AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted physically before the registrar, were complete and correct. As such, the AR requested that the common grounds of appeal as submitted manually/physically should be taken into consideration for the purpose of the aforesaid appeal. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are produced hereunder: 1. That the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 is illegal, void ab initio & unsustainable as the same has been passed without following mandatory requirement of law. 2. That the Order Passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, the twin conditions as embedded in Section 263 i.e. the order passed by the AO is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of revenue have not been satisfied. 3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 and setting aside the assessment order for fresh enquiry without appreciating the fact that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. That the order passed under section 263 is without properly appreciating the facts & evidence of the case is unjust and arbitrary. 4. That the Order Passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 263, that record in assessment include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the PCIT. As such the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act is bad in law. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the issue raised by him in notice u/s 263 was before the AO and as such the jurisdiction on this issue u/s 263 cannot be assumed by him. 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, of the case, Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the issue of allocation of expenses to the file of the AO without properly appreciating the explanation of assessee given during the assessment proceedings brought on record. That PCIT has failed to appreciate that separate books of the eligible unit are being maintained from year to year and the same have been have been verified by the assessing officers and by the TPO. That the PCIT has ignored the detailed verification made by A.O. and TPO while passing the order under section 263. 11. That wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce the facts are taken from ITA No. 324/Asr/2024 for discussion as a lead case. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company with PAN AAACK1375K, engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products, as well as the production, collection, and distribution of steam and electricity (power). The appellant filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2017-18 on 16.11.2017, declaring NIL income after claiming a deduction under Section 80IA amounting to Rs. 44,56,27,360/-as per the Income Tax Act, 1961. The number of units run under the group are as under: - Particulars Paper Unit Power Unit I- (70 TPH) Power Unit II- (100 TPH) Year 02.02.1985 01.02.2002 01.05.2005 Stream Manufacturing of paper Distribution of Steam &Electricity Distribution of Steam & Electricity Unit Non-Specified Unit Non-Specified Unit Specified Unit eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) The case of the appellant was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS, and a statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 09/08/2018 to address the following issues: - S. No. Issues I. Claim of any othe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng study 02.01.2021 Question: Appellant was asked to furnish: a) complete audit report of non eligible unit and eligible unit for FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 b) Complete cost analysis of generation of power and steam of eligible unit II 100 TPH and comparison with non eligible unit 70TPH Reply of the appellant on 05.01.2021 along with relevant annexure [Page no 149-151A of the PB] along with complete books of accounts of eligible unit [Page No 122- 255 of the PB] 18.01.2021 Show cause proposing addition in respect of power and steam Reply given on 20.01.2021 and 22.01.2021 enclosed at page no 293A-356 of the PB 28.01.2021 Show cause proposing addition in respect of power and steam Reply given on 29.01.2021 enclosed at page no 359-372 of the PB Questionnaire issued by Faceless Assessment Centre 07.12.2020 Question was asked regarding details of deduction claimed u/s 80IA [Relevant page no 141 of the PB] Reply of the appellant dated 05.04.2021 [Page no 143- 147 of the PB] 1. The appellant has clarified that the deduction claimed was Rs. 43.74 crore and also submitted form 10CCB along with separate balance sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o SCN dated 28.01.2021 (refer to page no. 357-358, 359-372 of the Paper Book). The total cost determined for producing the power was calculated at Rs. 37,80,10,887 (refer to pages 120-132 of the Paper Book), compared to the total cost claimed of Rs. 89,78,75,526. d) The cost of steam constitutes 88.14% of the total power cost. Accordingly, the steam cost was calculated at Rs. 33,31,67,392/-. The sale price of the steam at Rs. 96,91,03,975/- has been accepted by the TPO (refer to page no. 130 and 132, relevant para 8.1 and 8.3). e) However, the TPO has recommended an adjustment for the price variation of Rs. 9,79,36,702/- related to the captive power consumption by the paper unit. This adjustment was suggested using the external CUP (Comparable Uncontrolled Price) method, with an average price taken at 5.57, as opposed to the 6.44 considered by the assessee. (Relevant page no.132) ISSUE: ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ADJUSTMENT OF Rs. 9,79,36,703/- AS SUGGESTED IN THE TPO ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) It was clarified that the Assessing Officer (AO) appropriately adjusted the deduction and recalculated the eligible deduction to Rs. 73,72,44,966/-. However, this recalculated deduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e e-filing portal). Deduction under section 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 is allowable to the Assessee on the Profits derived from the Undertakings or the Enterprises of the Assessee from the businesses referred to in the Sub section (4) of Section 80IA on above mentioned grounds. 