News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 M/s Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CAs L – 7A[LGF], South Extension, Part –II New Delhi Vs. The I.T.O Ward – 7(1) New Delhi
 The ACIT, Circle – 59(1), Room No.101, F-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi Vs. M/s. Vasundhara Flavours (Presently known as Gopal Consumer World), 339, Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, New Delhi – 110 092.
 The ACIT, Central Circle 25, Room No.322, III Floor, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Vs. M/s. Digicall Teleservices P. Ltd., D-7 Dhawandeep Apartments, 6 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi.
 DCIT, Circle – 10(1), New Delhi. Vs. M/s. Girdhar International Pvt. Ltd., F-16, Udyoug Nagar, Peeragari, New Delhi – 110 041.
 M/s. Cellnext Solutions Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5 (4), New Delhi. (
 The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5 (4), New Delhi. vs. M/s. Direct Sales Pvt. Ltd., No.7, Village – Tigipur, P.O. Bakhtawarpur, Delhi – 36.
 Noida Power Co. Ltd.,Gr. Noida,Commercial Complex, H-Block, Alpha-Ii Sector Greater Noida Noida Vs. Dcit, Circle-2,Noida
 Savita Raj, C-14, Sector-56,Noida,Uttar Pradesh-201301 Vs. Acit, Circle-3,Noidaroom No. 410, 4th Floora-2d, Sector-24, Noida
 Curewell (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer
 Geeta Narang, 2768, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram Delhi – 110 006. Vs. ACIT Circle – 46(1), New Delhi
 M/s Precision Gauges & Tools P. Ltd., 283, Agcr Enclave, New Delhi – 110 092 Vs. Acit, Circle 20(1), New Delhi

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd [Earlier known as North Delhi Power Ltd NDPL House, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Vs. The Addl. C.I.T Range 13, New Delhi
June, 17th 2019

Referred Sections:
Section on 115JB of the Income-tax Act,
Section 5
Section 2(17) of the Income-tax Act
Section 69
Section 1151
Section 1153A ,
Section 2(c) of the Act
Section 28 of the Act,
Sections 57 and 57-A of the said Act;
Section 12
Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act
Sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B etc., of the Act.
Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act

Referred Cases / Judgments
In Puna Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1965) 56 ITR 521
Income-tax Officer - Ward 5(1) vs. Keval Construction, Tax Appeal No. 443 of 2012, December 10, 2012, Gujarat High Court.1
Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Nagpur vs, Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari, IT Appeal No. 2 of 2011, September 11, 2015, Bombay High Court.2 ’
Principal CIT. Kanpur vs. S onya Merchants Ltd.. I.T. Appeal No. 248 of 2015, May 03, 2016 Allahabad High Court

 

                                   1


    IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI `E' BENCH,
                          NEW DELHI


      BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND
           MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER



                       ITA No. 2784/DEL/2013
                            [A.Y 2008-09]
                                  &
                       ITA No. 2785/DEL/2013
                            [A.Y 2007-08]
                                  &
                       ITA No. 5368/DEL/2013
                            [A.Y 2009-10]

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd       Vs.        The Addl. C.I.T
[Earlier known as North Delhi Power Ltd            Range ­ 13,
NDPL House, Hudson Line,                           New Delhi
Kingsway Camp, New Delhi

PAN No: AABCN 6808 R

                       ITA No. 4055/DEL/2013
                            [A.Y 2008-09]
                                  &
                       ITA No. 4054/DEL/2013
                            [A.Y 2007-08]
                                  &
                       ITA No. 5676/DEL/2013
                            [A.Y 2009-10]

The A.C.I.T            Vs.     Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd
Range ­ 13,                    [Earlier known as North Delhi Power Ltd
New Delhi                      NDPL House, Hudson Line,
                                Kingsway Camp, New Delhi

                               PAN No: AABCN 6808 R

[Appellant]                                   [Respondent]
                                   2


               Date of Hearing                 :   11.06.2019
               Date of Pronouncement           :    14.06.2019


                      Assessee by :    Shri S.D. Kapila, Adv
                                        Shri R.R. Maurya, Adv
                                        Shri Pravesh Sharma, Adv

                      Revenue by   :     Ms.Pramita M. Biswas, CIT- DR


                                 ORDER


PER BENCH:-


     The above captioned cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue

are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax

[Appeals], XVI, New Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2007-08,

2008-09 and 2009-10. Since all these appeals pertain to same assessee

and were heard together involving common issues, we are disposing

them off by this common order for the sake of convenience and

brevity.



