Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1023 - AT - Income TaxCharacterization of the subsidy received - Revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid issue and find that the same is squarely covered by the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for A.Y.2010-11 [2018 (8) TMI 2132 - ITAT RAIPUR], wherein following its earlier order for the immediately preceding year [2015 (11) TMI 1865 - ITAT RAIPUR], the Tribunal had approved the order of the CIT(Appeals) who had vacated the addition that was made by the A.O by recharacterizing the capital subsidy received by the assessee company as a revenue receipt. No infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), who had rightly vacated the addition of Rs. 3,09,58,737/- made by the A.O. by treating the subsidy as a production incentive and not a capital subsidy, we uphold the same. Deduction u/s. 80IA - 7th year of claim of deduction - As observed by the A.O. that the power generation unit of the assessee company had sold electricity to outside parties as well as transferred the electricity to its other divisions for captive consumption - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) observed that the issue involved in the present appeal was squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for [2015 (11) TMI 1865 - ITAT RAIPUR]. Also, the CIT(Appeals) had drawn support from the judgment of Godavari Power & Ispat Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 5 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] wherein involving identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court had held that the market rate of power will be the rate of power available in the open market, namely the price charged by the Board. As the issue involved in the present appeal before us remains the same as was there in the aforementioned judgment/order, therefore, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who had rightly vacated the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80IA. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r 8D - Mandation of recording satisfaction - HELD THAT:- We concur with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) that in the absence of any dissatisfaction having been recorded by the A.O as regards the claim of the assessee that no part of expenditure claimed as deduction was incurred in relation to earning of exempt income, no disallowance u/s. 14A could have been validly made in its hands. In our considered view, the A.O. had not recorded any satisfaction as to why the assessee’s claim that no part of the expenditure pertaining to its investment could be attributed to earning of the exempt dividend income by the assessee. Apropos the amendment in 14A vide the Finance Act, 2022, we concur with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) who, after relying upon the judgment of Era Infrastructure (I) Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had observed that the said amendment whereby the requirement of actual earning of exempt income had been dispensed with for computing disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.s. 8D was applicable prospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2022 onwards, and thus, would not have any bearing in the case of the present assessee before us. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, find no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals), who had rightly vacated the disallowance made by the A.O u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D, and uphold the same.
|