TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 642X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance admitting additional evidence - Held that:- As can be seen from the assessment order, while computing assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA, AO has excluded the amount of ₹ 7,79,389 by treating it as interest income without ascribing any reasons. However, the learned CIT(A), as it appears, after examining details with regard to the component of ₹ 7,79,389, which includes ₹ 7,14,138 towards scrap sales and ₹ 65,251 as interest on FDRs. has allowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA. On perusal of letter dated 01/12/2010 along with accompanying documents submitted before Assessing Officer, copies of which were also placed on record, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directed against order dated 31/07/13 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-V, Hyderabad, for the assessment year 2008-09. The department has raised the following effective grounds: 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing to allow relief to the assessee holding that the income generated in sale of Carbon Credits as a capital receipt and not taxable. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing relief on the issue of disallowance of 80IA deduction on the component of interest income of ₹ 7,79,389 as no opportunity was provided to the AO under Rule 46A of IT Rules to verify the correctness of the claim. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing relief on the issue of the addition made towards employee compensation expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 151 TTJ 616 deleted the addition by holding that the amount of ₹ 5,07,45,000 on sale of carbon credits is in the nature of capital receipt, hence, is not taxable. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of revenue authorities as well as other material on record. At the outset, both learned DR and learned AR agreed before us that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of M/s My Home Power Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra), which has been confirmed by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of same assessee while dismissing department s appeal as reported in 365 ITR 82 / 46 Taxman.com 314. Considering such submission of both the counsels and after going t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even the interest income of ₹ 65251 is also incidental to the main business activity of assessee. In support of such contention, assessee relied upon some decisions of ITAT. 8. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee and going through the decisions relied upon by assessee, allowed assessee s claim by directing AO to allow deduction u/s 80IA on the amount of ₹ 7,79,389. 9. The learned DR submitted before us that in course of assessment proceeding, assessee has not furnished any evidence to show that the amount of ₹ 7,79,389 also includes scrap sales. It was submitted, only in course of appeal hearing, assessee has furnished details/bifurcation with regard to the amount of ₹ 7,79,389. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of merit. As the department has challenged the decision of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue only on violation of Rule 46A, without going into merits of assessee s claim of deduction, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A). The ground raised is dismissed. 12. Ground No. 4 is in respect of addition made by AO of an amount of ₹ 10,48,500, but, deleted by CIT(A). 13. Briefly the facts are, during the assessment proceeding, AO noticed that assessee has debited an amount of ₹ 10,48,500 towards employees compensation expenses (ESOPs) in the P L A/c under the head salaries and wages . When the AO called upon assessee to justify the expenditure claimed with supporting evidence, assessee submitted that under the Employees Stock Option Policy (E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erified under the powers vested in me u/s 250(4) of the Act and found to be in order. Being so, it is clear that the appellant has incurred expenditure of Rs. ₹ 0.48,500 towards ESOPS and it is entitled to claim the same. The AO is therefore directed to delete the addition and the ground of appeal in this regard stands allowed. 15. We have heard the parties and perused the orders of revenue authorities as well as other materials on record. It is very much evident from the order of CIT(A) that after verifying details CIT(A) has allowed the expenditure claim by assessee. Undisputedly, expenditure incurred towards ESOPs is an allowable expenditure. Therefore, the only thing which needed verification is whether assessee has actually i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
