TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Sons Ltd [ 2017 (12) TMI 297 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Tata communication limited [ 2019 (8) TMI 1446 - ITAT MUMBAI] but the Tribunal after considering the submission of the parties, rejected the additional ground challenging the authority of the Additional Commissioner of income-tax, in passing the assessment order. Thus, we dismiss the additional ground raised by the assessee. Deduction u/s 80IA - Taxability of renovation and modernization levy collected by the assessee from customers - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of the assessee in [ 2007 (4) TMI 396 - ITAT MUMBAI] . Since the issue of de-commissioning levy being different from the present levy of Renovation and modernization, which is covered against the assessee, thus, to maintain judicial discipline, we are not following the precedent in the case of decommissioning levy and prefer to follow the finding of the Tribunal (supra) on issue of renovation and modernization levy only. We also note that the assessee in assessment years i.e. 2004-05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 868 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and verify whether interest income credited has already been taxed, then claim of interest expenditure has to be allowed to the assessee. But as far as the issue of receipt collected by way of decommissioning charges and credited separately to decommissioning fund is identical to collection of the levy of renovation and modernisation fund, which we have upheld following the decision of the Tribunal in earlier years in preceding Para, and therefore to have consistency in our view, we uphold the addition treating the receipt of decommissioning charges as income in the hands of the assessee. We also note that the assessee in assessment years i.e. 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 has admitted the collection of different levies as its income and claimed reduction on the same for the purpose of section 80IA of the Act. Once the assessee itself has admitted the receipt as income in subsequent years, we do not find any justification on the part of the assessee in contesting those receipts as not taxable. The ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed, whereas the ground No. 6(six) of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter back to the Assessing Officer for verification and if this amount include any employer s contribution to ESI/PF, then the same may be allowed subject to provisions of section 43B of the Act i.e. paid before the due date of filing of the return of income and employee s contribution should be considered Applicability of section 115JA over the assessee who is an entity incorporated by the Government of India - HELD THAT:- As decided in Kerela State Electricity Board Vs DCIT reported in [ 2010 (11) TMI 127 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has firstly, held that the assessee was required to maintain its books of accounts in a manner specified by the Central Government, but not in the manner specified in the Companies Act, 1956, which is the requirement of provisions of section 115JA of the Act, thus section 115JA should not be applicable over government companies. Secondly, referred to the CBDT Circular (supra) and observed that Companies engaged in business of electricity generation were stated to be exempted from the provision of section 115JA of the Act and such an understanding was binding on the Income-tax authorities. Further, held that assessee or body similar, who are totally own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordance with law. Crystallisation of the expenses - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has given detailed bifurcations of the such expenses claimed by the assessee. In case of TAPS and RAPS, the assessee failed to file any evidence to show that expenses crystallised during the year under consideration and therefore the CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance. Out of the expenses related to MAPS CIT(A), deleted the repayment of electricity charges recovered from the employees, but upheld the disallowance of repair and maintenance expenses and reconciliation adjustment entry for material received in earlier years due to to lack of documentary evidence to support crystallisation of expenses in the year under consideration. Similarly in respect of KAPS, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition for trade tax and bonus, whereas in respect of repair and maintenance and leave salary and pension contribution, the assessee failed to justify crystallisation of expenses in the year under consideration. Similarly the Ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the miscellaneous expenses and corporate office expenses due to lack of evidence supporting crystallisation of expenses in the year under consideration. In our opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd advances to a staff cannot be any income derived from the operation of the power plant. In our opinion finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we do not find any error in the same, accordingly we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. Regarding the deduction in respect of the miscellaneous income, no details have been submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities, therefore Ld. CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80IA in respect of miscellaneous income. The ground No. nine of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. Exclusion of net interest income from the profit of the business for the purpose of section 80IA instead of gross interest income excluded by the lower authorities - HELD THAT:- The interest income earned from loans and advances to the staff has been excluded by the lower authorities for the purpose of deduction under section 80IA of the Act. In this ground, the assessee is claiming that interest expenditure should be adjusted against the interest income earned. The assessee has not given the details of the interest expenditure incurred in respect of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the rules) was not in operation and it was discretion of the AO to disallow expenses corresponding to earning of exempted on a reasonable basis. In the case, the AO has disallowed the administrative expenses in proportion to the ratio of exempted income to the total turnover of the assessee. But as per the submission of the assessee, assessee is receiving tax-free interest income on bonds invested in state electricity board, and no efforts except depositing the cheques of the interest were deposited in the bank. