ITR 238, it was held that as land sold by assessee is prior to 01/07/2012 i.e amendment brought to Section 55A, assessee has determined Income from capital gain based upon Registered Valuer report and Assessing Officer has claimed that fair market value of land as on 01st April 1981 was lower than such valuer report, Assessing Officer was not justified in considering fair market value of land based upon DVO's report obtained u/s 55A of the Act and recomputing Income from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Explanation 3 came to be inserted to provide that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under section 147, though the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded in the notice under section 148(2). [Para 8] The effect of section 147, as it now stands after the amendment of 2009, can, therefore, be summarised as follows : (i) the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year; (ii) upon the formation of that belief and before he proceeds to make an assessment, reassessment or recomputation, the Assessing Officer has to serve a notice on the assessee under sub-section (1) of section 148; (iii) the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section; and (iv) though the notice under section 148(2) does not include a particular issue with respect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther income which comes to his notice subsequently during the course of the proceedings as having escaped assessment. If the income, the escapement of which was the basis of the formation of the reason to believe, is not assessed or reassessed, it would not be open to the Assessing Officer to independently assess only that income which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section as having escaped assessment. If upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), the Assessing Officer accepts the objections of the assessee and does not assess or reassess the income which was the basis of the notice, it would not be open to him to assess income under some other issue independently. The Parliament, when it enacted the provisions of section 147 with effect from 1-4- 1989, clearly stipulated that the Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess the income which he had reason to believe had escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which came to his notice during the proceedings. In the absence of the assessment or reassessment of the former, he cannot independently assess the latter. [Para 11] The Explanation 3 to sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. This view has been supported by the background which led to the insertion of the Explanation 3 to section 147. The Parliament must be regarded as being aware of the interpretation placed on the words 'and also', by the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343. The Parliament has not taken away the basis of that decision. While it is open to the Parliament, having regard to the plenitude of its legislative powers to do so, the provisions of section 147(1), as they stood after the amendment of 1-4-1989, continue to hold the field. [Para 17] The question of law would, accordingly, stand answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal was, accordingly, to be dismissed. " 17. It is relevant to refer to decision of Delhi Tribunal in case of Naresh Kumar Garg v. ACIT dated 14.11.2019 vide ITA No. 5706/Del/2016 wherein it is held as under: "10. It is evident that the Assessing Officer himself did not make addition in respect of the first part of the items of reason recorded i.e. freight to M/s Haryana Concrete. The addition made by the Assessing Officer on the second part of the reason recorded i.e. disal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition on this score could have been made for A.Y.2008-09 under consideration. We, therefore, order to delete this addition. 5. The only other ground on merits is against the confirmation of ad hoc addition of Rs. 81,405/-. Apart from this, the assessee has also challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings by the AO. It can be seen from the reasons recorded by the AO that he took up the re-assessment proceedings on account of excess capital balance of Rs.4.00 lakh and also Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) detailing undisclosed investment made by the assessee in certain properties. However, the assessment was completed by making an addition of Rs. 4.00 lakh and further disallowance of Rs. 81,405/- out of expenses. No addition was made towards excess investments given in the TEP. We have deleted the addition of Rs.4.00 lakh in an earlier para by holding the same as not sustainable for the year under consideration. 6. Section 147 of the Act provides that: "If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the facts of the instant case on the touchstone of the principle as discussed hereinabove, it turns out that the only addition made by the AO out of the recorded reasons stands deleted. In view of the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Jet Airways (supra), we order to delete the addition of Rs. 81,405/-, since the sole addition made by the AO on the foundation of the recorded reasons has not passed the judicial scrutiny by the Tribunal in an earlier para. Thus, there can be no question of making any other addition to the income. We, therefore, hold that the initiation of reassessment was bad in law. Such initiation as well as the further proceedings are, therefore, set aside. Ex consequenti, we order to delete the addition of Rs. 81,405/" 19. It is observed that coordinate bench has referred to judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Jet Airways (supra) and held that if the grounds set out in the re-assessment notice are non-existent, i.e., either no addition is made on such grounds or the addition so made does not finally pass the scrutiny by the appellate forums, then, obviously, no further addition can be made for income which c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of income after considering valuation report obtained for determining fair market value of land as on 1st April 1981. The AO has not found any material information which prove that such valuation is incorrect but only on presumption that such valuation is higher, he has referred the matter to DVO. The identical issue is discussed by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Puja Prints 360 ITR 697 wherein it is held as under: 7. We find that Section 55A(a) of the Act very clearly at the relevant time provided that a reference could be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer only when the value adopted by the assessee was less than the fair market value. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the value adopted by the respondent-assessee of the property at Rs.35.99 lakhs was much more than the fair market value of Rs.6.68 lakhs even as determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer referred the issue of valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer only because in his view the valuation of the property as on 1981 as made by the respondent-assessee was higher than the fair market value. In the aforesaid circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Act, there was no need to specifically empower the Assessing Officer to do so in circumstances specified under Section 55A of the Act. It further held that when a specific provision under which the reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry. In view of the above and particularly in view of clear provisions of law as existing during the period relevant to Assessment Year 2006-07, we are of the view that questions (a) and (b) do not raise any substantial question of law." 59.During the course of appellate hearing, Ld. AR has referred various decisions of co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ITAT wherein identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl 367 ITR 238 has also held as under: "15. Coming to the question of reference to DVO for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee is in accordance with the estimate made by the Registered Valuer, if the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the value so claimed is less than the fair market value. In any other case, as provided under clause(b) of Sec. 55A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to record an opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage or by more than such an amount as may be prescribed; or (ii) having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary to make such a reference." 17. In the result, we see no reason to interfere. However, we have given our independent reasons and should not be seen to have confirmed the reasonings adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Tax Appeal is dismissed." 60.It is observed that decisions referred hereinabove are identical on the facts and Ld. Dr has not referred any decisions directly contrary to decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court referred supra. The decisions referred by Ld. DR are in the context of different facts hence same cannot be relied upon. Considering the binding decisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment or by way of adjustment. Nor was any discount given to the appellant for using the 'Rail System'. The Railways charged the freight at the prevailing rates applicable. In other words, the Railways charged the same rate which is charged when the wagons are hauled on rails owned by the Railways. The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT ABG Heavy Industries Limited (2010) 322 ITR 323 (Bom). The appellant has not explained how the decision in that case is applicable to the facts of this case. On going through that order, I find that it does not lend support to the contention of the appellant. I find that the said "rail system" did not have any receipt per se. Therefore, in my view, there cannot be any profit from the "rail system". On this ground alone, the claim of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. Without prejudice to the above, I find that the profit computed by the appellant is not correct. The appellant did not consider the various overhead expenses such as depreciation and additional depreciation on the railway track and the other plants & machinery such as the locomotive used in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nature and not public. The railway sliding of the Assessee can be utilised by other persons only on payment of cost charges for such usage and the assessee will have precedence over the use of the railway sliding over any other person. Hence, the facility is not a public facility. On this basis, the Ld. DR. has argued that disallowance on account of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act on railway sliding need to confirmed. 29. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is observed that entire controversy of allowability of deduction u/s 80IA(4) on Rail Infrastructure facility was raised based upon CIT(A)'s order in the case of Ultratech Cement Limited as referred in assessment order. This fact is also mentioned by Ld DR in its written submission. The Ld. DR has also stated that on perusal of facts as emanating from the CIT(A)'s order and the ITAT's order in the case of Ultratech Cement Limited, it can be safely assumed that the agreement between Ultratech Cement Limited and the Railway Authorities and that between assessee and the Rail Authorities are similarly worded. It is relevant to refer to decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ambuja C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otified as independent booking stations and the freight was charged for the entire distance- including the distance from these private sidings to the railheads; (f) the notional profit computation is incorrect; and (g) the decisions of the Tribunal were not applicable as these critical facts were not placed before the Tribunal. The claim for deduction under section 80IA in respect of the rail system was rejected. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal but without success. Learned CIT(A) reiterated the same arguments and upheld the stand of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 88. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 89. We find that the very case, on the basis of investigation in which the authorities below had decided the matter in favour of the assessee, came up before a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, and, in the said case, the matter was decided in favour of the assessee. In the said judgment, reported as Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs ACIT [(2017) 88 taxmann.com 907 (Mumbai)], the coo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0IA in reference to the infrastructure facility] as claimed by the assessee that railway had laid down those [sidings] partly on the land belonging to the railways and partly belonging to the assessee company so as to facilitate the transportation of raw materials/cement bags through railway wagons [from / to their plant sites]. The AO also noted that the assessee [rather L&T Ltd.] had primarily requested the' railway department to extend the sidings [railway tracks] to the site of cement plants of the company so as to enable it to transport its goods [raw material & cement] from/to their plant sites itself [so that it could avoid transportation through the roads till the nearest railway station and loading and unloading etc]; that on such request the railway authorities conducted survey and laid down sidings and charged the assessee for laying out the railway track and other related infrastructure. The AO also noted that the wagons were actually run on those sidings by the railway authority and not by the assessee company. The AO also took note that railway authorities had posted its staff for weighing raw material/ cement bags loaded/unloaded by the assessee; and that all act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to one more rail system at Durgapur [West Bengal] and the total claim amounted to Rs 61.56 crs. This claim for AY 2009-10 i.e. for the year under consideration had risen to 73.13 crs. 12. The rail systems at all these four locations viz. Hirmi, Tadipatri, Arakkonam & Durgapur are said to have commenced the operations in AY. 2000-01, AY. 1999-00, AY. 2001-02 ft AY. 2002-03 respectively [refer assessee's reply dated 06.01.2014] It was further observed by CIT(A) that the L&T Ltd. on whose request the private sidings were set up at all these four locations, never claimed any such deduction u/s 80IA(4). The deductions are being claimed by the assessee company since AY. 2004-05, after the various cements plants were transferred to the assessee company [in the year 2003- 04] as per demerger scheme. In AY. 2004-05, claim was made [for the first time] in respect of such Rail System at Hirmi. Then in AY. 2007-08, it started claiming deduction in respect of rails systems at Tadipatri and Arakkonam and then in AY. 2008-09 for Durgapur also. From AY. 2009-10 and onwards the claim pertains to all the four units. 13. The CIT(A) further noted that in Ays. 2004-05 & 2005-06,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax implication of the profits delivered by the rail system. In support of its contention that treatment of a transaction in books of accounts cannot govern the tax statement reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadernath Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. 82 ITR 362; in the case of Tutcorin Alali Chemicals Ltd. in 227 ITR 172; in the case of Godhra Electricity Company in 91 Taxman 91; in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd in 263 ITR 315 and in the case of Sutlet Cotton Mills Ltd. in 116 ITR 1 and submitted that it would be totally incorrect to say that an assessee who raises internal invoices would be entitled to benefit of Sec 80IA and an assessee who does not raise internal invoices would not be entitled to such benefit. 13.2. The assessee further submitted that Sec. 80IA(8) itself contemplates a situation where goods or services are transferred by an eligible undertaking to non-eligible undertaking and vice versa. In such cases, deduction is to be allowed based on the market value of such goods or services. It was further submitted that the section itself envisages situation of captive consumption. Reliance was placed on the decision reporte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her submitted that the profits derived from the rail systems are clearly arising out of the business of developing operating and maintaining the rail system. 13.5. It was further submitted that substantial investment has been made in developing the railway system. There is an agreement with the railways for operating and maintaining the rail system. It employs required personnel directly or through the railway authorities and it bearing the salary cost relating thereto. It was submitted that the rail system is developed on the basis of entirely different technology and employs different equipment and machinery from those applied by the cement unit for cement production. It is was further submitted that the rail system is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence or by the transfer to a new business of machinery previously used for any purpose. It was therefore argued that the rail system is not a part of the cement unit but is an, independent unit. It was further submitted' that the conditions specified in Sec. 8OIA(4)(i) in r/o an infrastructure facility are fully satisfied in the present case. The rail system is owned by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction u/s. 80IA in r/o profits derived from the rail system. There is no dispute that the appellant (i) is a company (if) has developed the rail system and (iii) it" has entered into an agreement for operation and maintenance of the rail system with the railways i.e the Government. Thus all the 3 conditions required to be fulfilled as per Sec. 80IA(4)(i) have been satisfied by the appellant. Moreover rail system is defined in explanation to sec. 80IA(4)(i) as an infrastructure facility. Further separate books of account are being maintained by the appellant. The mere fact that internal invoices are not raised does not mean that the rail system is not a profit centre. It is also found that all the doubts raised by the AO in the assessment order have been fully explained by the appellant the AO has himself stated in the assessment order that the rail system was developed by L&T Ltd which has been inherited by the appellant as a result of the demerger and Circular No. 733 dated 03.01.1996 categorically stated that benefit of sec. 80IA is applicable to development of rail system and there is no gain saying that fact that the appellant has developed the rail system and is operating and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Rather the assessee company has started claiming exemption from AY. 2004-05 after the ownership over the cement plants together with such rail systems were transferred to it following the demerger scheme in FY. 2003-04. 19. The CIT(A) further observed that the provision of railway track, signals, level crossings etc are the essential components of a rail system but that in itself would not give rise to any profit. For that movement of traffic [i.e. material] is to be made over those railway tracks. The profit would arise by charging the freight thereon. 20. The CIT(A) further observed that as per' the agreement, the railway track, signals, level crossings etc were laid out on the cost of L&T Ltd. The cost of maintenance was also to be borne by L&T Ltd. [and now by the assessee]. On that only expenses are incurred and there would be no profit element. Then the issue arises of running the wagons onto those tracks. As per the agreement, the assessee was not permitted to run the wagon onto those tracks. 21. As per CIT(A), it is not a case of running of railways [goods train] by L&T Ltd. or the assessee company on those private sidings and as such the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the rail systems were developed in accordance with the agreements entered with the Indian Railways, wherein assessee was allowed to operate and maintain these sidings under supervision and as per the guidelines of Indian Railway. Our attention was invited to the various clauses particularly Class 2, 6, 7(a), 17 and 8(b) which stipulate for construction of railway sidings at the cost of the assessee. Construction work was awarded either to railway or third party contractors based on their expertise and the work was undertaken under the supervision of the Railways. Clause 6 is specifically provided for payment in advance to the railway administration, the total estimated cost of the work done by the party and thus by the railway administration. Clause 7(a) stipulate that assessee will provide and deliver at site the permanent way and other materials in accordance with the railway administration standard and specifications. Clause 17 stipulate that assessee shall provide labour for and bear the cost of all Operations on the siding. Clause 9(b) provides for maintenance and other charges for the operation of the sidings at assessee's cost and expense to the satisfaction of railw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 219 /[2015] 232 Taxman 406(Bombay) 5. CIT v. Modi Industries Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 129/327 ITR 570 (Delhi) 6. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann.com 3/217 Taxman 288/355 ITR 14(Delhi) 7. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 2 Taxman 22/[1980] 123 ITR 669(GUJARAT) 8. Ace Multi Axes System Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 228 Taxman 98/[2014] 49 taxmann.com 168/367 ITR266 (Karnataka) 9. ITO v. Smt. Urmila Bhandari [IT Appeal Nos.766, 2593 (Delhi) of 2013, dated 20-10-2014] 10 . Dy. CIT v. Selvel Advertising (P.) Ltd. [2015] 58 taxmann.com 196 (Kol.-Trib.) 11 . Century Enka Limited v. Dy. CIT [2015] 58 taxmann.com 318/154 ITD 426 (Kol.-Trib.) 12. Janak Dehydration (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 44 SOT 93 (Ahmedabad) (URO) 13. U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 61/70 SOT 517 (Lucknow -Trib.) 14. Asst. CIT v. Apex Packing Products (P.) Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 145 to 150 (PNJ) of 2013....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities in their respective orders as cited by learned AR and DR during the course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix of the case. 34. Grievance of both the assessee and revenue revolves around assessee's eligibility for claim of deduction u/s.80IA (4) of the Income-tax Act. From the record we found that assessee UltraTech Cement Ltd. ('UTCL') has acquired the cement business of Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T') along with the Rail systems at Hirmi, Tadipatri, Arrokonam and Durgapur in the FY. 2003-04. These Railway systems were developed on or after 01/04/1995 by the L&T. year wise details of the aforesaid rail systems are as follows: Unit I Rail system Undertakings Year of Commencement of operations (A. Y.) Initial year of claim (A.Y.) Rail system at Hirmi in the stateof Chhattisgarh 2000-01 2004-05 Rail system at Tadipatri in thestate of Andhra Pradesh 1999-00 2007-08 Rail system at Arakkonam in thestate of Tamil Nadu 2001-02 2007-08 Rail System at Durgapur in thestate of West Bengal 2002-03 2008-09 35. M/s. L&T had entered into agreements with the Railway authorities to develop, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emises, and therefore the Agreements entered into by the assessee with the Indian Railways cannot be regarded as required agreements between the Govt. and the assessee. In this respect the assessee submitted as under before the lower authorities. (a) as per section 80- IA(4)(i)(b) the agreement has to be entered with the Central Govt or a State Govt or a Local Authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) Operating and Maintaining or (iii) Developing, Operating and Maintaining the infrastructure facility. Indian Railways is the statutory body under the Indian Railways Act. (b) The provision of Sec.80-IA (8) contemplates a situation where goods or services are transferred by an eligible undertaking and vice versa. Undoubtedly therefore, the section itself envisages situations of captive consumption. (c) Further as mentioned in clause 15 of the agreement, the rail systems developed by the appellant can be made available to any third party with the prior approval of the Indian Railways. 36. It was therefore contended that the agreements as entered into by the assessee with Indian Railways are as envisaged u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt by Applicant against the total estimated cost - wherein it is mentioned that, "The applicant will pay in advance to the railway administration the total estimated cost of thework consisting of the estimated costs of work done by the party and those by the railway administration " (c) Clause No. 7(a) - Permanent way materials - "The applicant will provide and deliver at site the permanent way and other materials (which includes Girders, Rails, Sleepers, fastenings, points, crossings, fencings, signals and overhead structures and any other things connected therewith for electric tractions and other machinery and equipments necessary for working of the sidings) in accordance with the Railway administration's standards and specifications. All charges incurred in laying and fitting the permanent way materials and all other equipments which may be provided shall entirely be borne by the applicant." (d) Clause No. 17 - Working of the Siding - wherein it is mentioned that " ... the applicant shall provide labour for and bear the cost of all Operations on the siding. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict compliance by himself and his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;infrastructure facilities' were also declared as eligible to claim deduction under the said section. Further, the circular also states that rail systems developed other than under the BOLT scheme were also eligible for benefit u/s 80-IA. In case of the assessee, the clarification of benefits u/s. 80-IA being available to those rail systems who do not 'operate and maintain' the systems clearly establishes that, enterprises who in fact operate and maintain the rail systems were certainly eligible for tax holiday benefits. As the assessee has entered into agreements with the railway authorities to develop, operate & maintain the rail systems, which in fact the company has done from the initial day. There was indeed an 'infrastructure' facility eligible for deduction u/s 80lA. We also found that the Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case for AY. 2006-07, has categorically allowed the deduction u/s. 80-IA for its rail system after dealing with the Circular No. 733 dtd 3.1.1996. 