TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13 [hereinafter referred as "CIT (A)"] on the following amongst other grounds each of which is without prejudice to any other. 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in not allowing deduction for the amounts paid or written back during the previous year amounting to Rs. 14,43,27,418/-, which had already been disallowed in the past under clauses (b) to (f) of section 43B, consistent with the Department's stand. 2. On the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of AO in making addition of Rs. 99,02,963/- towards interest paid to Income Tax Department during the previous year and failed to follow the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the Appellant's own case for AY 1976-77 wherein it is held that only net interest is either assessable to tax or liable to disallowance. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in not allowing depreciation allowance of Rs. 4,12,560/- in respect of certain properties. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order in the assessee's own case for Α.Υ.1996-97 to 2008-09 which have not been accepted by the department and further appeal has been filed before the ITAT". 3) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,85,52,461/-towards rural development expenses relying upon the CIT(A)' order in the assessee's own case for Α.Υ.1996-97 to A.Y.2008-09 which have been contested by the department in further before the ITAT". 4) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to treat the production cost of advertisement films of Rs. 66,76,397/- as a revenue expenditure by relying upon his earlier orders for Α.Υ.2001-02 to A.Y.2008-09 without appreciating that the department has not accepted the orders by filing appeal to ITAT". 5) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the subsidy amount of Rs. 26,35,44,589/- as non-taxable capital receipt, without appreciating the fact that the main objective of the scheme was to increase sales by giving sales tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... System at Raipur of Rs. 15,57,09,929/- and Rs. 13,05,18,489/- at Hotgi, without appreciating the fact that the Rail System was not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 80-IA(4) (i) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and that the assessee had not set up an enterprise to carry on the business of developing, operating and maintaining an infrastructure facility within the meaning of that section". 12) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the TUF Subsidy of Rs. 17.42 Cr as Capital in nature even though this being interest subsidy as per the objects of TUF Subsidy Scheme, which is Revenue in nature". 13) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the LTCG on transfer of the unit taking its net worth as on the date of the transfer, i.e. 22nd May, 2009 without appreciating the fact that to reduce the capital gains the assessee has increased the net worth of the unit by about Rs. 389.16 crs. after the sale consideration has been fixed, therefore, net worth of the unit should be taken as on date of the framework ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., wherein it was held that any sum covered under section 43B of the Act were to be disallowed, if the liability to pay accrued in the previous year even though it may not be payable in that year under the relevant law. Even before the insertion of Explanation-2 to section 43B of the Act, the stand of the revenue has always been very clear to allow sums only on payment basis. Consistent with the stand of the department in earlier years, an amount of Rs. 11,93,07,615/- is disallowed under section 43B of the Act. 3. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) held that in the assessee's own case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has examined this issue in the assessment year 1990-91 and held that Explanation-2 to section 43B of the Act does not govern the payment of the sums referred to in clauses (b), (c), or (d) of section 43B of the Act. Following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 1990- 91 to 2001-02, the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Ld. AO to delete the additions made under clauses (b) to (f) of section 43B of the Act. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held that from assessment year 1988-89 onwards, identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee not only by the Hon'ble Tribunal but even by the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. AR further submits that similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal in assessment years 1996-97 to 2003-04 & 2005-06, and no appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court by the Revenue on this particular ground, even though other grounds have been agitated by the revenue. Therefore, it demonstrates that the revenue has accepted the findings of this Hon'ble Tribunal with respect to this issue. Once it has been accepted in earlier assessment years, revenue cannot be permitted to take a contrary stand in the year under consideration. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record. The assessee has submitted that the issue under consideration has consistently been decided in its favour by the coordinate benches of the ITAT, Mumbai. In particular, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding assessment year 2009-10, in I.T.A. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the revenue on this particular ground, even though other grounds have been agitated by the revenue. The issue is further covered by the order of coordinate bench of ITATMumbai in assessee's own case assessment year 2009-10, in I.T.A. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May, 2025. Therefore, it demonstrates that the revenue has accepted the findings of this Hon'ble Tribunal with respect to this issue. Once it has been accepted in earlier assessment years, revenue cannot be permitted to take a contrary stand in the year under consideration. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record. The assessee has submitted that the issue under consideration has consistently been decided in its favour by the coordinate benches of the ITAT, Mumbai. In particular, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding assessment year 2009-10, in I.T.A. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May, 2025, wherein the Bench followed the ruling rendered in the assessee's own case for assessment years 1998-99 to 2003-04 & 2005-06, and no appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court by the revenue on this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the issue under consideration has consistently been decided in its favour by the coordinate benches of the ITAT, Mumbai. In particular, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding assessment year 2009-10, in I.T.A. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May, 2025, wherein the Bench followed the ruling rendered in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 & 2005-06, and no appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court by the revenue on this particular ground. Respectfully following the principle of judicial consistency and discipline, we hold that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Thus, Ground No. 4 of the revenue's appeal stands dismissed. In relation to Ground No.5 - Sales tax subsidy treated as a capital receipt: (Revenue) 17. During the year under consideration, the assessee obtained a sales tax incentive under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries (1990-95) ("the Scheme") provided by the Government of Gujarat introduced with the objective of Rapid Industrialisation and to encourage a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the subsidy was indeed capital in nature. Agreeing with the decision of assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 and respectfully following the same, subsidy granted for setting up of an undertaking is held to be a capital in nature. The assessee submits that a consistent view has been taken in the assessee's own case for right up till assessment year 2008-09 by the coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in ITA No. 5982 & 6758/Mum/2011 date of pronouncement 21/05/2025 wherein this Bench has held that sales tax subsidy to be in the nature of a capital receipt and not liable to tax. The Ld. AR further submits that the allegation of the Ld. AO that the subsidy was granted for setting up a new unit, and the assessee's unit has been set up long back, therefore, subsidy cannot be treated as a capital receipt is a complete non-starter. 20. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents placed on record. The eligibility of the assessee for exemption under the Scheme was extended by the Govt. Of Gujarat till 14/01/2012. Therefore, the allegation of the Ld. AO has no legs to stand. It is the prerogative of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssists the unit in extracting information from SAP for the purpose of reporting to management. The expenses incurred are merely for the up gradation of an existing SAP and to facilitate the smooth and efficient running of the business. 22. Ld. DR argued that the assessee has capitalised such expenditure in the books of accounts. Therefore, the submission of the assessee cannot be accepted. The assessee should have charged such expenses as revenue expenses in books of accounts, and it cannot have two separate stands in the books of accounts and in the tax return. 23. Ld. AR argued and relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He stated that the case of the assessee is that it has smoothly replaced the existing software and has not acquired any new assets. The Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Amway India Enterprise v. DCIT (111 ITD 112), held that the assessee is in the business of manufacture and software is not a source of income as revenue generating asset. It is a tool to manage the activities of the business. Further, the assessee has not set up software system for the first time but has made modification i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial statement of the assessee, proportionately over the vesting period. The assessee, during the year, charged to its profit and loss, ESOP cost of Rs. 2,02,76,260/- as employee compensation expense in accordance with the SEBI Guidelines. The assessee made the claim through notes to computation forming part of return of income. 26. The Ld. DR argued that the claim of the assessee cannot be allowed in view of the direct decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. v. Additional CIT (124 TTJ 771), wherein it was held that benefit or income foregone cannot be considered as an expenditure. Further, the assessee had not incurred any expenditure and had merely received a lesser amount of share premium. The said cannot be characterised as expenditure within the meaning of section 37 of the Act. 27. The Ld. DR has contended that the foregone share premium or discount to the value of the share can only be treated as a contingent liability and thus does not qualify for a deduction. It has further been contended that revenue has not accepted the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. PVP Venture Ltd. (23 taxmann.com 286) and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee submits that it is open to the Ld. CIT(A) to admit and adjudicate an additional claim made before the Ld. CIT(A) in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (349 ITR 336). Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) has rendered contradictory findings, is incorrect. Further, it is submitted that once the Ld. AO himself has adjudicated a claim on the merits of deduction, the question of entertaining a fresh claim by the Ld. CIT(A) does not arise. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. DR is contrary to the material on record and ought to be rejected. The Ld. AR stated that the contention of the Ld. DR that SLP against the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Madras High Court is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the issue is not settled, and the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have allowed the claim of the assessee on such grounds is contrary to all canons of judicial discipline. The assessee submits that merely because a judgment has not been accepted by the revenue, the binding value of the precedent is not diluted in any manner. In this relation, rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntry and relief shall be granted in accordance with method of elimination or avoidance of double taxation. The ITAT held that a similar issue has been decided against the assessee in AY 2004-05 and 2005-06, and the appeal on this issue is pending for adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court. 31. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, and maintaining consistency with the view already taken by the co-ordinate benches, we hold that the issue is to be decided against the assessee. Accordingly, the ground is decided in favour of the revenue. Thus, Ground No. 8 of the revenue's appeal stands allowed. In relation to Ground No.9 - Disallowance of expenses incurred on transfer of Vikram Ispat Unit under section 48(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,21,79,879/-. Expenditure incurred of on transfer of Vikram Ispat Unit as business expenditure: (Revenue) 32. The assessee, during the year under consideration, incurred an expenditure of Rs. 6,21,79,879/- in connection with transfer of Sponge Iron Unit identified as Vikram Ispat Unit (hereinafter ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, we decide the issue against the revenue. Thus, Ground No. 9 of the revenue's appeal stands dismissed. In relation to Ground No.10 -Allocation of Head Office expenses to units claimed under section 80-IA of the Act: (revenue) 36. The Head Office (HO) controls units and manages the affairs of all units. Therefore, proportionate expenses of HO should be deducted from the eligible profit of respective units. Accordingly, proportionate HO expenses are worked out in the ratio of turnover of total expenses of HO amounting to Rs. 2,01,87,550/-. The issue is decided in the assessee's own case for AY 1994-95, the ITAT has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that there is no need for separate allocation of any expenses to the units claiming deduction under sections 80-HH, 80-I, 80-M and 80-O of the Act. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal, the Ld. AO is directed to not to allocate HO expenses to units eligible for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. The Ld. AR stated that consistently, the aforesaid issue has been decided in favour of the assessee right up till the AY 2009- 10 AY 2009-10, ITA. No. 2224/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he textile sector by enabling capital access at concessional rates, thereby making the subsidy a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. 41. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the Remand Report dated 02.03.2015 from the Ld. AO, where he stated that since the subsidy reimbursed interest cost (a revenue expenditure), it was a revenue receipt. The CIT(A), however, admitted the additional ground, held that the purpose of subsidy was capital in nature, and relied on Gloster Jute Ltd. (supra) to direct the AO to treat the TUF subsidy as capital receipt. 42. The Ld. DR in argument stated that the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly permitted an additional ground. Assessee's omission in return was deliberate, since it had consistently offered subsidy as income in earlier years. Reliance on Gloster Jute Ltd. (ITAT-Kolkata) was not binding on CIT(A). 43. The Ld. AR argued that coordinate bench of ITAT-Mumbai in assessee's own case for AY 2005-06 to 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 ITA. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May 2025 held that TUF subsidy is capital receipt. The additional ground was rightly admitted since the claim was based on subsequent judicial pronouncement. Reliance placed on Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Ground No.13: Networth to be computed as on the date of Framework Agreement or Date of Transfer. 45. For the purpose of completeness, this ground is dealt with in the assessee's appeal underneath while discussing ground no. 6. I.T.A.NO. 2897/MUM/2016 (ASSESSEE'S APPEAL): In relation to Ground No.1 - Direction to allow deduction under section 43B of the Act in relation to clauses (b) to (e) of the Act on a payment basis of the amounts disallowed in earlier years: 46. The assessee submits that this ground is an alternate ground in nature. In the ground no-1 of revenue's appeal related deduction U/s 43B is favour of the assessee. Hence, this ground of the assessee is infructuous. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. In relation to Ground No.2 - Disallowance of interest paid to the Income Tax Department amounting to Rs. 95,02,963/-: 47. During the year, the assessee has received interest of Rs. 29,31,73,252/- and has paid interest of Rs. 95,02,963/- to the Income Tax Department. In the return of income, the interest paid to the Income Tax Department of Rs. 95,02,963/- was disallowed and offered to tax. Through the notes to computation,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Ld. AR stated that the assessee is claiming set off of the interest paid to the department with the interest received from the department, which is nothing but a transaction with the same party and, therefore, a net effect has to be given of the transactions. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has permitted this in the aforesaid decision. Further, reliance placed by the Ld. DR on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. (supra) does not assist the revenue in any manner. As stated above, the assessee is claiming that only net interest received during the year can be taxed, as there can be only one account with one party and only net interest paid/received should be disallowed/offered to tax. The assessee has not claimed that interest paid on income tax will be allowable expenditure, and, therefore, the decision of the apex Court will not be applicable. The issue is squarely covered by the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10 ITA. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May 2025. Accordingly, following the consistent view taken in assessee's own case and relying on the decision of Bank of America (supra). The ground of the assessee is suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reciation under section 32 of the Act. 53. The Ld. AR has submitted that the issue under consideration has consistently been decided in its favour by the coordinate benches of the ITAT, Mumbai. In particular, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the immediately preceding AY 2009-10, in I.T.A. No. 2224/Mum/2016 dated 23rd May, 2025, wherein the Bench followed the ruling rendered in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08. The Ld. DR unable rebut the issue by submitting any contrary judgment. The fact is identical with the alleged issue in impugned assessment year. Respectfully following the principle of judicial consistency and discipline, we hold that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Thus, Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal stands allowed. In relation to Ground No.4 - Disallowance of administrative expenses incurred on retirement benefit funds of the employees of the Assessee: 54. The assessee, during the year, incurred an expenditure of Rs. 6,49,506/- as administrative expenses of the employees' retirement benefit funds an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all transfer the Unit in its entirety as a going concern to M/s. Vikram Sponge Iron Ltd. ("VSIL") for a consideration of Rs. 1030 Crores to be paid by VSIL to the assessee. The consideration was to be funded by Welspun through the subscription of shares of VSIL. It was specifically agreed between the parties in Recital 3.4 of the Framework Agreement, Page 511 of FPB - I that the Scheme of Arrangement shall, upon becoming effective, be binding on the parties. The parties also agreed that upon effectiveness of the Scheme of Arrangement and with effect from the effective date, the Unit shall pursuant to section 394(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and without any further act or deed be transferred to and vested in or be deemed to have been transferred to and vested in VSIL as a going concern so as to become as and from the effective date the undertaking of VISL. Accordingly, the assessee incorporated and promoted VSIL on June 27, 2008 and thereafter, the Scheme of Arrangement under section 391 of the Act was filed by the assessee before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court Page 607 -642 of FPB-I. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, vide order dated April 29, 2009, approved the Sch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, vide Finance Act, 1999, with effect from April 1, 2000, the law that prevailed was that a transaction of sale of an undertaking on a going concern basis would not be chargeable under section 45 of the Act as the computation mechanism under section 48 of the Act fails on account of the fact that cost of acquisition of the capital asset being transferred i.e. the undertaking cannot be determined. This position underwent a change pursuant to the insertion of section 50B of the Act. Section 50B of the Act, as it stood for the relevant assessment year under, is reproduced hereunder: (1) Any profits or gains arising from the slump sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income-tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Provided that any profits or gains arising from the transfer under the slump sale of any capital asset being one or more undertakings owned and held by an assessee for not more than thirty-six months immediately preceding the date of its transfer shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or agreement to transfer by one party to another, and (ii) it shall be for consideration of money payment or promise thereof by a buyer. Unless these elements are present, there can be no sale. The crucial feature that a contract between parties is absent once a transfer takes place through a Court-approved Scheme, as the transfer is taking place on account the imprimatur of the Court and not on account of agreement between parties. The assessee in support of the proposition that transfer of Unit through Scheme of Arrangement approved by Court cannot be equated with sales, as the essential feature of contract between the parties is absent, places reliance upon the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sadanand S. Varde v. State of Maharashtra (247 ITR 609).The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held in para 95 and 96 that a scheme of amalgamation has a statutory operation once it is sanctioned by a competent court and is distinct and different from a mere agreement signed by the necessary parties, even though scheme is approved by all concerned parties by consensus. Merely because it is so agreed upon, the Court is not obliged to put its imprimatur ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve any applicability as it cannot be characterised as a sale. 59. The Ld. AR further argued that the aforesaid contention is also fortified