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that disallowance proportional to the receipt of interest is too excessive. At maximum, some percentage of administrative expenses on salary, office establishment expenses etc would be sufficient to cover expenses corresponding to earning of exempted income. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for making disallowance on some reasonable basis . The assessee is directed to provide details of expenses including office establishment expenses related to employees engaged in work related to earning of exempted income so that Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. The ground No. 30 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. Reduce of expenses from business profits for the purpose of 80-IA deduction - HELD THAT:- We find that Ld. CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee that each unit of the assessee is a profit centre and all the expenses relating to the unit are captured at the respective unit and only unidentifiable head office expenses are allocated to power stations and projects in the ratio of annual net sale of electrical energy and annual capacity outlay. In our opinion, the assessee has allocated head office expenses not identified to particular unit on the basis of a reasonable allocation key. Accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) has held that no portion of said administrative expenses ought to be directed in the computation of the deduction under section 80IA of the Act. In our opinion, there is nowhere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. - SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) For the Appellant : Mr. K. Gopal, Advocate For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1216.96 lacs Total Rs. 1581.37 lacs 8. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Additional Commissioner of disallowing an amount of Rs. 7 lacs as prior period expenditure. The appellant submits that as the expenditure had crystallized during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1998-99, the said expenditure was fully allowable as a deduction. 9. Without prejudice to Ground No. 8 above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not allowing deduction in respect of the expenditure treated as prior period in the years to which the same related to. 10. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Additional Commissioner of disallowing an amount of Rs. 53.47 lacs under section 43B. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the amounts were paid by the appellant during the previous year and therefore were not to be disallowed. 11. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the provisions of section 115JA apply to the appellant. 12. The learned Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Explanation to section 115JA(2). 18. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred confirming the action of the Additional Commissioner in raising a demand for interest under section 234B of Rs. 8,46,25,483 vide the notice of demand dated March 8, 2001 under section 156. 19. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B of Rs. 8,46,25,483. The appellant denies liability to such interest. 20. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a Central Government Public Sector Undertaking, engaged in the business of generation of electricity though various nuclear power plants situated in India including Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS); Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS); Narora Atomic Power Station ( NAPS), Kakrapar Atomic Power Station (KAPS) etc. The company is governed by the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The assessee company took over the nuclear power stations from the Atomic Energy department and further developed and sold/distributed electricity generated to its customers, the tariff of which, how ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of additional ground and also filed written submissions. The relevant part of written submissions is reproduced as under: a. That, in the additional ground, the Appellant has urged that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to act as its Assessing Officer and hence, the assessment order passed by him is without jurisdiction. This was because, in compliance with section 2(7A) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, no authority had been given by the CBDT to either the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner nor by any of the said authorities in favour of the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax. Further, though the assessment proceedings were initiated and carried on by the Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax, there was no transfer of jurisdiction from him to the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax as required by section 127 of the Act. The Appellant submits that both the aforesaid grounds dealing with jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. It is well settled by now that such ground could be raised at any stage of the proceedings. In this regard, your attention is invited to: CIT vs. Mohd. Ayyub Sons Agency 197 IT 637 (All) (Pg No. 1 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer would always be present as a part of the subject-matter of the appeal at all stages of the appeal, either before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal, as, such jurisdiction is always presumed to be existing in an authority before the passing of the order. (emphasis supplied). In CIT v. Belapur Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. [1983] 141 IT 404, our court followed the decision in CWT v. Narielwalla (IN.A.) [1980] 126 ITR 344 (Bom) and held (headnote): .. that the earlier notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that is, the three notices issued on March 31, 1965, and December 