69- 73 Letter addressed to Joint Commissioner Income Tax (Audit) by the AO 09.02.2024 1. The AO partially accepted the audit objections raised by the audit party in respect of following issues: - a) Deduction claimed u/s 80IA needs proper verification. That the appellant has shown loss in no eligible unit and huge profit in the eligible business 2. Furthermore, in the concluding paragraph it has been pointed out by the AO that the audit objections can be settled by invoking the provisions of section 263. Please refer page no.78. 3. The AO highlighted to the joint commissioner audit that detailed enquiry was carried out by the AO in respect of deduction claimed u/s 80IA. It was also clarified that the eligible unit commenced its operation on 13.05.2005 and the block period starts from AY 2006-07 and expires in AY 2020-21. 74-78 Show cause notice u/s 154 26.02.2024 Limited issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of facts stated by the assessee can be ascertained. In the online system, the National Faceless AO had no access to the earlier submissions made physically before the JAO/TPO, if any, made by the assessee. 5.3 The assessee had claimed that the exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iv) had been allowed from year to year in the past years and no variation on this account had been noticed in earlier years. It is observed that each assessment year is a separate year and if past history is to be the criterion, the case should not have been selected under CASS on this issue. In the year under consideration the assessee had incurred huge losses in the non-eligible unit and huge profits in the eligible unit, which mandated the AO to verify the expenses claimed and bifurcation of common expenses in these two category of units. The AO had not called for requisite enough details to examine these facts and passed the assessment order without making requisite inquires/examination of data on this issue, The issue in question in present proceedings is not the eligibility of deduction to eligible unit which is continuing from past years, but the examination of profitability of the two category of units b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. That the order passed under section 263 is without properly appreciating the facts & evidence of the case is unjust and arbitrary. 10. That the Order Passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, the order passed by the assessing officer is not in any case prejudicial to the interest of the revenue since, as against available deduction under Section 80IA of Rs 83,51,81,669, the Assessee has claimed deduction of Rs 44,56,27,360/-. That even if it is alleged that some of the expenses of the Non Specified units are attributed to the Specified Unit, the resultant loss of the Non Specified Unit get reduced and correspondingly deduction of the Specified unit will stand increased, which will be revenue neutral exercise and as such the order passed by the assessing officer cannot be said to the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 11. That the order passed under Section 263 is bad in law since, the Ld. PCIT has passed the order under Section 263 without conducting any enquiry and had he conducted any enquiry, this fact would have been very clear that the order is not prejudicial to the interest of the rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PO, and that the PCIT has ignored the detailed verification made by A.O. and TPO while passing the order under section 263. The counsel stated that without prejudice to above grounds, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in branding assessment order, as erroneous/prejudicial on an issue which itself was covered by ambit of such assessment and that the AR submitted that the learned PCIT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the AO after examining the details, has adopted a possible opinion on the point raised in the notice issued by him and, therefore, the CIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke s. 263 of the Act. Thus, he pleaded that the Order passed u/s 263 is illegal and is liable to be quashed. 15. The AR further submitted that the Ld. PCIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act vide show cause notice u/s 263 on 27.02.2024 seeking to revise the assessment order passed on 21.06.2021 with a view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and alleged that the AO had failed to carry out necessary inquiries and verification on the issue of verification of apportionment of expenses between eligible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verified by the TPO. Therefore, there is no doubt that the assessee has maintained separate books of accounts, and the allegations made by the PCIT are based solely on surmises and conjectures. 18. The PCIT passed the order u/s 263 on the limited issue regarding verification of apportionment of expenses between eligible unit II 100 TPH claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) and non-eligible unit I 70 TPH' and paper unit. The allegations of the PCIT are being summarized as under: - a) Failed to call for separate P&L accounts for eligible and no eligible unit b) Failed to appreciate that the appellant had not provided annexure and schedules in respect of form 10CCB. c) Failed to examine quantum of allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act d) Failed to appreciate that no separate books for power unit and manufacturing unit were maintained e) Failed to appreciate that the documents submitted before the jurisdictional AO/ TPO were not uploaded for the perusal of NFAC authorities In support, the Ld. AR filed a written synopsis and a paper book comprising of 66 pages and 385 pages respectively which are plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g a thorough examination of the records, a speaking order under Section 92CA (3) was passed, wherein the TPO accepted the costs associated with the generation of steam and power. This order from the TPO was duly considered