by the fact that the Legislature itself recognised the aforesaid distinction and amended the provision of section 2(42C) of the Act from Finance Act, 2021 to define slump sale to mean "transfer" of one or more undertakings "by any means" and not just as a "result of sale". Further Explanation 3 to section 2(42C) of the Act was introduced to define the term transfer to have the same meaning as assigned under clause 47 of section 2 of the Act. Thereby taking within its purview all transfers and not just transfers as a result of sale. The incongruity in the section was also ironed out by substituting the word "sale" at the end of 2(42C) of the Act with "transfer" with retrospective effect from April 1, 2021 by Finance Act, 2022. The aforesaid interpretation is equally evident from the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2021, wherein the intention behind the amendment has been explained. The rationale of introducing the amendment has been stated, inter alia, as follows "Section 50B of the Act contains special provision for computation of capital ga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT (42t0 ITR 339). It is further submitted that the argument of the Ld. DR that the sanction from the Court is merely a procedural requirement is not correct as the Court is not bound to approve the scheme or even if it approves the scheme, the approval can be with modification to the scheme. Therefore, the argument of the Ld. DR is not sustainable. Hence, the contention that the transfer was a slump sale, on account of the Framework Agreement, cannot be accepted. 62. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the Framework Agreement, the Scheme of Arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the judicial precedents cited before us. It is undisputed that the assessee transferred its Sponge Iron Unit as a going concern to M/s. Vikram Sponge Iron Ltd. pursuant to a Scheme of Arrangement under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court. The core issue for determination is whether such transfer falls within the ambit of "slump sale" as defined in section 2(42C) of the Act, and consequently whether section 50B applies. For the relevant assessment year, the definition of slump sale was confined to a trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee's appeal & ground-13 of revenue's appeal are dismissed as infructuous. Thus, Ground -5 of assessee's appeal & Ground-13 of revenue's appeal are dismissed. In relation to Ground No.7 - Deduction under section 80-IA of the Act in respect of water treatment facility at Kharach: 64. The assessee, during the year under consideration, set up a Water Treatment Plant ("WTM") at its facility at Kharach, Gujarat. Through the notes of computation of income forming part of return of income, the assessee claimed a deduction with respect to the profits of the WTM and a deduction under section 80-IA of the Act by submitting that it fulfils all the conditions prescribed under section 80-IA of the Act. The assessee also obtained Form No.10CCB certified by an Independent Chartered Accountant, in support of the deduction which was issued prior to filing of the return of income. The Ld. AO rejected the claim of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,26,15,757/- under section 80-IA of the Act with respect to water treatment system at Kharach by simply stating that claim was by way of a note to the return of income and has not claimed the deduction in the computation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was a case with relation to the applicability of Fringe Benefit Tax which was claimed not payable by the assessee through notes to the return of income. It is also contained by the Ld. DR that Provisions dealing with the deductions have to be strictly construed in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar (9 SCC 1) 2018. It is also contended by the Ld. DR that merely because claim has been allowed by the assessing officer in assessment year 2015-16, deduction has to be permitted in assessment year 2010-11 cannot be accepted, as principles of res judicata do not apply to income tax law. 67. The Ld. AR argued that the distinction sought to be made by the Ld. DR has no basis. The principle that was laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Assessee's own case is that the once the claim has been made in the notes to the return of income, it cannot be treated as a new claim. It was not restricted only to Fringe Benefit Tax. Therefore, the assessee submits that the ratio of the decision is applicable with all force to the present case as well. Further, the contention of the Ld. DR that principles of res judicata....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2016. Once the claim is duly disclosed in the notes and supported by statutory audit report in Form 10CCB, it cannot be treated as a fresh or belated claim. It is further an undisputed fact that in subsequent assessment years, the Ld. AO and the TPO have accepted the deduction under section 80-IA for the same undertaking after detailed examination. Thus, the eligibility of the unit for deduction is not under doubt. The reliance of the revenue on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar (9 SCC 1) is misplaced. The present issue is not one of strict versus liberal construction of a deduction provision; rather, the issue is whether a claim duly made in the return through computation notes and supported by audit report is a valid claim in law. Once the revenue has itself accepted the claim in subsequent years, the principle of consistency, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) and followed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Cummins India Ltd. (supra) and Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd. squarely applies. Respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in assessee's own case (supra), and in view of the ....