10, 1965, respectively, were invalid, because by that time the determination under section 163 of the said Act had not properly taken place. Since these notices were invalid, the reassessment done in pursuance thereof was also invalid. Thus, so far as our court is concerned, it can be taken to be settled law that a point which goes to the jurisdiction of the assessment can be allowed to be taken in an appeal before the Tribunal even though it was not taken before the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neral or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act have been issued by the Assessing Officer and there can be no doubt that they formed part of the record. The notifications or directions issued by the respective authorities, if any, should also be a part of the record, as otherwise, the Addl. CIT could not have exercised the jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer of the Appellant . In the course of hearing before the Tribunal, the Ld. DR explained that the designation of the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax shows that he was a part of the special range'. According to him, an Officer of the special range is directed to pass an assessment order in a particular case. He does not exercise general jurisdiction over assessee's located in a particular region or assessee's or cases forming a class. Based thereon, it is essential that the authority, if any, granted in favour of the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, in the present case, should be a part of the assessment record. The record of which the relevant facts should form part of should be the assessment record or the appellate record. It does not mean only the facts as plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that ground. This is the only limitation on exercise of powers to admit additional ground by the Tribunal. There is no time limit prescribed either in the Act or the Rules or the Appellate Tribunal Rules within which an additional ground could be raised. In these circumstances, an appellant should be allowed to raise an additional ground before the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, which test has been fulfilled in the present case. In this regard, reliance is placed on: National News Print and Paper Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 223 ITR 688 (MP) (Pg No. 69 to 70 of Caselaw Paper book); Shilpa Associates vs. ITO (2004) 135 Taxman 277 (Raj (Pg No. 71 to 73 of Caselaw Paper book) e. The judgment in the case of Dr. V. S. Chauhan vs. DIT (Investigation) 336 ITR 533 (All) (Pg No. 74 to 85 of Caselaw Paper book) and Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna vs JDIT (2018) 1998 Taxman.com 235 (Bom) (Pg No. 86 to 90 of Caselaw Paper book)as relied upon by the Ld. DR in support of his claims that the additional ground suffer from laches, the Appellant submits that they were concerned with writ petitions before the High Courts. That writ jurisdiction of a High Court is discretionary. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppear in the mater, it was decided that the additional ground should be filed. The said ground has been filed on 23.07.2018. The said issue could not have been raised by the Appellant either before the AO or the CIT(A) as it was not aware of the same at those stages. It has come to know of this issue only when the appeal was pending before the Tribunal. The Appellant therefore submits that the delay, if any, in filing the additional ground is on account of sufficient cause and may be condoned. g. Similar additional grounds as raised by the Appellant have been admitted by the Tribunal in the following cases: i. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT (AY 2001-02)(2016) (162 ITD 450) (MUM - TRI)(see para 3.11 to 3.16 on Pg No. 151 to 152 of Caselaw Paper ii. Tata Communication Ltd. vs. ACIT (AY 2002-03) in ITA No.7071/Mum/2005 and 1108/Mum/2008 vide its order dated 30.06.2017)(see para 4 and 6 on Pg No. 165 to 167 of Caselaw Paper Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT (AY 2002-03) in ITA Nos. 193 and 3745 /Mum/2006 vide its order dated 27.11.2017) (see para 12 to 17 on Pg No. 108 to 119 of Caselaw Paper book); iv. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. ACIT (AY 2004-05) in ITA No.2639/Mum/2009 vide it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT in the case of M/s Tata Sons Limited vs. ACIT (76 taxmann.com 126). Since the finding of the Horible Tribunal in the above referred case is directly applicable in the present case. So you are requested to go through the same and if deemed fit may kindly be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Bench. 6.1 The Ld. DR further referred to a written submission filed (undated) by his predecessor opposing the admission of the additional ground, relevant part of which is reproduced as under: The assessee has made an application in the above mentioned case requesting for admission of additional grounds of appeal in this case. The assessee has stated that since the additional grounds raised is purely a question of law and is dependent upon the facts which are already on record, the same may be admitted and adjudicated. The said additional grounds of appeal challenge the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to issue notice u/s. 143(2) and also to pass the subsequent assessment Order u/s 143(3). In stating so, the assessee is of the view that the Addl. CIT has not established that he possesses valid jurisdiction conferred on him in terms of Section 120(4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f jurisdiction being raised now is a mixed question of fact and law and not a pure question of law as is being claimed by the assessee. The issue raised by the assessee would require examination of assessment records and is likely to vary with each case. 2.6 The Department has filed a judicial paper book citing various case laws in which the fact, as enumerated above, has been the ratio decidendi. (Legal Submissions against Additional Grounds taken by a filed on 14.06.2019 followed by Legal PB dated 20.08.19 showing that even on merits the ground is not maintainable) 3.1 On merits also, the grounds proposed to be raised by the Assessee are not admissible. The provisions of Section 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4) of the Income Tax Act are reproduced as under: Section 120. (1) Income-tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as the Board may issue for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of those authorities. Explanation. For the removal of doubts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and the Commissioner of Income Tax had issued subsequent notifications empowering the Addl CIT/JCIT to exercise all powers and functions of the Assessing Officers, in respect of territorial areas or persons or classes of income or cases or classes of cases. The various notifications are attached as an enclosure and are also summarized herein which would leave no doubt that the additional ground being raised by the assessee is infructuous ab initio. (i) In exercise of its powers u/s 120(1) and 120(2) the Board issued Notification in S.O 732(E) dated 31.07.2001 authorizing the Commissioners of Income Tax to pass jurisdiction orders assigning jurisdiction to the authorities below. (Page 14 of PB-I) (ii) The Commissioners of Income Tax, CIT-Ill, Mumbai in the instant case, in view of the delegated powers vide above Notification, passed order in F. No: MC-IlI/JURIS/2001-02 dated 01.08.2001 assigning jurisdictions to AddIC's IT (Addl CIT, Range 3(3) Mumbai)/JC's IT to exercise the powers and perform all the functions under the Income Tax Act except the functions relating to deduction and collection of tax at source. (Page 08 of PB-II) (iii) The Board issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment proceedings or in subsequent appellate proceedings, the assessee has never objected jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. The Ld DR submitted that jurisdiction of the case has been transferred from time to time with the Assessing officer as per the prevalent circular/notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and consequent orders passed by the lower authorities and it is difficult to trace all those orders including administrative orders of their transfer and posting after such a long time. Whereas according to the assessee those orders passed are part of the records of the assessment, therefore, in view of the various decisions cited, the assessee is eligible for challenging the validity of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at any stage of the appellate proceedings. 6.4 As far as admission of additional ground during appellate proceedings is concerned, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 383(SC) has laid down as under what circumstances, an additional ground could be admitted before the Tribunal. The judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) has been followed by the Tribunal in various decisions including the deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range 31. Mumbai (Addl. CIT Mumbai on 22 March 2001. We wish to humbly submit that the Addl. CIT Mumbai did not have valid authority to perform and exercise the powers and functions of an Assessing Officer, as per the provisions of section 2(7A) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act and therefore, the above-mentioned assessment order, which has been passed without authority of law, shall be treated as bad in law, and be quashed. In this regard, we wish to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Mumbai ITAT) in the case of Tata Sons Ltd v ACIT [2016] 76 taxmann.com 126 (Mumbai - Trib.), wherein the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT held as under: .. It is well settled law that jurisdictional conditions required to be fulfilled by the Assessing Officer must be performed strictly in the manner as have been prescribed and if it has not been done in the manner as prescribed under the aw, then it becomes nullity in the eyes of law. Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala. [2001] 252 ITR 1/119 Taxman 352 of aseeygettictf it is a normal rule of constructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia Limited 187 ITR 688 (SC) National Thermal Power Co. Limited Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Limited 199 ITR 351 (Bom) (FB) Pruthvi Brokers Shareholders Pvt Ltd (349 ITR 336) (Bom) Ramco Cements Ltd (373 ITR 146) (Mad) Mahindra Mahindra Ltd (30 SOT374) (Mum SB) In view of the above, we request Your Honours to kindly admit our additional ground of appeal and oblige by adjudicating the same on merits. 14. Upon careful consideration on the touch stone of the above said case law, the additional grounds filed by the assessee are admitted. 6.6 We note that in the instant case before us also facts and circumstances are identical, hence, the additional ground raised is admitted for adjudication 7. Regarding merit of additional ground, the assessee submitted that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 15/12/1998 for initiating scrutiny proceedings was issued by the Assessing officer having designation of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, whereas the assessment order has been passed on 08/03/2001 by the Assessing officer having designation of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. 08.02.2019 The Appellant made its RTI application seeking information with respect to jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax to pass the assessment order. 10. 11.04.2019 The Appellant filed appeal against non-response of RTI application dated 08.02.2019. 7.1 For assailing the assessment order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly, referred to section 2(7A) of the Act, which has been amended by the Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1994 and the Addl. CIT has been defined to be an Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) r.w.s. 120(4)(b) of the Act to exercise or perform all or any of the powers or functions conferred on or assigned to an Assessing Officer under the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that as per section 120(4)(b) of the Act, the CBDT has to issue an order authorising the Director General of Income-tax (DGIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCIT) or Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) to issue an order in the writing that the powers and functio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de its order dated 11.03.2019 (see para 2-3 5.1 on Pg No. 211 to 212 235 respectively of Caselaw Paper book) v. Tata Communication Ltd vs. ACIT (AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05) (ITA No.3972/Mum/2007) | dated 16.08.2019 (see para 6 and 6.1 on Pg No. 253 to 276 of Caselaw Paper book) vi. Tata Sons Ltd vs. ACIT (AY 2005-06)(ITA No 5090/Mum/2012) dated 16.08.2019 (see para 7 on Pg No. 282 to 295 of Caselaw Paper book) 7.2 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1975/Mum/2014 and ITA No. 1771/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 in the case of M/s Vertiv Energy Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Tribunal has further relied on the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Sons Ltd. (supra). 