TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax-I v. Alembic Glass Industries Limited decided on 11.8.2008 where following the decision in [ 2008 (8) TMI 1010 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ], the question is answered in favour of the assessee, we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Deduction of claim of interest payable to ONGC - Whether during the year assessee has not paid any amount towards this liability? - HELD THAT:- This court in [ 2011 (5) TMI 816 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alembic Glass Industries Limited as held a settled law is if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 80- IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for generating power for captive consumption? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing withdrawal from the revaluation reserve from the book profit under section 115JB of the Act? Tax Appeal No. 912 of 2010: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in not considering the case and decision of the Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd., in the ITA No. 1026 (MDS)/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02, brought to its notice vide the additional ground raised by the Department, according to which the deduction u/s. 80-IA(4) is not allowable to the assessee for generating power for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f these plants. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), following the decision in assessee s own case, the claim of the assessee was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In further appeal by revenue, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the revenue is before us. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Soparkar has submitted that this question is covered by the decision of this court in question (C) of Tax Appeal No. 471 of 2009 in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alembic Limited decided on 20.7.2016 where this court has decided the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinbelow: 10. The learned counsel for the assessee has sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is price at which assessee transferred electricity generated by it eligible business to its other business which would be considered for purpose of computation of profits and gains of eligible business in terms of section 80-IA(8) and not lesser price at which surplus electricity was sold to Electricity Board. 10.2 The learned counsel for the assessee has further relied on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Raipur v. Godawari Power Ispat Ltd., reported in (2014) 42 taxmann.com 551 (Chhattisgarh) where the court has held thus: Where the assessee had established a captive power plant in State of Chhattisgarh to supply electricity to its steel division, for purpose of section 80-IA deduction market value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section which provides for the benefit even in respect of electricity generation plant established by the assessee and the income derived from such enterprise of the assessee, it would have to be held that the assessee fully complied with the requirements prescribed under section 80-IA in order to avail the benefits provided therein. Therefore, the contention based on the interpretation of the expression `derived from could have no application to the case where the provisions of section 80-IA got attracted. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revenue and the assessee. So far as question (A) is concerned, this will be governed by the answer in question (C) of Tax Appeal No. 471 of 2009 Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income-tax v. Alembic Limited, where we have held the issues in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In that view of the matter, we answer question (A) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 9. So far as question (B) of Tax Appeal No. 913 of 2010 is concerned, this will be governed by the decision in Tax Appeal No. 472 of 2009 in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alembic Limited. Hence we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. As regards the question in Tax Appeal No. 914 of 2010, this will be governed by the decision of this court in Tax Appeal No. 729 of 2011 in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Alembic Glass Industries Limited decided on 2.5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