43. The Rail systems of assessee at Hirmi, Tadipatri, Arakkonam and at Durgapur were developed under the Agreements entered into with Indian Railways and the assessee is allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the deduction u/s. 80-IA for its rail system after dealing with the Circular No. 733 dtd 3.1.1996. 46. Therefore the agreements as entered into by the assessee with Indian Railways are as envisaged u/s 80- IA(4)(i) and in no case it can be inferred that they are not the required agreements under section 80-IA. 47. We also found that no siding charges are levied by Indian Railways for the rail systems developed by the assessee. The assessee has developed, operates and maintains the rail systems. The systems are being operated by the assessee as permitted under the agreements entered into with Indian Railways and under the rules and regulations of Indian Railways from time to time. The entire cost was borne by the assessee and is appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee as placed on record. We have also verified the same and found it correct. 48. Contention of revenue authorities that Railways had constructed the rail system is not factually correct. In fact, M/s. L&T had entered into agreement with the appropriate rail authorities to Develop its rail systems. M/s. L&T had constructed the rail system by awarding contract to the private parties for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icant shall be responsible for the strict compliance by himself and his employees and agents of all rules, regulations and standing orders made by the railway administration from time to time for the working of sidings and for all accidents, loss or damage that may be ensured or be caused by reasons of negligence or non- observance of such rules, regulations and orders .... " Further, the appellant carries out all the operations for smooth movement of its goods, viz. Shunting of the Wagons, placing of the wagons at appropriate locations, Loading / Unloading of Wagons within the stipulated time and stipulated methods of Indian Railways through Wagon Loading Machines and Wagon Tipplers, Weighing of Wagons on Motion Weigh Bridges, Maintaining signa ling systems, Wagons, Couplings, Rake formation for dispatch, hauling of Wagons through its own locomotives, etc. Further, in Clause No. 14 - Traffic on Siding - it is mentioned that applicant undertakes to shunt the wagons from such point to his premises and back with his own labour and the railway administration would not be responsible for any delay, loss and damages caused in consequence of the failure of the appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nefit u/s 80IA accordingly. However, the basis adopted for calculating the revenue from rail system by the assessee has been conservatively considered as lower of the freight chargeable through Rail and Road freight saved. The rail freight being lower is considered after further discounting it by 50% based on the circular of Indian Railways for the freight chargeable upto the nearest railway station. 52. We also found that assessee has furnished all the information with regard to No. of Railway Engines / Locomotives and Railway Wagons owned by the assessee before the lower authorities which are as under:- Rail Systems at No. of Engines/Locomotives No. of Wagons Hirmi 2 49 Tadipatri 2 76 Arakkonam 1 30 Durgapur 2 30 53. Unit wise details of amount of claim of deduction u/s.80-IA on the profits of Rail System for AY. 04-05 to AY. 09-10 is as under:- Rail Systems at AY.04-05 AY.05-06 AY.06-07 AY.07-08 AY.08-09 AY.09-10 Hirmi 15.63 16.13 20.95 21.09 24.33 28.26 Tadipatri -- -- -- 25.56 25.22 31.03 Arakkonam -- -- -- &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mean a road including toll road, a bridge or a rail system without anything further. We observe that the CIT(A) has been referring to the pre-amended definition of the term 'infrastructure facility' which was applicable till AY. 2001-02. The assessee company began its claim of deduction from AY 2004-05 when the definition was simplified with no indication about 'public facility'. Thus CIT(A) was not correct while declining claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) on this reasoning. 57. As per our considered view, even assuming that the requirement of public facility is to be fulfilled, it is worth noting that a section of public is also considered to be public. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of a Chamber of Commerce CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 wherein it was ruled that even though the Andhra Chamber of Commerce was established only to serve the traders and businessmen in the State of Andhra Pradesh, such traders and businessmen constituted a section of public and therefore the Chamber existed for a public charitable purpose. In the ultimate analysis of the facts in the case of assessee Compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t cannot be treated as any agreement for development, operation & maintenance of any Rail system, we observe that as per section 80- IA(4)(i)(b), an assessee has to enter into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a Local Authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) Operating and Maintaining or (iii) Developing, Operating and Maintaining the infrastructure facility. The Indian Railways, with whom the assessee has entered into an agreement, is the statutory body designated under the Indian Railways with whom the assessee has entered into an agreement, is the statutory body designated under the Indian Railways Act. We found that the agreement does not merely contain the terms and conditions of the construction of railway siding i.e. development of siding (laying of tracks, signal system and all the essential components of Rail Systems) but it also contains the terms and conditions relating to its operation and maintenance as well. 60. Our attention was also invited to letter No. 99/TC(FM)26/1/Pt-II (SubLiberalization of siding 'Rules) of the Railway Boar clarifying that the capital cost of new siding, maintenance cost, cost....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into an agreement, is the statutory body designated under the Indian Railways Act. 65. We also observe that the agreements entered into by the assessee are for the development, operation and maintenance of the Railway siding. Thus this fulfils the requirement in clause (b). 66. The last requirement as per clause (c) is regarding commencement of operation and maintenance of facility on or after 1st April, 1995. All the railway sidings were developed after April, 1995 as can be verified from the date of agreements entered into by the assessee with the Railway authorities; which are as under:- Location Authority with which Agreement is entered Date of agreement Hirmi South Eastern Railway March 2000 Tadipatri South central Railway 03-05-1999 Arakkonam Southern Railway 08-01-2001 Durqapur Eastern Railway 18-10-2002 67. This also is an undisputed fact and there is no adverse remark by the AO or CIT(A) in this regard. In view of above all the conditions specified in section 80IA(4) has been complied with by the assessee entitling it to claim the tax holiday. 68. With regard to CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. With regard to CIT(A)'s observation that all the four cement plants [having private sidings] were notified as independent booking station and the freight was charged by the railway department for the entire distance including the portion of private sidings [upto interchange point / exchange yard], we observe that this is a fact which is undisputed by the assessee and nothing turns out of it. 75. CIT(A) also alleged that the notional profit computed for so called rail system has been very exorbitant and the method is also not correct. It need to be computed in the manner as explained in para 3.2.14 [with reference to table F] above. If that is done, there would hardly be any profit to those rail systems. 76. In this regard, we found that prior to setting up of railway siding, the assessee used to transport its goods through road to the nearest railway station. Only the few components of the cost of road transportation, which the cement division of the assessee was hitherto incurring for transportation of materials to and from the factory premises, is adopted as the basis of calculating the revenue of the railway undertaking. The revenue is, however, computed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis, for computing this component of revenue is the loading and unloading cost which the cement division was hitherto incurring during transportation through roadways. The question of reducing the freight payments to the Railways does not arise since this cost is incurred by the cement division and not by the railway undertaking. 81.In view of the above discussion, the explanation given by the CIT(A) and the tabular representation of the computation of revenue of rail system in Table F, has no relevance since it is merely based on his incorrect assumption. 82. Further, we found that observation of CIT(A) with respect to the freight rate is also not correct in so far as for comparison, he has considered the rate per quintal as against per Metric Ton adopted by the assessee which can be observed from the calculation submitted by assessee before the lower authorities. Without any evidence in hands, the CIT(A) has merely stated that crucial facts were not disclosed by the assessee without referring to any specific facts which were not disclosed. Perhaps he is indicating about the operations of railway siding being carried out by the railways and not by the assessee. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the requirement for an assessee to transfer the infrastructure facility to the concerned government authorities with prescribed time. 85. In this regard reliance can be placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Katira Construction Ltd. v. UOI [2013] 31 taxmann.com 250/214 Taxman 599/352 ITR 513, wherein Court held as under:- "32. It is true that with effect from 1-4-2002 some significant changes were made in the said provisions. Three of these changes which are material were: (i) that sub-section (4) of section 80-IA now required the enterprise to carry on the business of developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility. This was in contrast to the previous requirement of all three conditions being cumulatively satisfied; (ii) that the explanation of the term 'infrastructure facility' was changed to esides others, a road including toll road instead of hitherto existing expression 'road', and (iii) that the requirement of transferring the infrastructural facilities developed by the enterprise to the Central or the State Government or the local authority within the time stipula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in the year in which the new infrastructure facility is set up or has commenced operation, but in a subsequent year, all the requisite conditions for availing such benefit are fulfilled, the assessee would be entitled to avail the tax holiday benefit in respect of such subsequent assessment year(s). For this purpose reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT of Jaipur in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Shiv Agrevo Ltd. [2009] 34 SOT 1 (URO). In this case, the assessee-company, whose main object was extraction of seeds for obtaining edible oils and refining thereof, set up a new industrial undertaking for the extraction and refining of edible oil. It claimed to have temporarily commenced the activity on and from 1-1-1997 on a trial run; however, the systematic activity of refining commenced only in the previous year relating to the assessment year 1998-99. After the final completion of the project, the assessee-company applied directly for a permanent registration certificate of its status as a small scale industry (SSI) under section 11-B of the Industrial Development Regulation Act, 1951 (IRDA) to the prescribed authority, who granted the certificate dated 30-3-1998, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment years should be always first year of set-up of enterprise. The High Court has held that as initial year is not defined in Section 80lA as compared to Section 80IB where it is specifically provided that the year of commencement of business will be the initial year for the purpose of claiming the deduction, the year of option has to be treated as initial assessment year for the purpose of Section 80IA. 92. It is pertinent to mention here that once the deduction for the very first is allowed then in subsequent year the deduction cannot be disallowed on the same ground. Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. (supra), has pointed out that once deduction is allowed in the first year, revenue has no power to deny the deduction in subsequent assessment years as provided under the Act. 93. Even the Supreme Court in case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 /196 ITR 188 held that a provision in the taxing statute for promoting growth and development is to be construed liberally and hence, even the restriction contained in such a provision has to be construed so as to advance the objective of the provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim of deduction u/s.80IA(4). Accordingly AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee with respect to its rail system. We direct accordingly. 