2.   The assessee has raised an additional ground which reads as

under:

     "That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the
     Assessing Officer erred in law in taxing book profits u/s
     115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to
     as 'the Act' for short]."
                                    3


3.   The ld. DR strongly objected to the admission of the additional

ground raised by the assessee. It is the say of the ld. DR that this issue

was never raised before the first appellate authority, therefore, the

same should not be entertained by the Tribunal.



4.   Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that it is

purely a legal issue which requires no verification of facts.      Strong

reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of NTPC 229 ITR 383.



5.   We have carefully considered the case records. The appellant

company is a joint venture of the Government of Delhi and Tata Power

Ltd, registered under the Companies Act, 1956.          Since 2002, the

appellant is engaged in the business of distribution of electricity in the

North Delhi Districts of the National Capital, set up in terms of Delhi

Electricity Reforms Rules [Transfer Scheme] Rules 2001.



6.   As the appellant company is governed by the Electricity Act,

2003, therefore, the provisions of the said Act prevail wherever they

are inconsistent with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. We

find that in the Return of Income, the assessee has declared total
                                      4


income as per the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. We are of the

considered view that the additional ground raised by the assessee is

well taken and requires no verification of any facts, whatsoever. The

same is, accordingly, admitted.



7.   In so far as the question of applicability of provisions of section

115JB of the appellant company is concerned, it has been answered by

the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity

Board 329 ITR 91 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:



     "Section on 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961creates a legal

     fiction regarding the total income of assessees which are

     companies. The book profit of the company is deemed to be the

     total income of the assessee in the circumstances specified in the

     section. The expression "book profit" for the purpose of the

     section is explained to mean the net profit as increased or

     decreased by the various amounts shown in the various sub-clauses

     of the section. The "net profit" itself must be the net profit as

     shown in the profit and loss account of the company. Sub-section

     (2) mandates that the profit and loss account of the company is

     required to be prepared in the manner specified therein. Section

     115JB stipulates that the accounting policies, accounting standards,

     etc. shall be uniform both for the purpose of Income-tax as well as

     for the information statutorily required to be placed before the
                                 5


annual general meeting conducted, in accordance with section

115JB of the Companies Act, 1956.



Though the Kerala State Electricity Board, a statutory corporation

constituted by virtue of section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,

1948 answers the description of an Indian company and therefore a

company within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Income-tax

Act, 1961it is not a company for the purpose of the Companies Act,

1956. It is not obliged to either to convene an annual general

meeting or place its profit and loss account in such general

meeting. On the other hand, under section 69 of the Electricity

(Supply) Act, 1948, the Board is obliged to keep proper accounts,

including the profit and loss account, and prepare an annual

statement of accounts, balance sheet, etc. in such form as may be

prescribed by the Central Government and notified in the Official

Gazette. Such accounts of the Board are required to be audited by

the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India or such other person

duly authorised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.

The accounts so prepared along with the audit report are required

to be laid annually before the State Legislature and also to be

published in the prescribed manner.



At the earliest point of time when section 1151 was introduced, the

section expressly excluded from its operation bodies like the

Electricity Board. Though such express exclusion is absent in

section 1153A , the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued Circular

No. 762 dated February 18, 1998 excluding bodies like the
                                 6







Electricity Board from the operation of the section. Circular No.

762 not only is binding on the Department, but also explains the

purpose in introducing section 1153A which was to tax zero-tax

companies. The CBDT understood that companies engaged in the

business   of   generation and   distribution of   electricity   and

enterprises engaged in developing, maintaining and operating

infrastructure facilities, as a matter of policy, are not brought

within the purview of section 1153A for the reason that such a

policy would promote the infrastructural development of the

country. Such an understanding of the CBDT is binding on the

Department. Section 1153B , which is substantially similar to

section 1153A cannot have a different purpose and need not be

interpreted in a manner different from the understanding of the

CBDT of section 1153A .

