9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act without appreciating that baggase / hunk is not a waste but is a by-product of agri-produce processing industry which was purchased and not collected & processed or treated by the assessee, which is a pre-requisite for claiming deduction u/s 80JJA of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the assessce's claim of depreciation on windmills when the assessed was not a registered owner of the windmills and it was purchasing electricity from NAV Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Ltd (NMCOML) thus having no title/dominion and right to use the asset. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate the so called purchase of windmills by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the business of producing animal feed, feed supplement, edible oils, fuel pellets and wind power generation. The assessee for the year under consideration as in the earlier years had claimed deduction under section 80JJA of the Act on profits and gains from the business of bio degradable waste. Further, the assessee had purchased windmill from M/s. Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mills Limited (NMCOML). In the financial year 2007-08 the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected both the claims made by the assessee and also made disallowance in respect of payments made by assessee towards Employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC after 'due date' specified under the respective Acts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard and dismiss the grounds of appeal No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue. 11. The last issue which is raised vide ground of appeal No.4 i.e. against the order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance made on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC and Maharashtra Labour Welfare Fund. 12. The Tribunal had also decided similar issue vide para 15 of the order (supra) and had relied on the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd., reported in 368 ITR 749 (Bom) to hold that in case the payments were made before due date of filing the return of income, then no disallowance is to be made under section 43B of the Act. Following the same parity of reasoning, since the assessee has made payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