90. Learned Departmental Representative does not dispute the fact that the issue before us is covered by this decision of the coordinate bench, though he places reliance on the stand of the authorities below, and seeks to justify the same. We have also noted that in three immediately preceding assessment years, the same stand of the assessee, which has been rejected now, was accepted during the scrutiny assessment proceedings. While it is indeed true that there is no res judicata in the income tax assessment proceedings, at the same time, following the principles of consistency duly recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang Vs CIT [(1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC)], unless there is a change in the material facts, the issues which have been settled one way or other must to be disturbed. In this view of the matter, and respectfully following the coordinate bench in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd (supra), we uphold the plea of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n be raised as substantial question of law and arising from the discussion on this point is whether the respondent assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Income Tax Act by urging that the Rail system is not a profit Centre but a cost saving Exercise undertaken in terms of subsection (4) of section 80IA? ......" 40. Thus as regards the claim for the deduction u/s. 80JA of the Act Per se, the ITAT order can be treated as final in favour of the assessee as the Hon 'ble High Court refused to admit the question raised by the Revenue on the very applicability of the provisions of section 80JA of the Act for the Rail System. Therefore/ respectively following the said decision we hold that the assessee entitled for the deduction u/s. 80JA of the Act in respect of the railway system . 43. Thus, in view of what is discussed above, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA in respect of the Railway System and water Supply project and therefore we set-aside the orders of the LdPCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. 44. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed." 40. The judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to the eligible units, net of CENVAT credit availed, wherever applicable, on the expenditure incurred. These CENVAT credits are available under the excise provisions and adjusted against the excise duty liability on goods produced by the related cement manufacturing units. In effect, the component of expenses of statutory duties/ taxes is credited directly to „CENVAT receivable account‟ without routing it through the profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer was of the view that Section 80A(IA) provides for exemption in respect of „profit derived by an eligible undertaking‟ for the specified purposes, but the critical words are "derived from" and, therefore, "it is only the expenditure, which had a direct and proximate (immediate) nexus with the earning of profit from eligible undertaking that could be taken into consideration for determining such profits". It was also noted that the eligible unit is to be viewed as an independent unit on the standalone basis, as Section 80IA(5) requires such an eligible unit to be treated "as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Ambuja Cement Ltd. in ITA No. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019 vide its order dated 07.11.2022 has decided issue in favour of assessee: "102. We find that Section 80IA(5), which has been heavily relied upon by the assessee, provides that " notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the provisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of determining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for the assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment year or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year and to every subsequent assessment year up to and including the assessment year for which the determination is to be made". All that this provision does is that it provides for the profits of the eligible unit being treated on a standalone basis, but then in case the Assessing Officer makes an adjustment for the payment which has earned the CENVAT credit, he must also make an adjustment for the corr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) - 1 [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)) whereby appeal filed by Assessee against the Assessment Order dated 26th March, 2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961) hereinafter referred to as the Act) was partly allowed. 41. First we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 3176/Mum/2019 (common ground in assessee's appeal is also taken together). 42. In the Ground No.1, Department has raised the following grievance: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance to Rs.4.55 Crores made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules, in view of the Mumbai ITAT's decision in the case of ACIT vs Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd[ 108 ITD 457) [MUM]?" 43. On identical issue in Assessee's appeal, in the Ground No. 1 & 12, following issue is raised: Ground No. 1: Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (The Act') attributed for earning dividend income (Rs. 2,61,00,000/- (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals)-3 [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT (A)] was not justified and grossly erre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11.Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has, in the case of PCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd [(2020) 117 taxmann.com 625(Mum)] has, inter alia, observed as follows: "6. On thorough consideration we find that the principle of apportionment does not arise in this case as the jurisdictional facts have not been pleaded by the Revenue. In fact Tribunal while affirming the order of the first appellate authority noted that the first appellate authority had deleted the addition made by the assessing officer under section 14-A of the Act by observing that the interest-free fund available with the respondent - assessee was far in excess of the advance given. Tribunal further noted that the Revenue does not dispute the said finding and relying on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009] 178 Taxman 135/313 ITR 340, affirmed the deletion made by the first appellate authority. 7. We have perused the decision of this Court in Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that if there are funds available with the assessee, both, interest-free and overdraft and/ or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that inves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is satisfaction that the correctness of the assessee's claim of expenses of disallowance was not to the satisfaction of the A.O., thereby entitling the A.O. to invoke the provisions of Rule 8D and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra) holds good in the present case. We are also of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee has not made bifurcation of the expenses claimed under 'other expenses' and in case of which the A.O. had to invoke Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The suo moto disallowance of the assessee does not disentitle the A.O. from invoking the said provision. In this regard, we find justification in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the A.O.'s action in invoking the provision of Rule 8D(2)(ii) by rejecting the assessee's contention that suo moto disallowance by the assessee warrants no further disallowances. The assessee's alternate claim is that the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be restricted only to those investments on which exempt income was earned by the assessee during the impugned year, by placing reliance on the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see was liable to excise duty. The assessee got credit in the excise duty already paid on the raw materials purchased by it and utilized in the manufacturing of excisable goods. The assessee was adopting the exclusive method i.e. valuing the raw materials on the purchase price minus (-) the Modvat credit. The same would be permissible. The Apex Court in the case of Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (supra) while affirming the order of High Court, has observed that the income was not generated to the extent of Modvat credit or unconsumed raw material. Merely because the Modvat credit was irreversible credit offered to manufacturers upon purchase of duty paid raw materials, that would not amount to income which was liable to be taxed under the Act. It is also held that whichever method of accounting is adopted, the net result would be the same. 6. Considering the above, the amount of the unutilized Cenvat credit could not have been directly added to the closing stock. The Tribunal has not committed any error." (underlined for emphasis by us) It is evident from the above that irrespective of the method of accounting followed by the assessee, i.e. 'Inclusive method', wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in denying the appellant's claim of exclusion of Sales Tax Incentive and Excise Duty Exemption benefits availed/received during the year amounting to Rs. 161,13,68,562/- and Rs. 2,18,96,78,981/- respectively, as the same being capital in nature, while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB. b) The Appellant prays that the amount of sales tax and excise duty incentive be excluded while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act" 51. Similar issue was considered by us in the Department Appeal Ground no 5 in AY 2005-06 and held as under: "32. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On this issue, coordinate bench in the case of Ambuja Cement Limited in ITA No 5883/Mum/2012 & 5927/Mum/2012 (A.Y.2005-06) dated 31/10/2022 has held as under: "..... The relevant material facts, so far as necessary for adjudication of these grievances, are as follows. The assessee before us is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of cement and generation of electricity. The assessee has set up its plants in different parts of the country, and as the locati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount of Rs 39,36,21,956 being included in his taxable income, the Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the learned CIT(A)'s granting relief of Rs 130,57,12,796. Both parties are in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 7. We find that the learned CIT(A) has, in his elaborate analysis, primarily followed the Special Bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs Reliance Industries Ltd [(2004) 88 ITD SB 273 (Mum)]. Upon analysis of this decision, he has noted that 'for deciding the nature of subsidy, whether capital or revenue, what should be seen and examined is the purpose for which the subsidy has been given, and not the timing of the subsidy or the manner in which it has been given to the industry', as is also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Ponni Sugar and Chemicals Ltd [(2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC)]. A large number of judicial precedents have been cited in this context. Learned CIT(A) has then held that so far as the object and purpose for which the subsidy is given, only the subsidy schemes of the Maharashtra and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2010] 8 taxmann.com 218/[2011] 339 ITR 632, wherein it is held that object of subsidy being to set up new units in backward area is a capital receipt and another decision of High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Chhindwara Fuels [2001] 114 Taxman 707/[2000] 245 ITR 9, wherein it is held that subsidy in the form of refund of sales-tax received after commencement of production cannot be treated as capital receipt. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Soparkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that so far as Tax Appeal No.226 of 2010 is concerned, after discussing the evidence on record, the Tribunal has followed earlier decision and discussed the issue in detail in para 54 and 55 of its decision, which reads as under:- "54. Per contra, the learned D.R. Supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A). Referring to the judgment in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited v. CIT 228 ITR 253 (SC), he submitted that the impugned sales tax exemption increased the profits of the assessee by eliminating the expenses which the assessee would have had to incur later....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ands of the recipient, the same was not mean to give any benefit on day-today functioning of the business, or for making the industry more profitable. The principle aim of the scheme was to cover the capital outlay already made by the assessee in undertaking special modernization of its existing industry. 