Where the computation provision could not be applied in a

particular case, it is indicative of the fact that the charging

section also would not apply.




The Electricity Board or bodies similar to it, which are totally

owned by the Government, either State or Central, have no

shareholders. Profit, if at all, made would be for the benefit of

entire body politic of the State. Therefore the enquiry as to the

mischief sought to be remedied by the amendment becomes

irrelevant. Therefore, the fiction fixed under section 1153B cannot

be pressed into service against the Electricity ' Board while making

the assessment of the tax payable under the Income-tax Act."
                                    7


8.    Finding parity of facts with the facts of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Kerala High Court [supra], respectfully following the finding of

the Hon'ble High Court, we hold that the provisions of section 115JB of

the Act are not applicable to the appellant company. The Assessing

Officer is directed accordingly. The additional ground raised by the

assessee is allowed.



9.    First addition contested by the appellant company relates to the

addition on account of de-recognition of revenue on account of

efficiency gain.



10.   At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that on

identical set of facts, the issue has been considered by the co-ordinate

bench in assessment year 2006-07 by the Tribunal in ITA No.

4848/DEL/2010 and 5026/DEL/2010. It is the say of the ld. counsel for

the assessee that facts have been elaborately discussed by the co-

ordinate bench in assessment year 2006-07.



11.   The ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing

Officer but could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the

revenue.
                                    8


12.   A perusal of the record shows that Delhi Electricity Regulatory

Commission [DERC] constituted under the Delhi Reforms Act, 2000

determines the Retail Supply Tariff chargeable by the company to the

consumers and bulk supply tariff payable by the company to Delhi

Transco Ltd. for power purchase. As per the terms of the said

notification, the tariffs are statutorily required to be fixed in a manner

that the assessee recovers its prudently incurred cost and also earns an

assured return of 16% p.a. on equity plus free reserves.



13.   Prescribed procedure before the DERC is that the assessee has

first to submit detailed estimate of its cost to the DERC, which is likely

to incur before the start of the relevant financial year. DERC examines

the same after invoking the comments of all stakeholders including the

members of the public, who are the consumers. The DERC approves

the estimate of costs and the corresponding tariff for the year. Such an

estimate is subsequently reviewed by the DERC on the basis of actual

costs incurred by the assessee and is subjected to "Prudence check".



14.   If the revenue for the year exceeds the 'trued up cost' then the

excess amount has to be carried forward as liability to be adjusted

through corresponding tariff reduction in future, in order to
                                      9


compensate the consumers through reduction in tariff; whereas if the

trued up costs exceeds the revenue for any year, the difference is

recognized as an assets of the company under the head "sundry

debtors" and is recoverable from the consumers in future through the

tariff mechanism.



15.   We find that similar facts were considered by the co-ordinate

bench in assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No. 4848/DEL/2010 and

5026/DEL/2010. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as

under:


      "17. It is, therefore, clear from the arguments advanced before

      us that the question involved in this matter is whether the

      disputed Rs.91.13 crores could be brought to tax by treating it

      as the application of the income after its accrual. This aspect

      requires a reading of the provisions of the Delhi Electricity

      Reforms Act, 2000 with the notifications issued and the orders

      passed by the DERC. As could be seen from the Delhi Electricity

      Reforms Act, 2000, it received the assent of the President of

      India on 6.3.2001 and promulgated by way of Notification dated

      8.3.2001. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the commission to

      mean   the    Delhi   Electricity   Regulatory   Commission. The

      Act constitutes the Commission. It empowers the Government to

      issue directions to the Commission in the matters of policy

      involving public interest from time of time regulating the
                               10


discharge of the commission functions. In turn, by virtue

of Section 28 of the Act, the holder of the license (i.e.

assessee) is under obligation to observe the methodologies and

procedure specified by the Commission from time to time in

calculating the expected revenue from charges which it is

permitted to recover pursuant to the terms of its license and in

designing tariffs to collect those revenues. The Commission is

also empowered to prescribe the terms and conditions for

determination of the licensee's revenues and tariffs by

regulations duly published in the official Gazette and in such

other manner as the Commission considers appropriate. In this

respect, it is provided that the Commission shall be guided by

the following parameters, namely:-


the financial principles and their application provided in the

Sixth Schedule to the Act, 1948 read with sections 57 and 57-A

of the said Act;

the factors which would encourage efficiency, economic use of

the resources, good performance, optimum investments and

other matters which the Commission considers appropriate

keeping in view the salient objects and purposes of the

provisions of this Act; and the interest of the consumers.


18. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12 and other

applicable provisions of the Act, the GNCTD issued Notification

No.F.11(119(8)/2001- Power in the month of November 2001. In

this Notification vide paragraph 8, the Government considered
                                  11


the necessity of effective re-organization of the DVB and the

sale of 51% equity shares in the distribution companies. The

assessee is one of the entities, who participated in the bid,

became successful for the lowest annual target loss was

awarded 51% of equity. Vide para 12, this Notification

prescribes that in the years between 2002-03 and 2006-07

in the event of actual AT&C loss of a distribution licensee for

any particular year is better i.e. lower than the level proposed in

the bid, the distribution licensee shall be allowed to retain 50%

of   the   additional   revenue    resulting   from   such   better

performance and the balance 50% of additional revenue from

such better performance shall be counted for the purpose of

tariff fixation. Para 13 of such Notification provides that all

expenses that shall be permitted by the Commission, tariffs

shall be determined in such a way that the distribution licensees

earn, at least, 16% return on the issued and paid up capital and

free reserves (excluding consumer contribution and revaluation

reserves but including share premium and retained profits

outstanding at the end of any particular year) provided that

such share capital and free reserves have been invested into

fixed or any other assets etc.


19. Para 16 of this Notification sums up the mandate in this

Notification in the following terms:


(a) The AT&C loss programme is to be as per the bid submitted

by the purchaser (selected bidder) as per para 11 above.
                               12


(b) Distribution licensees shall be entitled to retain 50% of the

additional revenues from any AT&C loss reduction over and

above then level proposed in the bid by the Purchaser (selected

bidder) and this shall not be counted as revenue for the purpose

of tariff fixation for the succeeding years. The balance 50% of

the excess efficiency gain shall be counted as revenue for the

purpose of tariff fixation.

(c) Distribution licensees earn, at least, 16% return on the

issued and paid up capital and free reserves

(d) The amount agreed to be made available by the Government

to TRANSCO will be as a loan for the particular year.


20. In deference to this Notification, the DERC in its order

passed in July 2005 at paragraph 4.2 observed that for the

Asstt. Year 2004-05, the assessee had achieved AT&C loss level

lower than the minimum bid level specified by the GNCTD,

accordingly the provisions of the policy directions and the

GNCTD's clarification have been applied to determine the

extent of additional revenue to be retained by the DISCOM and

that it will be passed down to the consumers while determining

the annual revenue requirement of the utilities. It is further

observed that in case of the assessee as the over achievement

in AT&C loss reduction is more than the minimum level target

the entire additional revenue as a result of AT and C loss

reduction up to minimum level with respect to bid level, and 50%

of the additional revenue beyond minimum level has been
                                13


considered as additional revenue for the purpose of ARR

determination and balance 50% of the savings beyond minimum

level has been approved to be retained by the assessee.


21. Basing on this, we are convinced that the assessee is under

statutory obligation to meet the targets of reduction of A&TC

losses and when the AT&C loss level reached by the assessee in

that particular year is better i.e. lower than the level prescribed

in the bid, the assessee shall be entitled to 50% of the

additional revenue resulting from such purpose. This 50%

becomes the regular taxable income of the assessee and insofar

as this income is concerned, for this Asstt. Year 2006-07 also,

there is no dispute. The balance 50% of this additional revenue,

which is mandatory to be counted for the purpose of tariff

fixation, which is called as the 'efficiency gain' will be taken

into consideration by the DERC while permitting the tariff of

the future years to be determined so as to see that the

assessee would earn at least 16% return on the issued and paid

up capital and free reserves. The Notification issued in

November 2001, referred to above, is clear in its mandate that

this 50% efficiency gain shall be reckoned as revenue for the

purpose of tariff fixation and the assessee is under obligation

to follow the mechanism of fixation of tariff by the DERC.