by the NFAC; thus, the allegations made by the PCIT are incorrect and lack a solid foundation. Furthermore, the AR drew the attention of bench to the questionnaire issued by the NFAC, which specifically addressed the deduction under Section 80IA. 22. Admittedly, the following were the sequence of event before the Ld. PCIT: Show cause notice u/s 263 27.02.2024 1.AO did not examine quantum of allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. Further, no separate books for power unit and manufacturing unit were maintained and the appellant failed to provide annexure and schedules in respect of form 10CCB. 2. The AO did not examine appropriation of expenses amongst eligible and non eligible unit 3. Non submission of vouchers and statement of TDS deduction 4. No segregation in respect of depreciation allowed for paper unit and electricity unit 90-92 Reply in response to Show cause notice u/s 263 11.03.2024 I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication products in data processing). That all transactions, including expenses incurred, are recorded with proper codes that distinctly separate expenditures related to each of the Appellant's ventures. It was further clarified that the expenses like Provision for Bonus, Provision for Gratuity, Provision for Leave encashment, CSR, Disallowance under rule 8D, Donation and Depreciation etc. correspond to the expenses/provisions which have been added back to income while computing the income under the head business and profession and do not relate to the deductions claimed by the assessee in the return of income. (Internal page no 16-17 of reply and relevant page no 108-109) ISSUE: NON SUBMISSION OF VOUCHERS AND DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTION It was explained that complete bills and vouchers were produced and verified by the AO. Furthermore, all the expenses were also verified by the TPO. That the TDS returns were already available with the AO and the TDS on the expenses have duly been deducted. Hence, the allegation regarding the non deduction of TDS is incorrect. (Internal page no 1718 of reply and relevant page no 109-110) ISSUE: NO SEGREGATION IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23.3 The AR further produced detailed working in respect of power and steam produced by each unit which is produced as follows: - TABLE A: STEAM AND ELECTRICITY UNITS PRODUCED Particulars Power Unit-I [70 TPH] Power Unit-2 [100TPH] Category Non-Eligible Unit Page no 151-151A Eligible Unit Page no 150B-150C Power 74147468 units 112570925 units Steam 321791 MT 509463 MT 23.4 The AR further produced detailed working in respect of expenses claimed revenue generated qua units and their profitability ratio which is produced as follows: - TABLE B: Particulars Notation Expenditure in Power Unit-I [70 TPH] Expenditure in Power Unit-2 [100TPH] Total Coal A 525611819 771277964 1296889783 Chemical B 2975818 4366687 7342505 Water C 322518 460740 783258 Other Manufacturing Cost Manpower D 11328190 16183128 27511318 Consumables/repair & Maintenance E 10769184 15802602 26571786 Depreciation F 11440521 22059387 33499908  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; NIL Table F: Calculation of tax payable as per MAT Page No. Profit as per MAT after adjustments 181779153 12 MAT @ 18.5% including surcharge and education Cess 38794579 12 Table G: Calculation of tax after considering the provisions of 115JB Sr. No Particulars Amount 1 Tax as per Income Tax as per Table E above NIL 2 Tax as per MAT as per Table F 38794579 Higher of Sr. No 1 and Sr. No. 2 38794579 23.6 The AR of the appellant further contended that the maximum variation in the net profit was to the extent of 2% and contended that the maximum variation can only be limited to 1.70 crores in respect of shifting of expenses from non-specified Unit I to Unit II. Furthermore, the AR relied upon the working produced at para 17.3 above to contend that there is no tax payable even after adjustment of Rs. 1.70 crore and as such, the condition of order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue is not fulfilled. 24. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that provisions of section 263 can only be inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PUNE BENCH 'A' Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vi) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 664 (Patna - Trib.) IN THE ITAT, PATNA GyanInfrabuild (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 25. We find that the AO had done detailed verification by conducting proper enquiry and thereafter took a plausible view regarding the cost of steam and power produced by the specified unit II 100 TPH. Furthermore, from the comparison it was noticed that the cost of non-specified unit I 70 TPH in respect of power and steam is almost the same as considered for 100TPH. Therefore, the view of Ld. AO being a plausible view, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue. In this regard, the assessee has relied upon the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.* Supreme Court of India reported in 130 taxmann.com 294 to support the contention that in order to invoke section 263, it is a judicial requirement to satisfy twin conditions and if the AO has taken a plausible view, the order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If any one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y incorrect, as the appellant has maintained separate books of accounts. Furthermore, the profit ratios for both units are consistent, and therefore, the observations made by the PCIT are perverse to the facts on record and accordingly, it cannot be approved. Moreover, even if the alternative calculations relied upon by the AR are considered, there would be no loss to the revenue. 27. Under the facts and circumstances, and the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of *Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat- 2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd. (Supra), the revision order passed by the Ld. PCIT under Section 263 is deemed unjustified. Consequently, the ground no. 2 to 4 raised by the appellant is hereby allowed. 