TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 188
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ering & Industries Ltd. CIT(A)-I, Noida's order dt. 27.01.2016 in case no. 149/2013-14/Noida 153/143(3) of the Act. 4. ITA 2357/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08) JCIT(OSD),CC, Noida -do- -do- 5. ITA 1964/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2008-09) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. CIT(A)-I, Noida's order dt. 27.01.2016 in case no. 148/2013-14/Noida 153A/143(3) of the Act 6. ITA 2359/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2008-09) JCIT(OSD),CC, Noida -do- -do- 7. ITA 1965/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2009-10) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. CIT(A)-I, Noida's order dt. 27.01.2016 in case no. 147/2013-14/Noida 153A/143(3) of the Act 8. ITA 2360/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2009-10) JCIT(OSD),CC, Noida -do- -do- 9. ITA 1966/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. CIT(A)-I, Noida's order dt. 27.01.2016 in case no. 146/2013-14/Noida 153A/143(3) of the Act 10. ITA 2361/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11) JCIT(OSD),CC, Noida -do- -do- 11. ITA 1967/Del/2016 (A.Y. 2011-12) Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. CIT(A)-I, Noida's order dt. 27.01.2016 in case no. 145/2013-14/Noida 143(3) of the Act. 12. ITA 2362/Del/2016 (A.Y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mutual fund under section 10(34) of the Act. 5.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating the aforesaid ground of appeal taken in the memorandum of appeal (refer Ground No.7 to 8 in Form No.35) 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer should be directed to allow deduction of Rs. 1,91,524, being expenses relatable to the relevant assessment year but debited in the Profit & Loss Account of the subsequent assessment year (s). 6.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating the aforesaid ground of appeal taken in the memorandum of appeal (refer Ground No. 10 in Form No.35) 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the legal claims made vide ground of appeal Nos. 5 and 6 should be directed to be allowed, in order to compute the correct taxable income of the appellant under the provisions of the Act." 3. The Revenue's cross appeal ITA 2358/Del/2016 herein canvasses the following substantive grounds: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs 1,04,70,00,000/- on account of capital subsidy credited ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no. 2679 of 2008 (pages 299 to 334), which stood allowed by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court of judicature at Allahabad on 12.02.2019. And that hon'ble supreme court's interim order(s) dated 1.7.2019 and 9.7.2021 (pages 372-377) in the Special Leave Petition(s) "SLPs" preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh & others, has stayed the operation thereof and the matter is yet to be taken up thereafter for final adjudication as informed to us by both the parties. 8. That being the case and despite the assessee having argued in favour of the "purpose" test (supra), we are of the considered view that since the issue herein is very much pending before their lordships for final adjudication, it would indeed be pre mature for us to apply "accrual" principle at this stage for lack of any reasonable certainty in recognition of revenue as per Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC). Their lordships have categorically held that a revenue receipt could be recognized as an income only in case there arise a reasonable certainty thereof. We reiterate that the Revenue's clear cut case is that the same has indeed been not actually received all along as the dispute is pending before ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xpenditure, hardly carries any merits as this is not even its case that the same has not been expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business u/s 37(1) of the Act. Its second substantive ground raised herein fails therefore. 12. We now advert to the assessee's instant grievance seeking to allow the impugned provision wherein case law Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC); Calcutta Company Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC); & CIT v. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 374 (Delhi) i.e. the assessee itself, in paras 6,7,8 & 11 has held that such a provision based on scientific computation formula could indeed be allowed. 13. Learned counsel further reiterates the assessee's stand that it has all along been recognizing the revenue from all projects subject to the corresponding expenditure provision which has to be incurred in future. 14. We find merit in the assessee's arguments as the learned CIT(A) has simply brushed aside it's impugned provision for after sales expenditure etc. by observing, "The ground taken by the appellant in its appeal memo settles the issue". Meaning thereby that the assessee's scientific computation herein has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sallowing it's section 80G deduction amounting to Rs. 41,72,500/- in question. Learned Assessing Officer held in para 9 of the assessment order that it had not filed any supportive evidence. Coming to the lower appellate discussion, we note that the learned CIT(A) has attributed the assessee's very failure in para 17 page 5 of his order. 