22. In Puna Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1965) 56 ITR 521

(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a similar situation

where the licensee like the assessee was under the obligation to
                               14


set apart some amount and transfer it to the consumer benefit

reserve account which represents a rebate to the customers of

the excess amount collected from them. Hon'ble Apex Court

held that there are two types of profits in such cases i.e.

Commercial profits and clear profits governed by two different

enactments. Commercial profits are arrived at on commercial

principle whereas the other is regulated by the statute. The

clear profits could be determined only after excluding the

amount statutorily transferred to represent the rebate to the

customers of the excess amount collected from them. Finally

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the amount transferrable for

the benefit of the consumers do not form part of the

assessee's real profit; and for the purpose of calculating the

taxable income, such amount have to be deducted from its total

income.


23. Record speaks that this decision was brought to the notice

of the learned CIT(A) but he distinguished the same stating

that in such case the assessee was crediting the excess amount

in a separate account called "Consumer Benefit Reserve

Account" and they were part of the excess amount paid to it and

reserve to be returned to the consumers; whereas in the case of

the assessee, the assessee is not required to return the excess

amount to the consumers and on the contrary, the assessee is

the beneficial owner of the amount which it could use the way it

likes. On this premise, learned CIT(A) held that the decision in
                                15


the case of Puna Electricity Supply Co. Ltd (supra) has no

application to the facts of the present case.


24. On a careful consideration of the factual matrix involved in

both the cases and the reasoning of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

reaching the conclusion, we are of the considered opinion that

the approach of the learned CIT(A) is incorrect. In the

preceding paragraphs, we have noted that the assessee is under

a statutory obligation to set apart 50% of the excess amount

generated due to the overreaching of the targets, for the

purpose of the consideration of the DERC to fix the future

tariffs either to give relief to the consumers or otherwise. A

reading of the statute, notification and the orders of the DERC

clearly indicates that the assessee is not free to use this

efficiency gain amount the way it likes. Whether or not a

separate account is opened, when this amount is separately

shown under this head in the books, it makes little difference in

so far as the application of the ratio of Puna Electricity Supply

Co. Ltd. (supra) is concerned. Crux of the matter is that the

assessee in both the cases has no right to appropriate the

'efficiency gain' amount and such amount is at the disposal of

the DERC though not physically but in respect of utilization

thereof. We, therefore, are convinced that the ratio of Puna

Electricity Supply Co. Ltd (supra) is squarely applicable to the

case of the assessee before us and on that score, we allow the

contention of the assessee that they have rightly reduced the

efficiency gain amount in their profit and loss account."
                                   16


16.   Respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, this

grievance of the assessee is allowed.



17.   At this stage, it would be pertinent to understand the claim of

deduction under Chapter VIA which has been allowed by the first

appellate authority and the Revenue is in appeal before us.




18.   There is no dispute that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s

80IA of the Act at Rs. 98.38 crores, which is evident from the

statement showing computation of total income exhibited at page 3 of

the paper book. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer did

not raise any query nor there was any quarrel in respect of the claim of

deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. However, the quarrel is only in respect

of the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer while framing the

assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act.









19.   Section 80IA(4)(iv)(c) of the Act provides that an undertaking

which undertakes substantial renovation and modernisation of the

existing network of transmission or distribution lines at any time during

the period beginning the first day of April 2004 and ending on 31st day

of March 201 is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act.          The
                                  17


explanation to the said provision provides that substantial renovation

and modernisation means an increase in the plant and machinery in the

net work by at least 50% of book value as on 01.04.2004.




20.   A perusal of the record, read with the audit report and report in

Form No. 10CCB, shows that plant and machinery in the network of

transmission or distribution lines have increased by more than 50% of

the book value of the plant and machinery as on 01.04.2004. On these

undisputed facts, we find that the return of income was filed well

within due date alongwith audit report including audit report in Form

No. 10CCB and were available before the Assessing Officer during the

assessment proceedings.