13. In a recent decision dated 28th January 2013 in Tax Appeal No. 450 of 2012 and connected appeals, we had an occasion to examine the nature of incentives received by the assessee from the State Government in the form of entertaining tax waiver for setting up multiplexes. In such context, we had in wake of the revenues contention that the receipt was revenue in nature, held and observed as under : "From the provisions of the said scheme, it clearly emerges that the subsidy though computed in terms of sales tax deferment or waiver, in essence it was meant for capital outlay expended by the assessee for set up of the unit in case of a new industrial unit and for expansion and diversification of an existing unit. As noted, such subsidy was available only to a new industrial unit or a unit undertaking expansion or diversification. Fixed capital investment has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concluding factor. In case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 228 ITR 253, the Apex Court held and observed that the character of the subsidy in the hands of the recipient whether revenue or capital will have to be determined, having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. The source of find is quite immaterial. If the purpose is to help the assessee to set up its business or complete a project the monies must be treated as having been received for capital purposes. Such But if monies are given to the assessee for assisting him in carrying out the business operations and given after the satisfaction of the conditions of commencement of production, such subsidy must be treated as assistance for the purpose of the trade." 11. He also submitted that in view of above decisions, these appeals may not be entertained. 12. We have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record. We have also gone through the decisions cited before us. After considering the material on record, we are of the view that the issues involved in these appeals are squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Birla V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only the Excise duty payable on the price of levy sugar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 14 of its decision had held that "character of receipt of subsidy has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. The point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial. The form of subsidy is immaterial." In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rendering this decision had duly considered its earlier decision in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., reported in 228 ITR 253 and had absolutely no quarrel with that judgement. Rather, it concurred with the decision rendered in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., case. In this regard, it would be relevant to reproduce the operative portion of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., as under:- 14. The second case is Lincolnshire Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Smart 20 TC 643. In that case it was found that Lincolnshire Sugar Co. Ltd carried on the business of manufacturing sugar from home grown beet. The company was paid various sums under British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Act, 1931, out of monies provided by the Parliament. The q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try of the assessee. As we have seen earlier, the payments were to be made only if and when the assessee commenced its production. The said payments were trade for a period of five years calculated from the date of commencement of production in the assessee's factory. The subsidies are operational subsidies and not capital subsidies. 5.3.6. Yet another decision was rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chapalkar Brothers reported in 400 ITR 279 which held that where the object of respective subsidy schemes of State Government was to encourage development of multiple theatre complexes, incentives would be held to be capital in nature and not revenue receipts. The relevant operative portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- 18. After discussing the judgment in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd.'s case (supra) this Court then held: "The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel case lies in the fact that it has discussed and analysed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to the applied in judging the character of a subsidy. The test is that the character of the receipt in the hands of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hole. It was noticed that these complexes are highly capital intensive and their gestation period is quite long and therefore, they need Government support in the form of incentives qua entertainment duty. It was also added that government with a view to commemorate the birth centenary of late Shri V. Shantaram decided to grant concession in entertainment duty to Multiplex Theatre Complexes to promote construction of new cinema houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry to set up such highly capital intensive entertainment centers. This being the case, it is difficult to accept Mr. Narasimha's argument that it is only the immediate object and not the larger object which must be kept in mind in that the subsidy scheme kicks in only post construction, that is when cinema tickets are actually sold. We hasten to add that the object of the scheme is only one -there is no lar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that concession was capped @125% of fixed capital investment and could be availed within 9 years. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court after considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court both in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd., and Ponni Sugars and Chemicals referred to supra had held as under:- "7. From the provisions of the said scheme, it clearly emerges that the subsidy though computed in terms of sales tax deferment or waiver, in essence it was meant for capital outlay expended by the assessee for set up of the unit in case of a new industrial unit and for expansion and diversification of an existing unit. As noted, such subsidy was available only to a new industrial unit or a unit undertaking expansion or diversification. Fixed capital investment has been defined as to include various investments in land under use, new construction, plant and machinery etc. The entitlement was related to percentage of fixed capital investment. 8. It is undoubtedly true that such subsidy was computed in terms of sales tax deferment and necessarily therefore, would accrue to an industry only once the commercial production commences. However, this by itself would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... set up new business or expand his existing business. The contention of the assessee in that case was dismissed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the assessee had come to this Court by way of a special leave petition. It was held by this Court on the facts of that case and on the basis of the analyses of the Scheme therein that the subsidy given was on revenue account because it was given by way of assistancein carry ing on of trade or business. On the facts of that case, it was held that the subsidy given was to meet recurring expenses. It was not for acquiring the capital asset. It was not to meet part of the cost. It was not granted for production of or bringing into existence any new asset. The subsidies in that case were granted year after year only after setting up of the new industry and only after commencement of production and, therefore, such a subsidy could only be treated as assistance given for the purpose of carrying on the business of the assessee. Consequently, the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee on the facts of that case stood rejected and it was held that the subsidy received by Sahney Steel could not be regarded as anything but a revenue receipt. Accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payable by the industry. However, the purpose of such exemption was to meet with the capital outlay already undertaken by the assessee. This clearly comes out from various provisions of the scheme. For example, the scheme was applicable only to the new project or to a existing project provided investment in fixed capital or capacity was increased atleast by 50%. Thus, the very eligibility for seeking exemption was linked with new investment being made in fixed capital. Further though the scheme envisaged a certain period spanning for 5 to 10 years during which such exemption could be availed depending on the category of the unit, such exemption would cease the moment the total incentives touched 100% of the eligible capital investments. In other words, the upper limit of total incentive which the unit could receive from the State Government in the form of tax waiver would not exist 100% of the eligible capital investment regardless of the residue of the period of its exemption eligibility as per the scheme. From the combined reading of salient features of the scheme, we have no doubt in our mind that the incentive was being offered for recouping or covering a capital investment or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... backward districts as well as generation of employment. However, the matter was referred to the Special Bench as it was alleged that the decision for AY 1985-86 was virtually overruled by subsequent decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd (ITA No. 49 and 1101 of 1991). The Special Bench held that the decision of Bajaj Auto has not overruled the decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal for AY 1985- 86 on the following basis: i) There cannot be any question of overruling the decision of one Bench by another bench of equal strength as it would be contrary to the established norms of judicial system in the country. ii) Even on merits it cannot be said that the Tribunal has laid out more stress on the form of the scheme and not their substance as held in Bajaj Auto as the Tribunal in the order for AY 1985-86 has explained the difference between exemption schemes of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in detail. iii) Reliance placed by Tribunal in Asst Year 1985-86 on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (228 ITR 253) cannot be said to be erroneous. The Tribunal did recognise that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own case for A.Y.2001-02 in ITA No.778 of 2015 dated 18/12/2018 before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, wherein the question Nos. c & d was exactly on this point. For the sake of convenience, the question Nos. c & d raised by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is reproduced hereunder:- "(c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restoring the issue of taxability of the sale tax exemption benefit of Rs.58 crores availed by the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after considering the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of DCIT V. Reliance Industries Ltd., 88 ITD 273, which has not been accepted by the Revenue? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the additional ground without appreciating that the assessee had treated the amount of sales tax exemption benefit of Rs.58 crores as revenue receipt and had included this amount in the returned income and it had been taxed accordingly and the assessee did not raise this issue before the CIT(A) and the issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had approached the Court against the similar orders of the Tribunal. The High Court on two occasions, in the order dated 27.09.2016 and 22.11.2016 passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 475 of 2014 and 102 of 2014 respectively had not entertained the challenge of the Revenue. In any case, it was contended that the facts on record are available and the Tribunal has merely asked the Assessing Officer to take a decision on the assessee's contention. 5. As long as the material exists on record, a contention raised by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal, cannot be barred. So much is clear from series of judgments of various Courts including of this Court in case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders P. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee in the context of its contention on the nature of the subsidy, desired to produce additional evidence. It is true that the judgment of this Court confirming the order of the Tribunal in case of Reliance Industries Ltd. has been partially reversed by the Supreme Court. A question of law has been framed and placed for consideration of the 4 of High Court. However, this does not mean th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncerned, it still holds the field. All that has happened, as a result of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 9th September 2011, is that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has now admitted the question "whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax exemption was a capital receipt" and will, in due course though, adjudicate on this legal issue. To that extent, Hon'ble Bombay High Court's order dated 15th April 2009, to the extent of declining to admit this question, stands reversed. However, the decision of the Special Bench still holds good as the same has not, and at least not yet, even been examined by Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Mere admission of appeal against a decision, as is elementary, does not affect the biding nature of a judicial precedent. The Special Bench decision, in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra), was not reversed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, but was directed to be examined, on merits, by Hon'ble Bombay High Court. That is quite different from disapproving the special bench decision, but it appears that the coordinate bench was led to believe, and there c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. (supra). All the material facts being the same, there is no reason to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench. We must, therefore, uphold the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals), which are in consonance with the Special Bench decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) and coordinate bench decision in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. (supra), and decline to interfere in the matter." (emphasis supplied by us) 5.4.6. In view of the above, no fault could be attributed on the ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal and granting relief to the assessee in the instant case. 9. In the Special Bench decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd (supra), what came up for consideration was specifically the sales tax subsidy, and that decision, as we seen in the elaborate analysis of the coordinate bench- as extracted above still holds good in law. In the case of CIT Vs Chaphalkar Brothers [(2018) 400 ITR 279 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the object of respective subsidy schemes of State Gov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Ltd. (supra) held that when a receipt is not in the character of income as defined under section 2(24) of the I.T. Act, 1961, then it cannot form part of the book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Hon'ble High court, further observed that sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is capital receipt and does not come within definition of income under section 2(24) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and when, a receipt is not a in the nature of income, it cannot form part of book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Court, further observed that the facts of case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) were altogether difference, where the income in question was taxable, but was exempt under a specific provision of the Act, and as such it was to be included as a part of book profit, but where the receipt is not in the nature of income at all, it cannot be included in book profit for the purpose of computation u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961. 48. We further noted that the ITAT special bench of Kolkata Tribunal, in the case of Sutlej Cotton mills Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1993] 45 ITD 22 (Cal.) (SB), held that a particular receipt, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any of assessee from A.Y. 2006-07 to 2011-12 as stated supra. It is observed that various observations made by AO and arguments made by Ld. DR are already dealt with by various decisions referred supra hence there is no reason to deviate from the finding given by Coordinate Bench referred supra. Thus, sales tax incentives received by assessee are rightly considered as Capital Receipts by Ld.CIT(A). 34.In the result, ground of appeal raised by the Departmental is dismissed. 52. Respectfully following the above decision, we dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 53. In the Ground No.4, Department has raised the following grievance: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the exclusion of Excise duty exemption availed by the assessee company aggregating to Rs.2,18,96,78,981/- in computing total income under normal provisions of the Act as capital in nature, for its cement manufacturing units namely, Gagal Unit-1 &Gagal Unit-II located in the State of Himachal whereas the same is in the nature of revenue incentive, especially when the scheme under consideration, also provides for capital investm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the closing stock. The Tribunal has not committed any error." (underlined for emphasis by us) It is evident from the above that irrespective of the method of accounting followed by the assessee, i.e. 'Inclusive method', wherein the taxes are included in the opening stock, purchases, etc. or the 'Exclusive method', the MODVAT credit does not have any impact on the profit of the assessee. Thus, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (supra) and followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Diamond Dye Chem Ltd. (supra), we set-aside the order of the CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of unutilised MODVAT credit. This Ground of appeal is accordingly allowed." 19.It is observed that on identical issue, Coordinate bench in Para No. 32 to 34 in the case of Ambuja Cement Limited in ITA No 5883/Mum/2012 & 5927/Mum/2012 (for A.Y. 2005-06) vide order dated 31/10/2022 has dismissed revenue's appeal. Respectfully following decisions of Coordinate as discussed herein above, the ground raised in Departmental Appeal is dismissed. 55. Respec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of the subsequent year. That aspect of the matter is covered by a coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT Vs Gloster Jute Mills Limited [(2017) 88 taxmann.com 738 (Kol)], which has been subsequently followed by other benches- including Mumbai benches. The coordinate bench has inter alia observed as follows: "24. Ground No. 3 raised by the revenue reads as follows :- 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing assessee's claim of additional depreciation of plant and machinery on original cost in the year subsequent to the year of acquisition and installation and thereby has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.54,21,617/- without appreciating the fact that such additional depreciation is allowable on plant and machinery only in the year of acquisition and installation." 25. This ground of appeal relates to the claim of the Assessee for additional depreciation u/s.32(1)(iia) of the Act. The undisputed facts are that the original cost of the new machinery purchased and installed by the Assessee after 31-3-2005 but before 1-4-2006 in the 100% EOU and DTA unit Rs.29,77,470 and Rs.2,41,30,615.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee for additional depreciation. 28. Before we set out the conclusions of the CIT(A) on this issue, it would be worthwhile to examine the history of scheme of allowance by way of additional depreciation in the Act. 'Sec.32 Depreciation. (1) In respect of depreciation of- (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed- (i) in the case of assets of an undertaking engaged in generation or generation and distribution of power, such percentage on the actual cost thereof to the assessee as may be prescribed; (ii) in the case of any block of assets, such percentage on the written down value thereof as may be prescribed: Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act was originally introduced by the finance (no.2) Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(iia) as it existed from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1988 and reinserted subsequently from 1-4-2003 that the benefit for claiming additional depreciation was restricted only to the initial assessment year. However the provisions of Sec.32(1)(iia) as substituted by the finance Act, 2005 w.e.f. 1-4- 2006, the benefit for claiming additional depreciation was not so restricted to only to the intital assessment year. From AY 1981-82 to 87-88, the claim for additional depreciation was restricted to previous year in which such machinery or plant is installed or, if the machinery or plant is first put to use in the immediately succeeding previous year. From AY 2003-04 till 2005-06, the claim for additional depreciation was restricted to previous year in which such undertaking begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing on or after the 1st day of April, 2002; or if any industrial undertaking existed before the 1st day of April, 2002, during any previous year in which it achieves the substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than ten per cent. From AY 2006-07, there is no restriction with regard to the year in which such additional depreciation should be allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d year. In my view for claiming additional depreciation the assessee has to acquire and install the plant & machinery after 31-03-2005 and the same should be new in the year of installation. There is no requirement that the assets should be new in the year of claim of additional depreciation. For the reasons aforesaid I am of the view that in terms of provisions of Section 32(1)(iia), additional depreciation is available in AY 2006-07 and subsequent years in respect of all new plant & machinery acquired and installed after 31-03-2005 subject to overall criteria that total depreciation does not exceed the actual cost. Hence Ground No. 4 is decided in favour of the Appellant." 31. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the revenue has raised ground no.3 before the Tribunal. The ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that fiscal statute shall be interpreted on the basis of the language used therein and not de hors the same. It was argued that Clause (iia) to Sec. 32(1) was first introduced vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 w.e.f. 01-04-81 and was applicable till AY 1987-88. The clause was subsequently re-introduced vide Finance Act, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill be allowed only in one year or that it would be allowed only on the written down value. The law as it prevailed prior to the said amendment imposed such a condition that additional depreciation will be allowed only in the year of installation of machinery or plant or the year in which it is first put to use or the year in which the concerned undertaking begins to manufacture or produce any article or thing or achieves substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by 25%. The only objection of the AO is that the provisions refer to "new machinery or plant" and therefore the machinery will cease to be a new machinery after the end of the first year in which it is installed or put to use. In our view this stand taken by the revenue is not supported by the language of statutory provision. The condition imposed by the relevant provisions is that Plant and Machinery must be new at the time of installation to be eligible for additional depreciation u/ s 32(1)(iia) and not new in subsequent years. The expression "new machinery" is therefore to be construed as referring to the condition that at the time of acquisition or installation the machinery or plant should be new....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 22.11.2019 wherein both of the above decisions of ITAT Kolkata as well as ITAT Mumbai has been duly considered and has decided in the favour of the assessee. In this decision, decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Everest Industries Limited (supra), was referred in finding of CIT(A). The ITAT has followed Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. (supra) and has decided the issue in assessee's favour. It is observed that coordinate bench in its later decision in the case of Ambuja Cement Limited(supra), holding company of assessee has allowed similar claim of depreciation. When coordinate bench of ITAT in its latest decision has decided issue in favour of assessee by holding that assessee is entitled for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia), such later decision would prevail over the decision of Everst Industries Limited relied upon by Ld DR. As a result, since this aspect of the matter is no longer res integra, we see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench in the group concern's case of the assessee. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation u/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to refer to Oxford dictionary, the term "split up" means to separate of end relationship. It is undisputed fact in present case that assessee has acquired both the units as a whole. It is not the case that assessee has set up two different power plant by purchasing only partial assets which were used by another assessee but entire undertaking itself is purchased as it is in year under consideration which clearly prove that assessee has not split any of its existing business for forming both the units. Hon'ble Bombay High court in CIT v. Gaekwar Foam & Rubber Co. Ltd. [1959] 35 ITR 662 explains that the concept of a reconstruction of a business implies that the original business is not to cease functioning and its identity is not lost. Reconstruction is of a business already in existence implies that there must be a continuation of the activities of business of the same industrial undertaking where the ownership of a business or undertaking changes hands that would not be regarded as reconstruction. This judgment has specifically been approved by the Supreme Court in Textile Machinery Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 107 ITR 195. As regards the splitting up of a business, the relevant tes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction to the amalgamated company. The Ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld the claim of the taxpayer. The Hon'ble Madras High Court confirmed the decision of the Tribunal and observed as follows: "A reading of the provision of sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act, it is clear that the same has been incorporated to encourage the new industrial undertaking on fulfilment of certain conditions mentioned therein. If the conditions mentioned in the sections are complied with by the assessee, the benefit extended by the provisions has to be granted to the assessee. The amalgamation of one company with the other company cannot be regarded as a splitting up or reconstruction or by a transfer of a new business of the plant and machinery of the old business. With reference to the Companies Act, the amalgamation was also for the benefit of the two companies, i.e., amalgamating and amalgamated company and in the public interest and also in the interest of the shareholders. Viewed from any angle amalgamation cannot be regarded as a splitting up of the company for the purpose of negativing the claim under the Income-tax Act, which has been statutorily conferred on the company, if such companies ful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is clear that Section 84 is more or less the same as provided in Section 80-IB of the Act. The Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular F. No.15/5/63-IT(A-1) dated 13th December, 1963 indicating that the benefit of Section 84 is attached to the undertaking and not to the owner thereof and, consequently, the successor would be entitled to the benefit for the unexpired period of 5 years provided the undertaking is taken over as a running concern. 