TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ok profit u/s. 115JB of the Act of Rs. 40,62,81,000/-. The return was taken for limited scrutiny and assessment made disallowing u/s. 80IA of Rs. 4,82,07,712/- and disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Rs. 60,46,187/-. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the addition following decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case relating to the earlier Asst. Year 2016-17 in ITA No. 292/Ahd/2020 vide order dated 15-07-2022. 3.1. Regarding the second addition namely disallowance u/s. 14A, the Ld. CIT(A) directed to make the disallowance to the extent of dividend income of Rs. 670/- received by the assessee and the balance disallowance of Rs. 60,46,042/- were directed to be deleted. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,82,07,712/- made under section 80IA of the I.T. Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or on facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er years' order namely Asst. Years 2010-11 to 2012-13 by observing as follows: 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel at the outset brought to our notice that identical issue on similar facts in the case of assessee itself was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 900/Ahd/2016 and ITA No. 1547/Ahd/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 to 2012-13. The ld. departmental representative could not controvert the same and nothing has brought to our notice suggesting that the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is not applicable. With the assistance of Ld. representatives, we have gone through the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT. Relevant part of the decision is reproduced as under:- "25. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record carefully. It was undisputed fact that that entire plant was new one and machinery were purchased by Shanti Processor Ltd which was amalgamating company and since the same were not used prior to 01/04/2005 and in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2009-10 & A.Y.2010-11 the assessing officer had allowed the deduction on identical issue and similar facts. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny or companies (other than shares held there is immediately before the amalgamation or by a nominee for the amalgamated company or its subsidiary) become shareholders of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amalgamation, otherwise than as a result of the acquisition of the property one company by another company pursuant to the purchase of such property by the other company as a result of distribution of such property to the other company after the winding up of first mentioned company. B. Tax concessions to the amalgamated company: The amalgamated company shall be eligible for tax concessions only if the following two conditions are satisfied: I. The amalgamation satisfies all the three conditions laid down in section2(lB) and II The amalgamated company is an Indian company. If the above conditions are satisfied the amalgamated company shall be eligible for following tax concessions: (a) Expenditure on Scientific Research Section 35(5): (b) Expenditure on acquisition of patent rights or copy rights Section 35A(6): (c) Expenditure of know-how Section 35AB(3): (d) Treatment of preliminary expenses Section 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailable to amalgamating company are also applicable to small company le assessee company as per law. The Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12 also granted the said relief. Therefore, ground no.1 of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 9. Following the above decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Ground No. 2 namely restricting the disallowance to Rs. 670/- u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D made of Rs. 60,46,042/-. The A.O. noted that the assessee has claimed various types of expenditure, but has not apportioned any amount to income that was not includable in the total income of the assessee. Therefore the A.O. invoked provisions of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) and disallowed 1% of average monthly investment and arrived the disallowance at Rs. 60,46,712/-. 10.1. In the appeal proceedings, the assessee claimed that it has received exempt income in the form of dividend Rs. 670/- only. The assessee also stated that the investments made were out of its own funds and therefore the disallowance made by the A.O. was not tenable as no borrowed funds w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer to reduce the assessed income of the assessee by Rs. 1,21,00,216/- as such receipt is capital receipt in form of power subsidy received under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) which was inadvertently offered in Income while filing Return of Income by assessee instead of reducing from plant and machinery. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to amend or to raise any further grounds of appeal as case may arise. 14. Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the assessee received interest subsidy of Rs. 9,25,83,096/- and power subsidy of Rs. 1,21,00,216/- under TUFS that is (Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme) being capital receipt not chargeable to tax. However inadvertently the assessee offered the same as income in the Return of Income. Similar issue was considered in assessee's own case in ITA No. 708/Ahd/2023 for the Asst. Year 2014-15 thereby Co-ordinate Bench set aside this issue for fresh adjudication and allowed the appeal. Similar directions be issued for the present assessment year. 15. Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not dispute the above submission of the assessee counsel. 16. We have perused the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legal issue also cropped up in the course of hearing as to whether additional ground could be raised in a cross objection filed by the assessee under s.253(4) of the Act. On being enquired on this aspect of the matter, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that there is no perceptible distinction between the position of law qua cross objection in the matter of filing additional ground. It was submitted that a cross objection has all the trappings of a regular appeal more so in the light of language employed under s.253(4) of the Act. 21.5 We find ourselves in agreement with the propositions made on behalf of the assessee that in a cross objection, there is no bar to raise legal issues for the first time before ITAT. A cross objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and it is required to be disposed in same manner as an appeal. Even where the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, cross objection may nevertheless be heard and determined. Cross objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross appeal at that. This apart, raising of additional ground would only enable the authority concern to correctly ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in plant and machinery for spinning units and other machineries in textile industry was availed by textile sector. 11.3 In this background, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee herein as obtained subsidy by way of reimbursement of interest under the scheme. The assessee has treated the aforesaid interest reimbursement subsidy mistakenly as revenue receipt in the P&L account and disclosed the same by way of net off from interest expenses. The taxable income was thus stated to be overstated to this extent. It was contended that the character of such subsidy in the hands of recipient assessee is capital in nature having regard to the purpose for which the subsidy was given i.e. acceleration of development of textile industry. 11.4 Reference was made to the notes forming part of the financial account detailing the interest subsidy aggregating to Rs.2,16,45,161/- as reduced from the interest costs. Our attention was also adverted to Notes to the Financial Statement wherein suitable disclosure was made towards claim of interest subsidy. 11.5 In the circumstances, it is the case of the assessee that where such subsidy is intended and best....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The Revenue authorities had no occasion to look into the relevant facts. We accordingly consider it expedient to restore the issue to the file of the AO for verification of relevant factual aspects towards quantum of receipt of interest subsidy and relevant documentation in this regard, if so considered necessary in the opinion of the AO. The AO shall accordingly grant relief to the assessee in accordance with law in the light of our observations and shall exclude the subsidy from the ambit of taxation on being satisfied about the factual correctness on quantum of such subsidy. 15. In the result, the additional ground raised by the assessee in its cross objection is allowed for statistical purposes. 14.1 As the issue raised before us is identical to issue discussed above, therefore respectfully following the order of the coordinate bench discussed above, we admit the additional ground of appeal of the assessee and set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law and in the light of the order of the tribunal in the case of M/s Jindal worldwide limited discu....