TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or The Appellant : Sunil Talati For The Respondent : VK Singh ORDER Per Pramod Kumar AM: 1. These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 18th March, 2014 passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. We will first take up the appeal filed by the assessee. 3. In the first two grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised the following grievance:- 1. The order passed by the Hon ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Baroda, is bad in law, contrary to legal pronouncement and same be quashed. The additions/disallowances confirmed by the Hon ble Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals)-I, Baroda, are unwarranted and unjustified. It be held so now and same be deleted. 2. The Hon ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-I, Baroda, has erred in confirming of ₹ 14,51,000/- on account of amortization of lease rent treating the same as of capital nature. It is submitted that disallowance made is unwarranted and same be deleted now. 4. Learned representatives fairly agree that this issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in confirming deduction of ₹ 30.96 Crores claimed u/s 80IA of the Act. Your appellant submits that the necessary books of accounts have been maintained and all conditions laid down u/s 80IA are fulfilled. Hence there is no justification to disallow your appellant claims by adopting the market rate of units other than rate adopted by your appellant. It is therefore submitted that the deduction u/s 80IA is rightly claimed by your appellant and hence be allowed now. 10. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are as follows. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IA(4), in respect of profits on 90MV Captive Power Plant, amounting to ₹ 30,96,49,300/-. The Assessing Officer, however, declined the claim by observing, inter alia, as follows:- ( F) Therefore, for taking unit sale price, the price in the sale of Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd (GSECL) who is power generator and the average price for the year for sale of power to GUVNL or purchase price of GUVNL from GSECL was at ₹ 2.81 per unit. The GUVNL purchased from all sources i.e. GSECL, GIPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I was available irrespective of the fact whether products were sold in open market are used for consumption by other units. Again, it is clear from the provisions of section 80IA(4) that deduction u/s 80IA(4) is envisaged in respect of profits derived from inter unit transfer as well. In view of this, it is held that deduction u/s 80IA(4) was available to the appellant in respect of electricity generated by it for captive consumption, subject to fulfillment of other conditions u/s 80IA. 10.4 Regarding sale price to be adopted for computing profits derived by CPPs, this issue is fully covered by the decision of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Baroda (i.e. my predecessor) in appellant's own case in- AY 2008-09 in CAB-I/25/10-11 through order dated 03/11/2011. Facts of the case being same for the year under consideration also, it is held that the AO was justified in rejecting 'market value' of electricity captively consumed to be rate charged by DGVCL and MGVCL The AO is directed to instead adopt market value for electricity units actually sold by it to be the actual rate, i.e. ₹ 2.23 per unit and for electricity units captively consumed to be average rate of purchase of power b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 18. Ground No.1 is thus dismissed. 19. In ground nos. 2 3, the Assessing Officer has raised the following grievances:- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in considering the 'tonners' as 'gas cylinders' and accordingly directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% on chlorine tonners instead of 15% applicable to plant and machinery of Caustic Chlorine Plant. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (Appeals) erred deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,53,707/- on computers installed in the factory premises, without appreciating that the computers are office appliances only whether installed in factory or office and liable for depreciation as applicable to plant and machinery. 20. Learned representatives fairly agree that these issues are also covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court s judgment dated 20.01.2014 (ITA No.942 of 2013) in assessee s own case. Respectfully following the same, we approve the conclusions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
