TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucts, power generation business through windmills and solar plants. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was conducted in the Malpani Group of cases of Sangamner on 17.02.2021 by the Investigation Wing, Pune. The case of the assessee was also covered during the search. The assessee filed its original return of income on 23.11.2015 declaring total loss of Rs. 77,57,79,930/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 09.11.2016. In response to the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act dated 25.10.2021, the assessee submitted its return of income on 17.11.2021 declaring the loss of Rs. 77,57,79,930/-. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 3. The Assessing Officer noted that a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of M/s. JM Financial Asset Management Limited ("JM Financial") situated at 7th & 8th Floor, Appa Saheb Marathe Marg, Cynergy, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, during which it was found that JM Balanced Fund - Dividend Option Regular scheme by J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsaction. It is to be noted that Dividend received against the same is exempted u/s 10(35) of the Income tax. The Said fund is require to pay dividend distribution tax u/s 115R of the IT Act 1961 In order to establish the authenticity and genuineness of the said transaction it is respectfully submitted as under: 1. That the assessee has applied for the allotment of units to JM Balanced Funds Dividend option Mutual fund by making an application and making the payment towards purchase of units via Cheque amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000/- on 16/10/2014 and Rs. 5,00,00,000/- on 17/10/2014 2. The copy of the bank statement is filed and placed on record as per attachment. The Mutual fund allotted 39,74,776 units to the assessee in physical form. 3. The assessee sold these units on 29-01-2015, 4. All the payments towards sale consideration are received through account payee cheques and duly reflected in the bank account of the assessee and copies of corresponding bank statements are being filed and placed on record. 1. STT was duly charged by the fund which is reflected in the statement received and copies of the same a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saction from the assessee is genuine no addition or disallowance can be made on this account." 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee. According to him, the conduct of the assessee proves without doubt that it was well aware of the nuances of the scheme and knowingly and purposefully indulged in the sham scheme just to avail fictitious loss and exemptible dividend. The Assessing Officer referred to the SEBI Circular No. SEBI/IMD/CIR No. 18/198647/2010 dated 15th March, 2010, according to which Unit Premium Reserve shall be treated at par with Unit Capital and cannot be utilized to declare dividends and the mutual fund houses cannot distribute dividends from Unit Premium Reserve. It can distribute only from the surplus generated by realizing the gains on investments or dividends received from equity markets which it had invested. That means, it has to invest and make a profit to distribute. However, the said direction of the SEBI has not been followed by the mutual fund, as first it has artificially rigged the distributable surplus and then applied said ratio to future allotted units (before the planned dividend distributi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchase of units in the books of the Mutual Fund. In this regard the format for Scheme Balance Sheet (including Abridged) provides for disclosure of Unit Premium Reserve. ii. It is clear from the above regulatory requirements that the Unit Premium Reserve, which is part of the sales price of units that is not attributable to realized gains, cannot be used to pay dividend. However, it is observed that some Mutual Funds are using Unit Premium Reserve for distribution of dividend. It is therefore reiterated that: 1. When units of an open-ended scheme are sold, and sale price is higher than face value of the unit, part of sale proceeds that represents unrealized gains shall be credited to a separate account (Unit Premium Reserve) and shall be treated at par with unit capital and the same shall not be utilized for the determination of distributable surplus. 2. When units of an open-ended scheme are sold, and sale price is less than face value of the unit, the difference between the sale price and face value shall be debited to distributable reserves and the dividend can be declared only when distributable reserves become positive after adjusting the amount debi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e decreases from Rs. 22.02/- to Rs. 13.07/-. 4.8 In the process, the SEBI guidelines regarding crediting portion of capital into unit premium reserve has been violated. 4.9 Further, during the course of survey action, statement of the key persons responsible for the management of the mutual fund was recorded. They in their statements have categorically admitted that due process as mandated by the SEBI has not been followed by them. Summary of their statements recorded is as under: 4.10 Shri Sanjay Chhabaria, fund manager, admitted that there has been no application of mind in managing the fund and as per the advice of Shri Bhanu Katoch, CEO, he has increased the distributable surplus. He further stated that the due process of dividend distribution, as mandated by the SEBI guidelines were not followed in letter and spirit. Merely chain of documents was created so as to impress upon that the guidelines were being followed. 