AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 22/03/2022 arising out of the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AY 2017-18. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in generation of power filed its original return of income on 26/10/2017 admitting a total income of Rs. 56,22,32,770/- for the AY 2017-18 after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act for Rs. 425,82,10,964/-. Later the assessee revised the return of income on 5/10/2018 admitting an income of Rs. 144,41,11,950/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act for Rs. 425,82,10,964/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, the assessee fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exclusively to the APGENCO thereby attracting the provisions of section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. He therefore considered the order of the Ld.AO as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as it has been passed without any enquiries or verification and thereby invoking the revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act, the Ld. Pr. CIT partly set-aside the assessment order with a direction to re-do the assessment in accordance with law after making necessary enquiries and verification in respect of the issues discussed the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee is in appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the AO has followed the well established law and has not committed any error in this issue. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in assuming revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263, on disallowance of cost of Police Guard services are non-exclusively provided by APSPF Department u/s. 40(a)(iib) of the Act alleging that the AO has failed to call for the information / documents to examine the allowability. 6. Such other ground or grounds that may be urged during the hearing of appeal." 3. Grounds No. 1 and 6 are general in nature and they need no adjudication. 4. With respect to Ground No.2, 3, 4 & 5, the assessee has contested the power of the Ld. Pr. CIT for invoki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the paper book. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act by wrongly interpreting the section 40(a)(iib) of the Act. The Ld. AR placed heavy reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd vs. ACIT reported in [2022] 440 ITR 492 (SC) and also relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT at Chennai in the case of M/s. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd vs. ACIT in ITA No. 353/Chny/2022 (AY 2014-15), dated 14/11/2022. The Ld. AR also relied on G.O.M.S. No. 39, dated 02/04/2022 and G.O.M.S. No. 76, dated 9/8/2010 in support of his contentions. Per contra, the Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther noticed that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously considered the cost of water as 'royalty' paid to the State Government. Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) defines the expression 'royalty' and in our opinion the water charges are paid by the assessee cannot be considered as royalty as per the definition. Further, section 40(a)(iib) of the Act is extracted herein below for reference: "Sec. 40(a)(iib) any amount- (A) paid by way of royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge or any other fee or charge, by whatever name called, which is levied exclusively on; or (B) which is appropriated, directly or indirectly, from, a State Government undertaking by the State Government. Exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force is not exclusively provided to the assessee but also to other industrial undertakings, temples, banks and Public Sector Undertakings as evidenced by the letter submitted by the assessee in page No. 72 of the paper book. Hence, we are of the opinion that the principle of exclusivity has been wrongly interpreted by the Ld. Pr. CIT on the payments made to the Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force. The case relied on by the Ld. DR ie., Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd (supra) is with respect to electricity duty paid and cannot be applied to the instant case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 14 of its decision in the case of Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Ma....