28. In ground no 7, the AR of the appellant reiterated the fact that complete cost analysis sheet for the eligible unit was uploaded on the portal which stood verified by the TPO as well as the ACIT. The AR argued that the expenses claimed in the audited and trading account of Power unit -II (100 TPH) were substantiated by independent bills that the appellant had considered the common expenditure while computing the profit of eligible unit. The AR further sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by unit I and unit II along with its comparison was duly submitted before the Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) vide reply dated 22.01.2021 placed at page no 348 of the PB. The relevant snapshot is produced hereunder: - 28.3 From the record and the explanation furnished by the Ld. AR further highlighting the subjectivity emerging from the assessment order as such there was no justification for invoking the provisions of section 263. This view gets support from the following case laws to challenge the invocation of provisions of section 263 :- a) [2014] 45 taxmann.com 335 (Pune - Trib.) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'A' Nyati Builders (P.)Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -2* b) [2013] 36 taxmann.com 589 (Hyderabad - Trib.) IN THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH 'A' Leo Meridian Infrastructure Projects & Hotels Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax* c) [1994] 50 ITD 336 (Bombay)[20-05-1994] 28.4 Thus, it is evident that the appellant maintains separate records for Unit I and Unit II. Additionally, proper records were submitted to both the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the Assessing Officer (AO). The appellant utilizes SAP for its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sr. No. Details of the Notice Query Raised Documents produced 1. Notice dated 25-02-2019 issued u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by DCIT, Central Circle, Amritsar Para 11 of the Notice of the PB "File detail along with the documentary evidence of the deduction claimed under chapter VI i.e. 80IA and 80G." 1. The assessee duly submitted the response on 03-06-2019 and submitted all the necessary documents evidencing the claim of deduction u/s 80 IA including the Form 10CCB, Copy of P&L account of the power units along with the all schedules and annexures and detailed workings of the expenses for the eligible power unit. 2. Moreover, the separate books of accounts of the eligible unit were also called for by the AO which were duly produced for verification before the DCIT, Central Circle. Such books of accounts along with all other documentary evidences supporting the claim and eligibility of the deduction were verified deeply by the AO on the basis of which the claim of the assessee was accepted. All the documents provided by the assessee duly forms part of the record of the AO. The copy of the notice as well as the reply is enclosed here....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ible unit has been prepared and have been presented before the authorities. Cost sheets are analytical analysis of books of accounts which are prepared, which could not have been presented had separate books of accounts being not prepared. 4. Notice u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02-012021 issued by Transfer Pricing Officer Para 4 of the Notice "Furnish the complete Cost Analysis of Generation of the Power and Steam. Also furnish TP study demonstrating that cost of power and steam generation by the eligible unit is at ALP as compared to similar noneligible power generating taxpayers" In response to the query raised, the assessee submitted that "Complete cost analysis of steam and power has been submitted vide letter dated 04-01-2021. Steam is of various bars and used in different processes across different industries. The assessee company uses low pressure steam of 4.5 bars (Kg/ per square centimetre) and medium pressure steam of 11 bars (Kg per square centimetre). The sale price of steam is desired based on the profit generated on the sale of power after considering the component of steam used in the generation thereof. Thus, sale price of steam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicable in the present case. In this regard, we rely on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in *Geevee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT*, 99 ITR 375 (Del.), where it was held that an order would be considered erroneous only if the AO does not conduct any inquiries during the assessment proceedings. For the invocation of provisions under Section 263, it is necessary that the assessment order be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 29.6 Without prejudice to either side, it is observed that the assessments for the earlier assessment years-specifically, AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16-were conducted by the department with the acceptance of the fact that the assessee maintained separate books of accounts for both the Units. It is noted that these separate books of accounts were submitted during the assessment proceedings and also before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) concerning the specified Unit II. Additionally, Form 10CCB, in conjunction with Rule 18BBB as per Section 80IA(7), along with a standalone balance sheet, was also submitted to the Assessing Officer (AO). Moreover, separate disallowances required as per income tax for the spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the certificate issued by the Technical consultant against the contention that steam is a by-product for which no consideration is warranted 347 Copy of the SCN issued and the response submitted by the assessee before the TPO 260-358 Questionnaire issued by Faceless Assessment Centre dated 03.04.2021 and reply dated 05.04.2021 specifically enquiring the deduction claimed u/s 80IA 140-147A Copy of TPO study report 373-407 30.2 The AR explained that all the requisite documents were furnished before the PCIT, however, no discrepancy was pointed out in the documents furnished. In this regard the AR relied upon the order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) v. Kanin (India) reported in 141 taxmann.com 83 in which it was held that the revisionary authority itself has to undertake some enquiries to establish that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue. 30.3 Further reliance was placed upon the following case laws: - a) [2024] 162 taxmann.com 273 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Earth Minerals Co. Ltd. b) 2024 (2) TMI 989 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Commissioner under Section 263 cannot revise an assessment by requiring the Assessing Officer to undertake a fresh exercise of assessment when the PCIT has not conducted any inquiry. 