7.3 In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax had no authority to act as an Assessing Officer for the assessee and pass the impugned assessment order. 7.4 The learned departmental representative (DR) firstly, referred to provision of section 124(3) of the Act which inter-alia prescribe that no person shall be entitled to call in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CBDT, wherein the post of Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (DCIT) was re-designated as Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (JCIT) with effect from 1 st day of October, 1998. Thus in the case of the assessee, the first notice issued under section 143(2) on 15/12/1998 is having designation of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, special range-32, Mumbai. The assessee has not disputed the jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, special range-32, Mumbai at any point of time even in assessment years prior to assessment year 98-99. The same Joint Commissioner of Income-tax issued further notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the assessee in the year under consideration. The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing those notices has also not been disputed by the assessee. 7.8 The learned departmental representative further submitted that, a section 2(28C) of the Act has been inserted by way of Finance, 1998 w.e.f. 01.10.1998 which defined that Joint Commissioner means a person appointed to be Joint Commissioner of Income-tax or Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 117(1) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that in the case of assessee, initial notices u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range for passing the assessment order under the capacity of concurrent jurisdiction. The Ld DR submitted that according to the assessee this transfer should have been by way of order u/s 127 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, whereas, according to the Revenue, the relevant Range officer i.e. JCIT/Addl. CIT was already having concurrent jurisdiction over the cases and assignment of the cases by the CIT to him/her was a formal procedure for transparency in distribution of the work. The Ld DR submitted that the issue in dispute involved in the case cited by the assessee is different and therefore ratio of those cases cannot be applied over the facts of the instant assessment year. 7.11 The ld DR referred to CBDT notification No. 228/2001 dated 31/07/2001 and notification No. 267/2001 dated 17/09/2001 cited in the decision of Tata Sons Ltd (supra), which have been issued under section 120(4)(b) of the Act and submitted that same pertain to distribution of jurisdiction in post-restructuring era and thus, not related to the question of jurisdiction raised in the year under consideration. 7.12. In rejoinder, the learned counsel referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax, Special Range 32. According to the assessee, for assignment of jurisdiction to the Additional CIT, range -32, Mumbai, the CBDT should have issued a notification and in compliance thereof Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Director General of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax should have passed order for assigning jurisdiction to the Addl. CIT. In our opinion, the contentions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee are without understanding the structure of the Department. Prior to restructuring of the Department, the cases having returned income more than particular returned income, which according to the ld DR was of Rs. 25 lakhs, under particular charge of Commissioner of Income-tax used to be assigned to the Special Range(s). The case of the assessee was continued to be assessed under the Unit Special Range-32. The said Unit was earlier being headed by the officer having designated as DCIT Special Range, but in view of change of designation by way Circular No. 772 dated 23/12/1998, i.e. cited by the ld DR, the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax was re-designated as Joint Commissioner of Income-tax and consequently the Special Range-32, Mumbai was re-desi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct i.e. not raising the issue of jurisdiction before the AO within the period of 30 days of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, are rendered merely academic; hence we are not commenting on the same. 8.2 In view of the above discussion, we reject the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Further, In the case of stock Traders p ltd (supra), in absence of no cogent basis for challenging the authority of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Act in passing the assessment order, the additional ground raised by the assessee has been dismissed by the Tribunal observing as under: 20. In this case, the only reason for the assessee's allegation that the above provisions are not complied with is that the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by the ACIT. However, the assessment order has been passed by the Addl. CIT. We note that the assessment order was passed on 22.03.2001 since then the assessee has got no information whatsoever and it has never ever had reason to challenge the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in this case. However, suddenly on 13.04.2018, the assessee has filed an additional ground that the Assessing Officer in this case did not have any jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee submitted that while raising invoices from customers, the renovation and modernization levy collected is in accordance with the notification issued by the Department of Atomic Energy Commission to cover equity portion of the Government for expenditure on renovation and modernization. He submitted that renovation and modernization fund was only for the meeting of capital expenditure and was to be a capital reserve and not distributable as dividend. The Ld. Counsel accordingly submitted that levy calculated is not the income of the assessee being on account of diversion of title at source. Alternatively, it was submitted that levy collected being in the nature of a Capital receipt, it was not taxable in for the purpose of income-tax. 9.1 On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that issue in dispute is decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for assessment year 1997-98 in ITA No. 4071/Mum/2001 dated 05.04.2007 and further appeal filed by the assessee is pending before the Hon ble High Court. 9.2 In the rejoinder, the Ld Counsel submitted that identical issue of levy of de-commissioning levy has been decided by the Tribunal in ITA No. 843/mum/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evies collected by the assessee would be passed over or was actually passed over to the Government. Both the levies were collected and retained by the assessee for its use. What the second Notification provided was the manner in which the levies would be used by the assessee for its own purposes. (5) Second Notification specifically provided that both the levies would not form part of the tariff or sales income in the hands of the assessee. In other words, a distinction was created between the tariff forming part of sales income and the levies, which were declared to be not forming part of the tariff or sales income of the assessee. The fact however remains that the levies were required to be collected along with tariff though under a separate head. Notwithstanding the stipulation in the second Notification that the levies would not form part of sales income of the assessee, the assessee was to retain the levies collected and use the same for the purposes of meeting its own capital and revenue expenditure on notified activities. 15. On the factual matrix of the case, the assessee has all along been claiming that the income by way of levies stood diverted at source by an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) the Hon'ble High Court has considered the judgment in Sitaldas Tirathdas' case (supra) and held as under : The concept of real income or diversion of income by an overriding title was explained by Hidayatullah, J. in the case of Sitaldas Tirathdas (supra) at pages 374-375: In our opinion, the true test is whether the amount sought to be deducted, in truth, never reached the assessee as his income. Obligations, no doubt, there are in every case, but it is the nature of the obligation which is the D decisive fact. There is a difference between an amount which a person is obliged to apply out of his income and an amount which by the nature of the obligation cannot be said to be a part of the income of the assessee. Whereby the obligation income is diverted before it reaches the assessee, it is deductible; but where the income is required to be applied to discharge an obligation after such income reaches the assessee, the same consequence, in law, does not follow. It is the first kind of payment which can truly be excused and not the second. The second payment is merely an obligation to pay another a portion of one's own income, which has been received a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 18. On perusal of catena of decisions on the subject, it transpires that, in order to constitute diversion of income at source by overriding title following facts must be established: (i) There must be income arising out of the corpus held by the assessee; (ii) A portion of the income so generated must be charged to the source itself by an overriding title in favour of a third party or, in other words, the obligation must attach to the source of income in that the income itself should not accrue to the receiver and not to the receiver of the income to apply it in a particular manner; (iii) The income so charged must be passed on or is required to be passed or, in other words, is required to be diverted in favour of a third party before it reaches the assessee; and (iv) The assessee, after the income stands diverted at source by a superior title, is no longer concerned with that income or, in other words, the assessee must be completely divested of any kind of dominion over the income. 19. Applying the aforesaid tests to the facts of the case before us, it is seen that the assessee was entitled to collect and recover the levies from its cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) in Para15 of his order. In order to constitute capital receipt, the receipt should be traceable to loss of capital. The assessee has not collected the levies against loss of capital. They were included and collected along with the tariff in the ordinary course of business. Once they have been so collected, their ultimate destination or application will not change their character from being business receipts to capital receipts. In our view, the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that the impugned receipts were not capital receipts. We endorse his order. 22. We have considered all the submissions made including the judicial authorities referred to by the parties though we have not individually commented upon them as the decision in the present case has turned essentially on facts. 23. In view of the foregoing, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 taken by the assessee are dismissed. 