12. The same principle is applicable in the instant case. Admittedly, the undertaking was in existence since 2002. The proprietorship concern changed into a partnership firm. The benefit under Section 80-IB of the Act is available to the partnership firm and the conditions imposed under Section 80-IB(2)(i) does not come in the way." 65. Thus, the sanctity of the CBDT Circular has been upheld in the context of section 80IB, confirming that the tax holiday moves along with the undertaking and the ownership has no relevance. Similar decision is also rendered by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mega Packages [2011] 203 Taxman 236 while considering the eligibility of deduction under section 80-IC on c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee is emanating from notes forming part of return of income for A.Y. 1999-2000 and not disputed by Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings hence there is no reason for not allowing deduction u/s 80IA for TG-2 Wadi. The Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Simple Food Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 239 has held that if deduction u/s. 80-IB was granted for an initial assessment year, same could not be rejected for subsequent assessment years unless relief for initial year was withdrawn. 68 In view of holistic discussion made herein above, assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IA on TG-2 and TG-3, Wadi unit. Thus, related ground of appeal in departmental appeal is dismissed and ground of appeal in assessee's appeal is allowed. 62. Respectfully following the above decision, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue and allow the grounds raised by the assessee. 63. In the Ground No.7, Department has raised the following grievance: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the assessing officer that auditor's fee and director's remuneration (indirect expenses) should not be apportio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that the Assessing Officer has identified indirect expenditure incurred at Head Office i.e Statutory Audit fees, Audit for taxation matter, Director Fees, Cost Auditor expenses, Subscription to CME etc and observed that such expenditure are not allocated to eligible businesses and to that extent deduction u/s 80IA is claimed excess. Before Ld.CIT(A), assessee has claimed that cost audit fees and subscription to CMA are in respect of cement manufacturing unit hence no allocation of such expenditure is required to be made. To that extent, Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the plea of assessee and such fact is not controverted by Ld. DR hence finding given by Ld.CIT(A) to that extent is upheld. Further, on this issue, coordinate bench in the case of Ambuja Cement Limited, holding company of assessee in ITA Nos. 1889 and 1241/Mum/2018, 2384, 2958, 3475 and 3843/Mum/2019(for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13) vide order dated 07/11/2022 has held as under: "108. We are unable to see any merits in the stand of the assessee that the head office expenses cannot be allocated to all the units, as deductions and allowance of eligible un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Assessee. 67. In the Ground No.8, Department has raised the following grievance: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 52,85,01,072/- being preoperative expenses, when in its books of accounts, the assessee itself had claimed the expenses as capital expenses and added them to its capital- work-in progress/fixed assets and there is no provision in Income-tax Act permitting the allowance of such expenses?" 68. The Assessing Officer has dealt with the issue at Para No 16 of his order. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee has incurred expenditure of Rs..52,85,01,072/- in respect of employee remuneration, travelling expenses, maintenance expenses, stores & spares, power fuel for new units before commencement of commercial production. The Assessing Officer has observed that such expenditures are capital expenditure and required to be added to Capital Work in Progress. There is no provision in the Income Tax Act permitting the allowance of expenditure incurred during the construction period or during the period before the assets are put to use. On these basis Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the expenditure in question undisputedly is of revenue nature. The same is evident from the nature of nominal accounts they are accounted in the records of the assessee. By no stretch of imagination, the expenditure incurred on accounts of salaries, wages, marketing expenditure, professional fee, travelling etc falls in the capital fields but for the alleged preoperative nature of the claim. Therefore, we have no doubt to treat the impugned expenditure as allowable revenue but for the allegation of the AO. No expenditure incurred on acquisition of the capital assets such as plant & machinery, land and building, technical know-how etc., is included in the expenditure claimed by the assessee. 9. New product vs New business: Memorandum of Association of the assessee provides for the following main object of the business of the assessee and the same reads as under: "to produce or cause to be produced, buy, process, grade, pack, store and sell milk, milk products and ice-cream" 9.1.From the above it is evident that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of the dairy/milk products, ice creams etc. Accordingly, the manufacture of product of the assessee does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d they are covered by the nature of declared business of the assessee. As such, the impugned expenditure claimed by the assessee does not include any expenditure of capital nature. The control and management, accounts, CEOs for both the dairy /milk products is one and the same. AO has not made out the absence of interlacing of the above. Under the factual matrix of the case, we find the claim of the assessee is allowable. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition. The order of the CIT (A) is thus, affirmed. 14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." I also find that for AY 2012-13, CIT(A)-3, Mumbai has decided the similar issue in appellant's own case. I am in agreement with the view of my predecessor and followed the same. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT, I allow the ground of appeal no. 13. 70. The department has filed appeal against the finding of Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. AR has relied upon submissions filed before Ld.CIT(A) and contended that such expenditures are revenue in nature hence same deserves to be allowed. The Ld. AR has mainly relied upon the following decisions: (i) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of pre-operative expenses. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who, after taking note of the detailed submissions, held that the expenses, being in the nature of expenses incurred for the expansion of existing business, cannot be disallowed. Accordingly, the disallowance was deleted. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief so granted by the CIT(A) and is in appeal before us. 101. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 102. The short grievance raised before us by the Assessing Officer is whether, even when the expenditure is shown in the books of accounts, it can be treated as revenue in nature. That question, in our considered view, stands concluded in favour of the assessee. In the case of CIT Vs Havells India Ltd (ITA Nos 55 and 57 of 2012; judgment dated 21 May 2012), Hon'ble Delhi High Court has, in this context, observed, speaking through Hon'ble Justice Easwar, that "The fact that in the books of account the assessee had capitalised the expenses does not prevent the assessee from claiming them as revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench in assessee's own case as discussed herein above, this ground in Departmental Appeal is dismissed. 76. Respectfully following the above decision, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue. 77. In the Ground No.10, Department has raised the following grievance: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of provision for normal gratuity in computing Book Profit u/s 115JB (Rs. 20,24,70,335/-)?"" 78. Similar issue was considered by us in the Ground No 12 of Department Appeal in AY 2005-06 and held as under: "85. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On this issue, coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No 5259/MUM/2007 dated 27/05/2022 has decided this issue in its favour. The relevant finding is reproduced herein below: "14.3.3. Revenue is in appeal, challenging the decision of CIT(A) of deletion of INR 5,86,82,751/-. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. While the Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee reiterated the submissions made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of provision for an ascertained liability and is, therefore, not required to be added back while computing Book Profits in terms of Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No. 9 raised by the Revenue is dismissed." 86.Respectfully following decision of coordinate bench referred supra, addition of provision for gratuity made while computing book profit u/s 115JB is deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal in Departmental Appeal is dismissed. 79. Respectfully following the above decision, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue. 80. In the Ground No.11, Department has raised the following grievance: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of wealth tax provision in computing Book Profit u/s. 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 79,20,000/-)?" 81. Similar issue was considered by us in the Department Appeal Ground no 11 in AY 2005-06 and held as under: "80. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On this issue, coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No 5259/MUM/2007 dated 27/05....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings Ltd. (supra) and the Hon'ble Special Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (supra) as well as my own order in appeal no. CIT(A)-I/IT/232/04- 05 for AY 1998-99 stated herein above, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed." . On appraisal of the said finding, we noticed that the claim of the assessee has been allowed in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Echjay Forgings (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15 (Bom) and JCIT Vs. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. (2007) 104 ITD 249 (Kolkata Tribunal) SB. We also noticed that the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by CIT(A) for the A.Y. 1998-99 also and against the said decision, the revenue is not in appeal. It is reiterated that the adjustment can only be made in view of Section 115JB of the Act which has been specified in Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is being decided in favour of the assessee again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is held that disallowance u/s 14A cannot be made while computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. This ground of appeal in departmental appeal is dismissed." 85. Respectfully following the above decision in assessee case, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue. ITA No. 3135/MUM/2019 (Assessee Appeal) 86. We now take up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No 3135/Mum/2019 87. In the Ground No.2, Assessee has raised the following grievance: Ground No. 2: Disallowance of Club Entrance Fee (Rs. 5.00,000 /-) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of AO in disallowing Club Entrance Fee of Rs. 5,00,000/- as expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in disregarding and not following the order of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in the Appellant's own case on the same issue in earlier years. The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow the claim of the Appellant. 88.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cified herein above, we decide this issue in favour of the Assessee. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) to delete the addition of INR 17,45,829/-, consisting of expenditure incurred on club entrance fee of INR 15,00,000/- and subscription fee of INR 2,45,829/-, is confirmed. Ground No. 1 of the Departmental Appeal is dismissed. " 25.It is further observed that on identical issue, Coordinate bench in Para No. 94 to 96 in the case of Ambuja Cement Limited in ITA No 5883/Mum/2012 & 5927/Mum/2012 (for A.Y. 2005-06) vide order dated 31/10/2022 has dismissed revenue's appeal. Respectfully following the above said decisions as discussed herein above, this ground in Departmental Appeal is dismissed." 89. Respectfully following the above decision, we allow the ground raised by the assessee. 90. In the Ground No.6, Assessee has raised the following grievance: Ground No. 6: Long term capital gain on sale of Sanathnagar Land (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of AO in relying on the report of the DVO in the valuation of Sanathnagar land disregarding the fact that referen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The contention of the revenue that in view of the amendment to Section 55A(a) of the Act in 2012 by which the words "is less than the fair market value" is substituted by the words " "is at variance with its fair market value" is clarifactory and should be given retrospective effect. This submission is in face of the fact that the 2012 amendment was made effective only from 1 July 2012. The Parliament has not given retrospective effect to the amendment. Therefore, the law to be applied in the present case is Section 55A(a) of the Act as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. At the relevant time, very clearly reference could be made to Departmental Valuation Officer only if the value declared by the assessee is in the opinion of Assessing Officer less than its fair market value. 9. The contention of the revenue that the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer by the Assessing Officer is sustainable in view of Section 55A(a) (ii) of the Act is not acceptable. This is for the reason that Section 55A(b)of the Act very clearly states that it would apply in any other case i.e. a case not covered by Section 55A(a) of the Act. In this case, it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, if the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the value so claimed was less than its fair market value as on 1.4.1981. It would not be the case of the Assessing Officer that the value of the asset shown as on 1.4.1981 was less than the fair market value. Such clause, therefore, as it stood at the relevant time, had no application to the valuation as on 1.4.1981. We are conscious that with effect from 1.7.2012, the expression now used in clause (a) of section 55A is "is at variance with its fair market value". The situation may, therefore, be different after 1.7.2012. We are, however, concerned with the period prior thereto. Clause (b) of section 55A is in two parts and permits a reference to DVO if the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset so claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage of the value of the asset so claimed or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do. Sub-clause(i) of clause (b) also for the same reasons recorded above, would have no beari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arket value of land based upon DVO's report obtained u/s 55A of the Act. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed." 92. Respectfully following the above decision, we allow the ground raised by the assessee. 93. In the Ground No.7, Assessee has raised the following grievance: ] Ground No. 7: Disallowance of provision for Leave Encashment (Rs. 15,77,47,827/-) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of AO in not allowing the claim of leave encashment amounting to Rs. 15,77,47,827/-. (B) The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to allow the claim of the Appellant. 94. Similar issue was considered by us in the Department Appeal Ground No 13 in AY 2005-06 and held as under: 89.Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On this issue, coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No 5259/MUM/2007 dated 27/05/2022 has decided this issue in its favour. The relevant finding is reproduced herein below: "14.4.4. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment while computing book profits u/s. 115JB. 99. Similar issue was considered by us in the Department Appeal in Ground No 13 in AY 2005-06 and held as under: 89.Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. On this issue, coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 in ITA No 5259/MUM/2007 dated 27/05/2022 has decided this issue in its favour. The relevant finding is reproduced herein below: "14.4.4. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We note that the CIT(A) has granted relief to the Assessee by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (245 ITR 528), and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. EchjayForgins (P) Ltd. (2001) 251 ITR 15. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) to the extent it holds that provision for Leave Encashment of INR 3,26,00,238/- is in the nature of provision for ascertained liability created on the basis of actuarial valuation and is, therefore, not required to be added back while computing Book Profits in terms of Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) of the Act. Accordingly,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment Year 2003-04, the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the Revenue, vide common order 13.03.2019 passed in ITA No. 4242/MUM/2007 and ITA No. 4988/MUM/2007, holding as under: "52. Under this issue the revenue has challenged the deletion of the addition of profit on sale of fixed assets in computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act in sum of Rs.5,19,20,846/-. At the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has disclosed this fact that this issue has been decided against the assessee in the ITA. No. 5259 & 4895/Mum/2007 Assessment Year: 2004-05 assessee's own case for the A.Y.2002-03 in ITA. No.4241/M/2007 dated 29.07.2015. Since this issue has been decided against the Assessee in the assessee's own case (supra), therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue is hereby ordered to be set aside and we allow the claim of the revenue for the addition of said amount while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee." 19.5. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee's own case, we set aside the order of CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to which even the Ld. AR fairly conceded. However, it was only during the current year as well as AY 2005-06 that the Ld. AR of the assessee referred to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as relied and reproduced supra. Extensively relying on it he claimed that the indexed cost of acquisition does not form part of income computed u/s 115JB of the Act. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute taxable long term capital gains arising on transfer of fixed assets as well as investments after giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition (if applicable) while computing taxable profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Thus, Assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose, subject to the directions herein above. 103. Respectfully following the above decision, we partly allow the ground raised by the assessee for statistical purpose. 104. In the Ground Nos.13 & 14, Assessee has raised the following grievance: "Ground No. 13: Non-adjudicating additional ground regarding claim u/s. 43B: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra ) to the effect 'if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made....' or 'that the ground became available on account of change of circumstances or law,' does not curtail the ambit of the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities stipulated earlier. They do not restrict the new/additional grounds that may be taken by the assessee before the appellate authorities to those that were not available when the return was filed or even when the assessment order was made. The appellate authorities, therefore, have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became available on account of change of circumstances or law, but with additional grounds which were available when the return was filed. The first part viz ., 'if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment order was made....' clearly relate to cases where the ground was available when the return was filed and the assessment order was made but 'could not have been raised' a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the same. Both the orders expressly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 40 lakhs under section 43B. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, now only to compute the assessee's tax liability which he must do in accordance with the orders allowing the assessee a deduction of Rs. 40 lakhs under section 43B. [Para 20] The conclusion that the error in not claiming the deduction in the return of income was inadvertent cannot be faulted for more than one reason. It is a finding of fact which cannot be termed perverse. There is nothing on record that militates against the finding. The revenue has not suggested much less established that the omission was deliberate, mala fide or even otherwise. The inference that the omission was inadvertent is, therefore, irresistible. [Para 21] Therefore, the appeal of the revenue was liable to be dismissed. [Para 26]". 106. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, it is observed that assessee has claimed deduction of VAT payment as per provision of section 43B of the Act. The issue requires verification at the end of the Assessing Officer hence, this ground of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim the same in the return of income and also not claimed by filing the revised return of income. 3. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It was submitted that the assessee made the payment to BIS Marking in the current assessment year and the same is eligible to claim as business expenditure. After considering the submissions, we are inclined to remit this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and allow the same on the payment basis as per law. Therefore, this additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA NO.3135/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) 4. At Para No. 94, we dealt with the issue of Leave Encashment allowance u/s 115JB, we observe that the similar issue was considered by us in the A.Y.2008-09 in Ground No 13 and instead of reproducing the decision, we have wrongly reproduced the findings given in the A.Y.2005- 06. The more relevant facts for this ground is from Ground No.13 of A.Y. 2008-09. Therefore, we are hereby reproducing the above in the corrigendum for this Assessment Year as under: "94. Similar issue was considered by us in the assessee appeal Ground N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by it. On this issue, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178 has held as under: "Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income not includible in total income (General) - Assessee-scheduled banks earned income from investments made in tax-free securities - Assessing Officer made proportionate disallowance of interest attributable to funds invested to earn tax free income under section 14A on grounds that separate accounts were not maintained for investment in tax-free securities - Whether since interest free own funds available with assessee exceeded their investments; investments would be presumed to be made out of assessee's own funds and proportionate disallowance was not warranted under section 14A on ground that separate accounts were not maintained by assessee for investments and other expenditure incurred for earning tax-free income - Held, yes [Para 27] [In favour of assessee] 11. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has, in the case of PCIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Ltd [(2020) 117 taxmann.com 625(Mum)] has, inter alia, observed as follows: "6. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me during year - Held, yes [Para 11.16][Matter remanded]" 14. The above referred decision has been followed by co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT v. Shree Global Tradef in Ltd. in ITA No. 1374/Mum/2022 dated 22 nd December, 2022 has held as under: "11. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has made a suo moto disallowance of Rs.1,263/- for which the assessee contends that the A.O. ought not to have applied Rule 8D on the ground that suo moto disallowance has been made by the assessee. The assessee further contends that without prejudice, the disallowance should be restricted only to the investments which have yielded an exempt income for the assessee during the impugned year. It is also pertinent to point out that since the assessee had not borrowed funds during the relevant year, no disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(i) of the Income Tax Rules was warranted. It is also observed that the A.O. has recorded his satisfaction that the correctness of the assessee's claim of expenses of disallowance was not to the satisfaction of the A.O., thereby entitling the A.O. to invoke the provisions ....