21.   As mentioned elsewhere, the Assessing Officer has not disputed

the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act mentioned in the

computation of income nor he has objected during the course of

assessment proceedings. On these facts, the first appellate authority

allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act irrespective of the

fact that certain disallowances/additions were made by the Assessing

Officer while completing the assessment order.
                                        18


22.   In our considered opinion, the issue is now well settled by the

Circular No. 37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 issued by the Central Board of

Direct Taxes, which reads as under:


      "Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), provides

      for deductions in respect of certain incomes. In computing the

      profits and gains of a business activity, the Assessing Officer may

      make certain disallowances, such as disallowances pertaining to

      sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B etc., of the Act. At times

      disallowance out of specific expenditure claimed may also be made.

      The effect of such disallowances is an increase in the profits.

      Doubts have been raised as to whether such higher profits would

      also result in claim for a higher profit-linked deduction under

      Chapter VI-A.

      2.    The issue of the claim of higher deduction on the enhanced

      profits has been a contentious one. However, the courts have

      generally held that if the expenditure disallowed is related to the

      business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has

      been claimed, the deduction needs to be allowed on the enhanced

      profits. Some illustrative cases upholding this view are as follows:




       (i) if an expenditure incurred by assessee for the purpose of

      developing a housing project was not allowable on account of non-

      deduction of TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately

      increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing

      project. The ultimate      profits of    assessee   after   adjusting

      disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for
                                 19


deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by

the courts in the following cases:




            Income-tax     Officer    -   Ward    5(1)   vs.   Keval

            Construction, Tax Appeal No. 443 of 2012, December

            10, 2012, Gujarat High Court.1

            Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Nagpur vs, Sunil

            Vishwambharnath Tiwari, IT Appeal No. 2 of 2011,

            September 11, 2015, Bombay High Court.2 '



         (ii) deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act. is not

         allowed, the same would be added to the profits of the

         undertaking on which the assessee would .d o for

         deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was

         taken by the court in the following cases:

         "Principal CIT. Kanpur vs. S onya Merchants Ltd.. I.T.

         Appeal No. 248 of 2015, May 03, 2016 Allahabad High

         Court



         The above views have attained finality as these judgments

         of the High Courts of Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad

         have been accepted by the Department.



3.     In view of the above, the Board has accepted the settled

position that the disallowances made under sections 32, 40(a)(ia),

40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances,

related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A
                                       20


      deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits

      of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is

      admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.


      4 Accordingly, henceforth, appeals may not be filed on this ground

      by officers of the Department and appeals already filed in Courts/

      Tribunals may be withdrawn/ not pressed upon. The above may be

      brought to the notice of all concerned."




23.   In view of the above Circular, disallowances made by the

Assessing Officer are related to the business activity against which

deduction u/s 80IA of the Act has been claimed which resulted in

enhancement of the profits of the eligible business and hence

deduction under Chapter VIA is admissible on the profit so enhanced by

the disallowances.



24.   In light of the above CBDT Circular, all the issues become

academic in nature and therefore, need no separate adjudication,

though it would be pertinent to mention here that all the disputed

issues remain open for both the parties in case the deduction u/s 80IA

is denied by the Hon'ble Superior Court. In the light of the above

discussion and finding, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

whereas those of the revenue are dismissed.
                                  21


25.    In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

2784/DEL/2013,       ITA   No.   2785/DEL/2013      and      ITA   No.

5368/DEL/2013 are allowed whereas those of the revenue in ITA No.

2784/DEL/2013, ITA No. 2785/DEL/2013 andITA No. 5368/DEL/2013

are dismissed.

       The order is pronounced in the open court on 14.06.2019.



            Sd/-                                      Sd/-

      [SUCHITRA KAMBLE]                        [N.K. BILLAIYA]
      JUDICIAL MEMBER                        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER



Dated: 14th June, 2019


VL/


Copy forwarded to:


1.     Appellant
2.     Respondent
3.     CIT
4.     CIT(A)
5.     DR


                                                  Asst. Registrar
                                                  ITAT, New Delhi
                                  22


Date of dictation
Date on which the typed draft is placed before
the dictating Member
Date on which the typed draft is placed before
the Other Member
Date on which the approved draft comes to the
Sr.PS/PS
Date on which the fair order is placed before the
Dictating Member for pronouncement
Date on which the fair order comes back to the
Sr.PS/PS
Date on which the final order is uploaded on the
website of ITAT
Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
The date on which the file goes to the Assistant
Registrar for signature on the order
Date of dispatch of the Order

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting