TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above captioned appeals of the Revenue as well as Cross Objections (COs) of the assessee have been filed against the separate order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara ( CIT(A) for short) dated 16.01.2017 2. Both the parties have agreed that the facts and circumstances of all four AYs are similar and quite identical. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking up ITA No.879/Ahd/2017/SRT of Revenue and C.O No.01/SRT/2017 for AY 2006-07 as lead cases to decide the sole issue. The ld. Assessee s Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee wants to withdraw the C.O hence, the same is dismissed as withdrawn. The sole ground in the appeal of the Revenue reads as follows: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in ddleting disallowance of ₹ 1,25,80,915/- made on account of deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the IT Act. 3. We have heard the arguments of both sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on the record of the Tribunal. The ld. AR drawing our attention towards copy of the order of ITAT, Ahmedabad D Bench dated 19.06.2017 in assessee s own cases i.e., appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchased from the state electricity board. The Assessing Officer disallowed its above stated rate by reducing the same to the extent of difference in its eligible unit and that paid to the above Government undertaking. This culminated in the impugned disallowance as stated hereinabove in the two assessment years in question. The CIT(A) in turn relies upon his order in assessment year 2007-08 placing reliance upon a co-ordinate bench's decisions in assessee's cases itself in A.Y. 2003-04 2004-05. He therefore deletes the impugned disallowance of Section 80IA deduction. This leaves the Revenue aggrieved. 3. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently argues that the CIT(A) ought not to have deleted the impugned disallowance. He however fails to dispute the fact that this tribunal's co-ordinate bench's decisions hereinabove (supra) have already settled the issue against the Revenue. The said orders form part of the case file. The relevant discussion therein reads as follows: 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the issue, perused the material along with the orders of authorities below. We have also gone through the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able as business income, in determining that part which is chargeable to income- tax, the market value of any agricultural produce which has been raised by the assessee and utilized as a raw material in such business shall be deducted at the prevalent market value. This principle has been considered and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars ltd V/s CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 9: (1997) 2271TR 432 (SC). Therefore, we direct the assessing Authority to work out the profits on the basis of the price of the power generated by the assessee at the average of the annual landed cost of electricity purchased by the assessee from Karnataka State Electricity Board during the impugned previous year. It may be determined on the basis of payment details available from the bills issued by the Karnataka State Electricity Board, during the year under consideration 33. This issue is therefore, decided in favour of the assessee 12. In this case also, we noted that the cost of electricity per unit purchased by the assessee from GEB is ₹ 4.9 per unit. Therefore, in view of the decision of Mumbai IT A Nos. 475 779/Ahd/2014 (DCIT vs. Pragati Glass Works ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion u/s. 80IA of the Act in favour of the assesse, therefore, we are of the view that unless and until contrary facts are brought on record by the Revenue* no 'U'-turn is permissible. The learned -Assessing Officer is bound by rule of consistency. The following cases support the case of the assessee : i. Parshuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs ITO lOo ITR 1 (SC) ii. Security Printers 264 ITR 276(Del.) iii. CIT vs Neo Polypack Pvt. Ltd. 245 ITR 492 (Del.) iv. CIT vs Allied Finance Pvt. Ltd. 289 ITR 318 (Del.) v. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs CIT 266 ITR 99 (SC) vi. DCIT vs United Vanaspati (275 ITR 124) (AT)(Chandigarh ITAT) vii. Union of India vs Kumudini N. Dalai 249 ITR 219 (SC) viii. Union of India vs Satish Pannalal Shah 249 ITR 221 ix. B.F. Varghesevs State of Kerala 72 ITR 726 (Ker.) x. CIT vs Narendra Doshi 254 ITR 606 (SC) xi. CIT vs Shivsagar Estate 257 ITR 59 (SC) xii. Pradip Ramanlal Seth vs UOI 204 ITR 866 (Guj.) xiii. Radhaswamy Satsangvs CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) xiv. Aggarwal warehousing Leasing Ltd. 257 ITR 235 (MP) 3.3 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