4.11 Shri Suvendu Rakshith, the head of sales team, stated that the sales team had been passing on the hints to the distributors about the prospective dividend distribution, much in advance, to lure the prospective clie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Less: Initial Investment Cost 10,00,00,000/- Income earned 2,06,68,835/- 6 As seen above in table, the assessee has earned business income of Rs. 1,06,62,033/- which needs to be brought to the tax accordingly. Hence, the amount of Rs. 1,06,62,033/- is hereby added to the total income. Penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs. 2,06,68,835/-]" 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee was not given the benefit of cross-examination of the employees of JM Financial whose statements were relied on by the Assessing Officer are concerned, he held that the assessee has not submitted any document or letter suggesting that any request for cross examination was made before the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions, he held that after foregoing the right of cross examination at the stage of assessment proceedings the assessee cannot take this plea at appellate stage. He acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout admitting that the allegations made against J M Mutual Fund are correct, he submits that the assessee has invested in the said units without any knowledge of the alleged manipulation by J M Mutual Fund. He submitted that there is no evidence with the Assessing Officer that the assessee was party to the alleged manipulation carried out by J M Mutual Fund. He submitted that the assessee had made the investments on 16.10.2014 and 17.10.2014. The investments were made through proper banking channel. Subsequently, dividend was declared and thereafter the assessee sold the said units. Further, the assessee had invested total amount of Rs. 108 crores in various mutual funds and it is not a case that the assessee has invested only in J M Mutual Fund. He submitted that the transaction of receipt of dividend and subsequent sale is not covered by the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act. He finally submitted that since there is no evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee was hand in glove with J M Mutual Fund, the addition is not justified. 11. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Karan Maheshwari vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case on the basis of information with him that J M Financial had artificially manipulated accounting methodology so as to artificially inflate the distributable surplus and on the basis of violation of SEBI guidelines and on the basis of statements of some of the employees came to the conclusion that the said mutual fund has rigged up the Balance Sheet to declare higher dividend. The transactions have been arranged and therefore, the dividend is not eligible for exemption and the loss claimed is a sham transaction. We find in appeal, the CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj (supra) and the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abhishek Ashok Lohade vs. ITO (supra) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the addition made by the Assessing Officer relying on the stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lus and the investors, in order to reduce their tax liability, entered into these sham transactions and received dividend and short term capital loss. These are allegations against JM Financial and do not implicate petitioner in any manner. There is nothing to indicate that petitioner had participated knowingly in a sham transaction to reduce his tax liability or to earn Gauri Gaekwad 16/17 907.WPL-37211-2022.doc dividend or book short term capital loss. Infact in the notice, in the first paragraph, it says "....... In the course of survey, it was found that JM Balanced Fund-Annual Dividend Option Regular Scheme (the Plan) of JM Financial had manipulated accounting methodology so as to artificially inflate the distributable surplus ........". In the next paragraph, it says "....... investors, in order to reduce their tax liability, entered into these sham transactions and received dividend and short term capital loss ....... The assessee is one the persons who claimed fictitious short term capital loss .......". In the next paragraph, it says " ....... the assessee is one of the beneficiaries, who have received dividend and claimed fictitious losses in equity / de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allowability of capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 - 7 of the appeal are allowed." 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agencies Rajasthan Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) under identical circumstances has also deleted the addition on account of loss from sale of units of JM Mutual Fund. We further find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no mention of any of the statements, which is the basis for the addition, in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, there was no occasion on the part of the assessee to request for cross examination. 21. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) has held that the addition made by placing reliance on the statement of third party without giving any opportunity to cross examine, is not sustainable in law. In the present case, the addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statements of some of the employ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ACIT vs. Damodar Jagannath Malpani by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act is available to each undertaking separately and the entire power generation business cannot be treated as one undertaking. Relying on various decisions it was submitted that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. 27. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and disallowed the claim of the deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act by observing as under: "4.5.2 As regards claim of the assessee in respect of treatment of each windmill project as separate undertaking and to allow deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act, it is pertinent to note here that, there is no mandate u/s 80IA to treat each windmill project as 'separate undertaking' of the assessee. Section 80IA envisages only two classification of the business of the assessee viz. eligible business' (as per explicit wording of section 80IA(5) and non-eligible business. Regarding assessee's claim on merits treating each of the unit as separate undertaking and not entire power generation business as one undertaking,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utes 'eligible business'. The Assessing Officer observed that there was an overall loss in Power Generation Business, and he therefore, rejected the claim of the Assessee for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the I. T. Act. 24. On the other hand, the appellant has claimed that all the undertakings have been set up at different locations and they function independently from each other. It is also submitted that independent power purchase agreements in respect of each undertaking have been entered into with the various State Electricity Boards. Further, it is submitted that the assessee has maintained separate books of accounts for these undertakings and it has furnished separate audit report in Form No. 10CCB along with separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheet in respect of these undertakings. The appellant has further submitted that the word 'an' used in section 80IA (4) refers to a singular and without anything contrary in the Act, the clear language used by the statute cannot be construed to mean anything else. The appellant has further submitted that the term 'eligible business' referred to in sub-section (5) of section 80IA refers to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loss of Rs. 12,91,11,752/- during the year Wind 18 Vaspeth III (MS) 4 MW 2015-16 2018-19 No 80IA deduction claimed from the year. There was a loss of Rs. 4,98,15,389/- during the year Wind 19 GS Wadi II (MS) 16.80 MW 2014-15 2018-19 No 80IA deduction claimed from the year. Wind 20 Hatuniya (MP) 30 MW 2014-15 2018-19 No 80IA deduction claimed from the year. Wind 21 Ameni (MH) 6 MW 2016-17 2018-19 No 80IA deduction claimed from the year. There was a loss of Rs. 6,78,42,893/- during the year Wind 22 Dhar (MP) 21 MW 2015-16 - No 80IA deduction claimed from the year. There was a loss of Rs. 67,26,42,893/- during the year Wind 23 Tonk Khurd (MP) 22.50 MW 2016-17 2018-19 No 80IA deduction claimed from the year. There was a loss of Rs. 136,59,47,946/- during the year Wind 24 Vejalpur Morbi I (GJ) 10.50 MW 2016-17 2019-20 No 80IA deduction claimed from the year. There was a loss of Rs. 33,58,05,859/- during the year Wind 25 RJ-BAP 33 MW 2012-13 2018-19 No 80IA deduction claimed from the year. Solar 26 MH CSIA-I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of 3 wind mills and working out the profit or losses. Though the first wind mill was erected and commissioned in the A.Y. 200203, there were consistent losses up to the A.Y. 2007-08 and assessee did not opt for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(2) of the Act. So far as A. Y. 200809 is concerned, assessee opted for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(2) treating the said assessment year (A. Y.) as an initial assessment year as there was the profit in Satara wind mill but losses in the Tamil Nadu wind mill and Panchgani wind mill. If we look at the scheme of the section 80IA(2), it speaks about the "undertaking" or "enterprise" and not the business of the assessee. Admittedly, three wind mills at the 3 locations are independently operated and the financial results are separately worked out. As per sub-sec (5) of section 80IA, for computing the deduction u/s 80IA(2), the eligible business is to be treated as the only source of income. Sub- sec (5) of section 80IA has been explained by the Hon'ble High Court and Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Accel Transmatic Systems Ltd. 230 CTR 206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business used in sub-sec.(5) section 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oks of accounts in respect of 3 wind mills and working out the profit or losses. Though the first wind mill was erected and commissioned in the A.Y. 2002- 03, there were consistent losses up to the A.Y. 2007-08 and assessee did not opt for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(2) of the Act. So far as A.Y. 2008-09 is concerned, assessee opted for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(2) treating the said assessment year (A. Y.) as an initial assessment year as there was the profit in Satara wind mill but losses in the Tamil Nadu wind mill and Panchgani wind mill. If we look at the scheme of the section 80IA(2), it speaks about the "undertaking" or "enterprise" and not the business of the assessee. Admittedly, three wind mills at the 3 locations are independently operated and the financial results are separately worked out. As per sub-sec. (5) of section 80IA, for computing the deduction u/s 80IA(2), the eligible business is to be treated as the only source of income. Sub-sec. (5) of section 80IA has been explained by the Hon'ble High Court and Kerala in the case of CIT Vs. Accel Transmatic Systems Ltd. 230 CTR 206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 07/PUN/2018, the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench has allowed the claim, by observing as under.- 7. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) separately for each unit of windmill. It is an undisputed fact that the date of commencement of operation of each windmill is different. The stand of the Revenue is that instead of claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4) on each windmill as separate unit, the assessee should have computed deduction on all the windmills as single undertaking. We find that the issue whether deduction u/s. 80IA(4) is to be computed on each windmill unit separately or on consolidated basis was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. D.J. Malpani Vs. ACIT (supra). The Tribunal after considering the earlier decision rendered in the case of Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J-Sons Foundry Pvt. Ltd. (supra) concluded as under: 58. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited (Supra) and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice we hold that each phase of windmill has to be considered as separate undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and therefore deduction uls. 80IA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... equal to the percentage specified in sub-section (5) and for such number of assessment years specified in subsection (6). Therefore, it provides for a deduction from "such profits and gains from any business of an industrial undertaking where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking It is quite clear that each industry must be or each unit must be considered on its own working only when adjudging its entitlement to the deduction under section 80-IA. It cannot be allowed to suffer because it keeps company with some other industry or unit in the hands of the assessee. In the application of section 80-IA, the profits and gains earned by an industry mentioned in that section cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any other industry or industries owned by the assessee. This view is confirmed by clause (i) (a) of sub-section (5) of section 80- IA. (emphasis supplied) 28.3 Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Bannari Amman Sugars Limited[2019] 104 taxmann.com 1 (Madras) held that for the purposes of grant of deduction under section 80IA of the Act, each unit has to be se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Marudhar Fashions ITA No. 6967, 6968 & 6969/MUM/2017 wherein the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal held that the deduction u/s 80IA should be computed independently for each unit and not on consolidated basis. The relevant portion of this decision is as under:- 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA in respect of five windmills. The only dispute is with regard to whether each windmill constitute a separate undertaking and the profit or loss of that undertaking alone will be considered for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA or the sum of profit or loss of all five undertakings together is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench "C" in the case of Punit Construction Co vs JCIT (supra) has considered an identical issue in light of number of windmills and after considering relevant provisions of the Act, including sub section (5) of section 80IA, held that deduction has to be given unit-wise without considering profit or loss of other eligible uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not have any other head of income except income from Business or Profession. The assessee has only two segment of business income le construction business and power generation business. Admittedly, construction business is not eligible business for claiming deduction under section 80IA, therefore, there is controversy about consolidation of profit from construction business activity. The assessee is having power generation segment through windmills. The assessee has set up five windmills. All the five units are part of power generation segment. Now the question is whether deduction provided under section 80IA shall be given on profits and gains derived from power segment business as the only eligible business or profits and gains derived from each windmills as an eligible business without considering profit or loss of other windmills. There is no dispute with regard to deduction to be given under chapter VIA against gross total income computed from all source of income. Even various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including in the case of CIT vs. Liberty India (supra) have clearly held that special deduction under chapter VIA has to be computed on the gross total inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....announced incentives for setting up units in some places and within such period. The assessee has set up one eligible unit and starts claiming deduction under that provision. Next year, the assessee has set up one more eligible unit at different place and starts claiming deduction from that year and so on. Now both units are eligible units. The period of deduction specified under the act is 10 years for eligible units. Unit one is claiming deduction from initial assessment year and it may end up in some period. Unit two is claiming deduction from next year and it may end up in different year. If one takes initial assessment year from which unit one claims deduction for ten years, the assessee may loose benefit of deduction for one year for unit two, because it has commenced deduction from next year. If you take initial year of claim from the date on which unit two starts claiming deduction, then the assessee may get the benefit for more than 10 years for unit one, if you consider both units as one eligible business and profit or loss of both units is consolidated. This may not be the true intention of the legislature and for that reason the legislature consciously used the word und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y unit of the assessee eligible for deduction under section 80-IA, was to be treated as an independent unit and the same was to be treated as the only source of income for the assessee for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80- IA. The deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80-IA, thus, was in accordance with said provisions and as such there was no 10. In this view of the matter and being consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, which is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dewan Kraft Systems Pvt Ltd (supra), we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT (A) was right in allowing the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of each unit without setting off of loss incurred by other eligible units. Hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss appeal filed by the revenue. (emphasis supplied) 30. It is further seen that for A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15 in appellant's own case, the assessing officer has accepted the methodology adopted by the appellant and allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the profits derived from every unit engaged in the eligible business. