TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g electricity. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.10.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,33,69,430/- under normal provisions and Book Profit of Rs. 5,55,29,820/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. 2.2 During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the accounting and disclosure of revenue from the Kutch windmill. The assessee had reported total revenue of Rs. 2,32,08,269/- from three windmills, which included Rs. 56,75,193/- from the Kutch unit. However, in the ITR, revenue from windmill operations was shown only at Rs. 1,75,33,076/-, thereby excluding the Kutch unit, though deduction under section 80IA was claimed on the profits of all the three units. To reconcile the difference, the AO issued notice under section 142(1). The assessee submitted that revenue as per ROI, when increased by Kutch windmill income and reduced by duty drawback, tallied with Form 3CD figures. It was explained that Kutch windmill revenue was adjusted against power charges in accounts due to the arrangement with MGVCL and, therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmill, the assessee produced the quarterly journal vouchers evidencing transfer of wind generation income to the Power Charges ledger along with corresponding credits in the Power Charges account and a further entry of Rs. 1,76,108/- to the Wind Generation (Guj.) income account. The learned CIT(A), after considering the ledgers and vouchers placed on record, held that there was no understatement of income and that the assessee had reduced the Power Charges expense by the exact corresponding amount, thereby neutralising the impact on taxable income. The addition of Rs. 56,75,193/- was accordingly deleted. 2.7 Secondly, on the mismatch of Rs. 2,74,402/- in the section 80IA working, the learned CIT(A) noted that despite grant of multiple opportunities the assessee did not furnish a complete reconciliation resolving the specific differences identified by the AO. The learned CIT(A) therefore confirmed the reduction of deduction under section 80IA to the extent of Rs. 2,74,402/-. 2.8 Thirdly, as regards the rate to be applied for captive consumption for the Kutch unit, the learned CIT(A) accepted the assessee's plea that the "market value" contemplated by section 80IA(8) should be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. Your appellant prays for leave to add, alter, and / or amend / withdraw any and / or all the grounds of appeal adduced above. 3. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee, with reference to the disallowance of Rs. 2,74,402/- under section 80IA of the Act, submitted that the difference pointed out by the Assessing Officer in the tabulation at page 10 of the assessment order had arisen on account of minor clerical variations. It was explained that in respect of Unit I (Kutch) and Unit III (Maharashtra - K- 495), the difference was solely due to rounding off at the third digit of the per unit rate adopted, while in the case of Unit II (Maharashtra - K-436), the discrepancy had occurred because of a mistake in the figure of actual units of power generated as furnished in the submission before the Assessing Officer. The learned AR drew our attention to the written submissions placed before the learned CIT(A), specifically paragraph 4.5 appearing at page 16 of the paper book, wherein these aspects were duly explained. It was urged that despite such clarification being on record, the learned CIT(A) has failed to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verification with the underlying computation sheets and unit records, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall examine afresh the reconciliation furnished by the assessee, verify the correctness of the units generated and the rates applied, and thereafter decide the claim of deduction under section 80IA in accordance with law. 4.1 Turning to the issue of addition of Rs. 27,35,544/- on account of Central Excise refund, we find that the Assessing Officer proceeded on the footing that the liability for payment of excise duty was borne by the assessee during FY 2015-16 and therefore the refund received in the subsequent year partook the character of income chargeable to tax in AY 2017-18. The assessee, on the other hand, has consistently contended that the duty liability was discharged by utilisation of CENVAT credit balance, no debit was made to the Profit and Loss account, and the refund received was merely an adjustment of the receivable earlier created in the balance sheet, hence revenue-neutral without any impact on the taxable income. The assessee has further relied on the principle that a mere reimbursement....