30.6 Consequently, in the present case, the order issued by the PCIT under Section 263 is liable to be set aside. Thus, the ground no. 5-6 of appeal is allowed. 31. Apropos ground no 8, 9 and additional ground no 14, the AR challenged that the jurisdiction under Section 263 was invoked solely based on audit objections and the proposal from the Assessing Officer (AO), and without any independent application of mind by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). 31.1 The Ld. AR directed the Tribunal's attention to the sequence of dates and issues raised therein, indicating that the proceedings under Section 263 were purely based on audit objections. It was noted that the Assessing Officer (AO), in a letter dated January 11, 2024, explicitly negated the objections raised by the audit team. Importantly, in that letter, the AO acknowledged that the assessee was maintaining separate books of accounts for the specified unit. However, in a subsequent letter dated February 9, 2024, the audi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2016 (6) TMI 793 - ITAT AMRITSAR Other Citation: [2016] 48 ITR (Trib) 604 31.5 Having examined the facts of the present case, after perusal of the submissions and citations placed on record, we find that the whole case has been framed based on audit objections without application of mind by the Ld. PCIT. In our view, the AO has undertaken complete enquiry and as such, the subsequent cause of action of invocation of section 263 is held to be without jurisdiction. 32. The revenue in the present case has failed to demonstrate how the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has not substantiated any claims of non-application of mind by the AO, particularly given that the appellant submitted all requisite documents, including standalone profit and loss statements, cost sheets for Unit I and Unit II, turbine bills, invoices, and other relevant materials to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), and the PCIT. All submitted documents have been verified by the respective authorities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to captive consumption. Reference may be made to submission dated 04/01/2021. It is submitted that out of total energy generated at 846460 MT by the eligible unit: - (a) 509463 MT (which constitutes 60% of total energy generated) was transferred to paper unit as thermal energy for its manufacturing process; and (b) 40% (including condensation loss) was used towards electrical energy. From the aforesaid description of the manufacturing process of the assessee it would be appreciated that steam is the primary requirement of the ATTESTED TO BE TRUEL COPY Document 2 Government of India/à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤ सरकार Income Tax Departmen/विधान आयà¥à¤•à¥à¤¤ सरà¥à¤•à¤¿à¤² कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ र Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-l, Amritsar कमरा न 156: आयकर à¤à¤µà¤¨ मकबूल रोड अमृतसर Room No-156, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Maqbool Road, Amritsar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Jindal steel has a captive power plant and uses the power in its own units which are set up for manufacturing of steel , the deduction u/s 801A of the 1.T. Act, 1961 has been claimed and allowed to the assessee. Thus, there is no dispute on use of power generated from the eligible unit for captive consumptions by other units set up by the assessee and as the facts of the case mentioned above which has been decided by the SC are similar to the instant case. Secondly, the objection that the assessee has not maintained separate books of accounts of each business is not correct since the same has been raised without considering the submissions made and documents furnished by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings. Section 801A mandates that separate books of accounts shall be maintained for the eligible business carried out by the assessee to arrive at the profit and gains earned from such business for deduction u/s 801A and such deduction is allowed from the total gross income of the assessee earned from all the businesses carried out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso not produced any TDS deduction statement and any contract agreement regarding the commission / brokerage on sale, foreign agent commission and warehousing expenses. Reply Reply 78 As regards the TDS statements alleged to be not produced before the AO, the .complete details of TDS deduction along with the TDS statements are already available with the department on the portal However, complete details of each deduction alongwith supporting bills and vouchers have not been produced during the assessment proceeding which remains unverified. In view of above submission, audit objection on this issue is accepted. As per the form 3CD, the assessee had made addition of building, furniture & fittings and Plant & Machinery and had claimed depreciation on these assets. No verification had also been made regarding the same and the claim of the depreciation allowable by the assessee was accepted by the AQ without verifying whether such assets were for paper manufacturing or electricity generation unit. The details of depreciation claimed and reflected in depreciation chart of ITR comprises of the de....