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) decided the appeal in favour of assessee without appreciating the facts that there is no mandate u/s 80IA to treat each windmill project as 'separate undertaking of the assessee and Section 80IA envisages only two classification of the business of the assessee viz. 'eligible business (as per explicit wording of section 80IA(5)) and non-eligible business. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter any of the grounds. 30. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and the order of the CIT (A) deleting the addition is not justified. 31. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand while relying on the order of the CIT (A) submitted that similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 which has been deleted by the Tribunal in assessee's own case as well as in the case of sister concern D J Malpani. Therefore, merely because the Revenue's appeal is pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding. He, therefore, rejected the claim of the assessee to treat each windmill project as a separate undertaking and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that as per provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act, profits and gains from eligible business for the purpose of determining the quantum of deduction is required to be computed as if such eligible business is only the source of income of the assessee during the year. Since, during the year under consideration, the income from eligible business of power generation / renewal energy has gross income which is an amount of Rs. 32,43,79,000/-, the deduction can be allowed only when there is positive income. He, therefore, held that the question of allowing the deduction u/s 80IA(4) does not arise. 13. We find the CIT (A) allowed the claim of the assessee, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) on this issue. Admittedly, the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for various assessment years. We find the Tribunal vide ITA No. 1374/PUN/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rties and perused the record. Admittedly, the assessee is power general through the wind mills at 3 different locations i.e. in Tamilnadu, Panchgani and Satara. The wind mills are commissioned and erected in different assessment years as noted by the authorities below. Assessee is maintaining separate books of accounts in respect of 3 wind mills and working out the profit or losses. Though the first wind mill was erected and commissioned in the A.Y. 2002-03, there were consistent losses up to the A.Y. 2007-08 and assessee did not opt for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(2) of the Act. So far as A.Y. 2008-09 is concerned, assessee opted for claiming the deduction u/s 80IA(2) treating the said assessment year (A.Y.) as an initial assessment year as there was the profit in Satara wind mill but losses in the Tamil Nadu wind mill and Panchgani wind mill. If we look at the scheme of the section 80IA(2), it speaks about the "undertaking or "enterprise and not the business of the assessee. Admittedly, three wind mills at the 3 locations are independently operated and the financial results are separately worked out. As per sub-sec. (5) of section 80IA, for computing the deduction u/s 80IA(2)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30.01.2013 while grunting relief to the assessee in appeal for the A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010-11. It is now a settled legal proposition that "every unit constitute a separate undertaking engaged in the eligible business and losses from one unit cannot be set off against the profit of another unit engaged in the same business for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s 80IA Therefore, we are of the opinion that order of the CITA) on this issue is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue in dismissed. 8. The other issue raised in the Ground No. 3 by the Revenue relates to initial assessment year. Regarding this issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that the same issue also stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case (supra) for A. Yrs 2007-08 to 2010-11 (supra.) Bringing our attention to para 59 to 65 of the order of Tribunal, which is placed at page No. 16 and 18 of the paper book, Ld. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal held the issue in favour of the assessee. As such, the assessee has option to choose the initial assessment year. 9. We have heard both partie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case and that of assessee's own case in A.Ys. 201112 and 2012-13 in ITA Nos. 1382 & 1383/PUN/2015 order dt. 16.10.2017 (supra) nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the decision of Pune Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 which has been relied upon by Ld.CIT (A) has been set aside / overturned or stayed by the Higher Judicial Forum. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT (A) and thus the grounds of Revenue are dismissed." 14. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. J-Sons Foundry Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) and m/s. L.B. Kunjir vs. DCIT (supra) and various other decisions. Since the issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in assessee's own case as well as various other decisions, therefore, merely because the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal and has challenged the decision before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending, cannot be the basis for taking a contrary view than the view already taken by the Tribunal in the....