TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate undertakings, viz., Land Fill and Incinerators. They are considered as "infrastructure facilities' eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Each of the Land fill and Incinerator is considered as separate undertaking for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. 3. During the year relevant to assessment year 2017-18, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of undertaking titled as "Land fill-II", "Incinerator-II" and "Landfill-Dahej". In the year relevant to AY 2018-19, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for the undertaking titled as "Incinerator-II" and "Landfill-Dahej". The assessing officer noticed that the assessee has entered into agreement with GIDC only in the financial year 2012-13 for the project commenced earlier in respect of "landfill-II" undertaking. Accordingly, he disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for Land fill -II and Incinerator -II in AY 2017-18. Similarly he disallowed the deduction for the undertaking titled as Incinerator-II in AY 2018-19. The AO, however, allowed deduction for the undertaking titled as "Landfill-Dahej" in both the years. 4. The assessee had also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....locations by GIDC. The assessee has separate sites for landfills. For Landfill-I, the assessee was allotted plot nos. 9701 to 9716 ad measuring 590404 sq. mts. The assessee commenced its activity on the said land in April, 1998. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of said site for the first time in AY 2002-03. The assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of said undertaking. For Landfill-II, the assessee was separately allotted land ad measuring 136402 sq. mts. The assessee commenced its activity on the said site in March, 2007 and the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of activities commenced on said site for the first time in AY 2008-09. Both the landfills were held to be separate undertakings by the Tribunal in AY 2008-09 eligible for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act independent to each other. The relevant extract of the Tribunal order in AY 2008-09 in ITA No. 1849/Ahd./2014 (supra) is as under: "25. In view of the above factual and legal discussions, we are of the view that once, the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions as laid down in section 80IA(4) of the Act and was allowed deduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 80-IA of the Act from AY 2008-09 since the said unit is a separate infrastructure facility. These facts are not controverted by ld. SR DR for the revenue. Moreover, the Land Fill Project-II is set up on the separate land allotted by GIDC in Bharuch District, which was allotted to the assessee and separate agreement was entered with GIDC on 16th October 2012 with effect from 12.03.2007. We find that in appeal for AY 2007-08, the Ld. CIT (A) held that both the unit of the assessee i.e. Land fill Project No. I & Land Fill Project-II are different and independent unit by way of process, method, machine and infrastructure. The finding of Ld. CIT (A) was upheld by Tribunal in ITA No. 2290/Ahd/2010 dated 27.02.2017. Hence, in view of the aforesaid factual discussions the ground No. 2 of the appeal is allowed." The Co-ordinate Bench held Landfill-I and Landfill-II as separate and independent undertakings. The Co-ordinate Bench further clarified in para 25 of the said order that Landfill-II is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act from AY 2008-09 being a separate infrastructure facility. It is relevant to note here that the Tribunal orders in AY 2007-08....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we uphold the decision rendered by Ld CIT (A) on these issues in both the years under consideration. Assessment Year 2018-19 7. The next issue urged by the revenue in both the years relates to disallowance of Provision for pit closure expenses. As noticed earlier, the AO restricted the claim of the assessee to the amount of actual expenses holding that the Provision for Post Closure expenses is a contingent liability. The ld. CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Tribunal. We notice that the co-ordinate bench has considered an identical issue in AY 2012-13 in the assessee's own case and has decided this issue in favour of the assessee with the following observations:- "9. In ground no. 5 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of provision for post closure care expenditure under normal provision and u/s 115JB of the Act. We find that disallowance in respect of identical provisions was made in AY 2007- 08 and AY 2008-09. In AY 2007-08, the Tribunal in appeal of the assessee ITA No. 2290/Ahd./2010 (supra) deleted the disallowance placing reliance on earlier order of Tribunal in assessee's own case. In assessment yea....