19. That being the case, learned counsel invites our attention to the assessee's contribution/ donation receipts to the duly registered recipients (page 117-119 of the paper book). His case, therefore, is that the same is not in the nature of additional evidence which would require further opportunity to the department for verification thereof. We make it clear that assessee has further given its due certification which has not been disputed at the Revenue's behest in principle so far as its foregoing supportive evidence is concerned. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to accept the assessee's instant claim of section 80G deduction in principle and indeed leave to open for the learned Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation afresh after verification of the necessary relevant facts, as per law. The assessee's insta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t claim as well. 24. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival stands. We are of the considered view that the Revenue's stand seeking to reject the assessee's impugned expenditure claim both on accrual as well as that of crystallization (supra), could not be upheld going by the principle of consistency and in view of the fact that this is an instance of revenue's neutral expenditure only as per CIT vs. Modipon Ltd. (2012) 18 taxmann.com 331 (Del.). The fact also remains that we have already rejected the Revenue's stand based on Goetz India Ltd. in preceding paras. It further fails to rebut the fact that the very expenditure stands declined in the succeeding assessment year of crystallization as well. We accordingly direct the learned Assessing Officer to accept the assessee's impugned claim after verification of all the necessary facts as per law. Ordered accordingly. This assessee's "lead" appeal ITA 1962/Del/2016 is partly allowed in above terms. 25. A perusal of the case file indicates that the assessee and the Revenue have filed another set of appeals ITA 1963 and 2357/Del/2016 arising from the learned Assessing Officer's section 143(3) re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fetch a lower price than the fly ash generated from coal, the latter was sold by the assessee in A.Υ. 2011-12 at Rs. 60/- per tone. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,43,91,140/- on account of capital subsidy as the same was credited to the assessee and was to augment the revenues of the assessee company. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts and material on record. 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts which needs to be vacated and the order of the AO be restored. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any one or more of the ground of the appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise." 29. Both the learned representatives invite our attention to the learned CIT(A)'s detailed lower appellate discussion deciding the instant issue against the Department as under: "7. The next ground of addition as made by the Id. A.O. is of Rs. 3,08,000/- which was estimated by the Id. A.O. as amount received by the appellant over and above the amount disclosed by the appellant in its books of accounts. The Id. A.O. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anced rates involving addition of Rs. 2.98 lakhs, unexplained expenditure addition based on the alleged seized papers of Rs. 78,66,269/- and capital subsidy items accepted in the lower appellate proceedings of Rs. 6,68,22,777/- respectively. We make it clear that we have, inter alia, rejected the instant first substantive ground and restored the third one in the preceding assessment years (supra). The Revenue is indeed very fair in not pin pointing any specific distinction on facts or law; as the case may be. Ordered accordingly. 34. This leaves us with the Revenue's second substantive ground seeking to revive unexplained expenditure addition of Rs. 78,66,269/-, deleted in lower appellate discussion as under: "10. Loose sheets of paper found in a premises not under the control of the appellant per- se cannot be admissible as evidence against the appellant. The Id. A.O. must have some further material and evidence to link up the loose sheets as well as the entries recorded on the same to the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled this issue in several cases where such loose sheets in the absence of independent material linking up those loose sheets to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oks of accounts. 1.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in alleging that the appellant has not accounted for 10,000 quintals of bagasse, which we alleged to have been lying in the bagasse yard of the sugar mill, even though there was evidence to support such allegation. 2 Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to allow increased deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act to which the appellant was eligible as per the provisions of the Act." 38. The Revenue vehemently argues in support of the impugned addition made by the learned lower authorities on account of alleged excess stock of bagasse. It could hardly dispute the clinching facts, inter alia, emerging from the case file that the assessee herein has already been held entitled for claiming section 80IA deduction. And also that the relevant item i.e. baggage herein is indeed 'derived' from the eligible business activity of producing power and, therefore, the same is also in the nature of "business income" only, which would fall u/s 80IA deduction. We thus accept the assessee's second substanti....