2026 (1) TMI 447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1. 2. There is a delay of two days in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. The Ld.DR submitted that, the delay was unintentional and on bonafide grounds. The Ld.AR though, did not support the argument of the Ld.DR, could not controvert the fact that the delay is absolutely unintentional. After hearing both sides, we are convinced that the revenue was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeals on time. Hence, the delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay stands allowed. 3. As the facts are identical in the instant appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 4935/Mum/2025 for AY 2017-18 as the lead year. For sake of convenienc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds he set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The Appellant craves leave to amend, or alter any grounds or add new grounds, which may be necessary." 4. At the outset, it is submitted that the only issue contested by the revenue in instant appeals pertains to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. It is submitted that, during the assessment proceedings, the Ld. TPO made adjustment in respect of inter-unit transfer of power by assessee which was used capitvely to meet its energy requirements. 4.1. The Ld. AR submitted that, the transaction was benchmarked by the assessee selecting CUP method as the most appropriate method and the rat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or assessment year 2016-17 passed by his predecessor and allowed the claim of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal for all the assessment years under consideration. 6. At the outset, both the parties submitted that on identical issue a Third Member in case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT in ITA No. 563/Mum/2018; AY 2013-14, order dated 18/09/2025, has been rendered. 6.1. The Ld. DR placed reliance on his submissions made before the Third Member. At the cost of repetition, the same is not reiterated herewith. He also filed written submission dated 20/11/2025 which is placed on record. 6.2. The Ld.AR on the contrary relied on the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... aforesaid decision cited by learned DR, there are decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case. of PCIT Vs DCM Shriram Ltd.(supra) and that of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of PCIT Vs Rungta Mines Ltd. as well as plethora of other decisions of ITAT favourable to assessee, which are directly on. the issue and have been rendered after considering all the relevant provisions of the Act, including, sections 80A(6), 80IA(8) with amended explanation, 92F(ii), Rule 10B etc., Therefore, these decisions carrying precedent value cannot be lightly brushed aside by branding them as per incuriam or having been rendered sub silentio of certain relevant provisions, merely because they are against the revenue. 46. Thus, upon considerin....