9.4 Since the issue of de-commissioning levy being different from the present levy of Renovation and modernization, which is covered against the assessee, thus, to maintain judicial discipline, we are not following the precedent in the case of decommissioning levy and pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the term De-commissioning used within conventional industry means action taken to take the plant or machinery out of operation after the end of its economic life. The nuclear plants contain radioactive inventory causing radiation hazards, so a comprehensive rules were framed for decommissioning of plants involving technical guideline and provision of finance. The assessee submitted before the AO that in view of notification issued by Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy dated 22.12.1988, the assessee charged a decommissioning levy of Rs. 1.25 paise per kilowatt-hour(KWH) of electricity sold and credited the said amount of the Decommissioning charges to a fund known as De-commissioning fund , which was to be maintained by the assessee. The interest accrued on said fund was also credited to the reserve and not invested outside. It was contended by the assessee that in view of maintenance of separate fund for decommissioning levy, said receipt has been diverted from the assessee. It was submitted by the assessee that the assessee collected De-commissioning charge of Rs. 1.25 per Kilowatt of electricity sold from the nuclear station in the country, which was subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decommissioning activities, which activity is the responsibility of the Government of India. 11.2 The Ld. CIT(A) however rejected the contention of the assessee observing as under: 7.7. The above argument of the Ld. A.R. in my considered opinion is misconceived and fallacious. It is equally misconceived for the appellant to assert that the collection has even before reaching the hands of the appellant has been credited to the decommissioning fund. The fact is that it is the appellant who has collected the amount from the consumers/customers and none else. Therefore, the amount so collected by the appellant as an additional levy has reached the hands of the appellant in the same manner and from the same consumers as the other charges. To say that the collection has been made on behalf of the Central Govt. is again quite misconceived in as much as the collections has not gone to the coffers of the government but has remained with the appellant under its effective custody. It is not the appellant's case that the collections in question have been appropriated by the Government in favour of some other party divesting the appellant of the use of the funds for all times to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he nature of the appellant's business of power generation. What the appellant describes as decommissioning is basically an essential requirement of taking care of the normal life of a power plant with reference to its normal wear and tear and attendant hazards. The collection of charges from customers in the course of the conduct of business to create adequate funds to take care of the wear and tear of the power plants at the instance of the Government is quite understandable having regard to the attendant hazards of maintaining the power plants. Which of the business but such regulation does nor a given business having regard to these. The government can always regulate the conduct of a given business having regard to the which the appellant has made in course of sale of electricity to the customers are not collections of revenue nature. There is no diversion of such collections at source in favour of anyone else. The charges have been collected by the appellant and have remained with the appellant in the form of a fund and have to be used only for the purposes of the appellant's business. No third party is involved. The funds are not to be parted with in favour of any thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, the decommissioning of a nuclear power station after its useful life includes decontamination, dismantling and removal of radio active material, radio-active material, waste, components and structure and it is the responsibility of the company. This decommission reserve of nuclear power station includes the expenditure relating to decontamination, dismantling and removal of radio-active material, waste, components and structure. With a view to meet the decommissioning expenditure as and when the plant is decommissioned, the Department of Atomic Energy issued a notice dated 22.12.1988 and 04.11.1991 directing the assessee to charge such decommissioning levy from its customers. Vide another notification dated 20.2.1997 a clarification was issued stating that the decommissioning charges so levied at on the assumption that the funds collected will carry an interest of 12% per annum. Therefore, assessee credited interest @ 12% on the decommissioning fund kept with the assessee. For the year under consideration assessee credited an amount of Rs. 331.73 lakhs towards interest on the decommissioning reserve of Rs. 917.08 lakhs. Assessee claimed the same as a deduction stating that the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the Tribunal. As noted, the assessee was under directives of the Government of India to collect and create decommissioning reserves which would be utilized for decommissioning of the plant at the end of its useful life. In the meantime, the amount so collected from the customers would be in the possession of the assessee and would be utilized for the purpose of its business. The Government of India, therefore, required the assessee to account for the interest which was also specified at 12% per annum on said funds. The interest expenditure was claimed by the assessee by way of deduction. This interest expenditure was clearly business expenditure. The situation is akin to the assessee borrowing from the market, utilizing such borrowed funds for the purpose of business and paying interest to the creditors. No question of law arises. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed. 11.6 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record . We find that Hon ble High Court and the Tribunal has given finding on the issue of claim of interest expenditure for utilisation of the funds out of the decommissioning fund on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the activity of construction of plants and does not constitute independent sources of the income therefore, should be reduced from the construction expenses which were capitalized. It was further submitted that identical treatment of account has been followed by the assessee in past years, which same had not been disturbed by the AO and thus, in view of the rule of consultancy said income should be adjusted against the construction expenditure, instead of taxing separately under the head income from other sources . Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that income under the respective head was having nexus with the construction activity. The detailed submission of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: At the outset, we would like to provide your honor with the factual background about the nature of income that has been reduced from the construction expenses. (a) Interest (others) This amount represents interest received by the appellant from the employees, contractors etc. on loans / mobilization advances granted for the purposes of the project. The expenditure in respect of such interest is included as expenditure in Schedule 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAPP 3 4 203.22 127 f) TAPP 3 4 8.34 128 Total 1,581.37 A summary is enclosed at page 129 of the compilation. It is submitted that the relevant expenditure in respect of items mentioned at (a), (b) and (c) above has not been claimed as a deduction in computing the total income and has been treated as capital expenditure. It is further submitted that the total expenditure incurred exceeds the income in Schedule 6A. On the basis of the above background, the appellant makes the following submissions: The appellant invites attention to the Guidance Note on Treatment of Expenditure during Construction period issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). The Guidance Note states that the expenses incurred during the construction period which are directly relatable to the acquisition or construction of the assets are to be accumulated and appropriated to the cost of such assets when the project is commissioned. In the instant case, the issue f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... --- 123.28 128.23 4. Engineering Division --- 87.7 136.82 5. RAPP 3 4 85.93 117.29 203.22 6. TAPP 3 4 2.42 5.93 8.35 Grand Total 276.71 87.7 1167.84 1581.37 12.3 Further on page 211, in the details of corporate office, a sum of ₹ 8,75,02,500/- has been stated to be received as premium on bonds. It was submitted that expenses incurred for earning the said receipt had already been reduced from those receipts. A detail of income earned and corresponding expenditure for engineering division has been explained on page 214 to 215 of the paperbook. 12.4 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee was as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the legal expenses amounting to Rs. 7 lakhs has been filed and therefore, we do not have any option other than to uphold the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 14. In ground No. 9, the assessee has prayed that deduction in respect of expenditure treated as prior period should have been allowed. 14.1 In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has made only disallowance in respect of legal expenses of Rs. 7 lakhs and he has not disturbed either prior period income or prior expenses except said disallowance of Rs. 7.00 lakhs for legal expenses, which we have already upheld and therefore the ground No. 9 of the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed. 15. The ground No. 10 of the appeal relates to disallowance of employee state insurance (ESI) and provident fund (PF) amounting to Rs. 53.47 lakhs u/s 43B of the Act. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an annexure of the detail of ESI and PF amounting to Rs. 53.47 lakhs which has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer as same was paid after the due date under the relevant Acts. Since, the issue in dispute of payment of employees contribution to ESI/PF after the due date under the relevant Act has been fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er cent of its book profit, the total income of such assessee chargeable to tax for the relevant previous year shall be deemed to be an amount equal to thirty per cent of such book profit. (1A) Every assessee, being a company, shall, for the purposes of this section, prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, book profit means the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (1A), as increased by - if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (f) is debited or, as the case may be, the amount referred to in clauses (g) and (h) is not credited to the profit and loss account, and as reduced by, It can be seen from clause (1) that the provision creates a legal fiction regarding the total income chargeable to tax. Such a fiction is applicable only to those assessees which (a) are Companies except the Companies engaged in the business of either generation or distribution of electricity, (b) that such a fiction is made appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opted or adopts the financial year under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), which is different from the previous year under the Act, the method and rates for calculation or depreciation shall correspond to the method and rates which have been adopted for calculating the depreciation for such financial year or part of such financial year falling within the relevant previous year . The further details of Section 115JA may not be necessary for the present purpose. 13. Then came to Section 115JB, which was inserted in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act of 2000 with effect from 1.4.2001. The relevant portion as it stands today reads as follows:- 115JB. Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case of an assessee, being a company, the income-tax, payable on the total income as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1 st day of April, 2007 is less than ten per cent of its book profit, such book profit shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee and the tax payable by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax payable on the basis of the 'total income' computed in accordance with the I.T. Act is less than a specified percentage (7=% for the years in issue) of the book profit. Further, Sections 115JA and 115JB also stipulate a definite manner of preparing the annual accounts including the profit and loss accounts. More specifically, Section 115JB stipulates that the accounting policies, accounting standards, etc. shall be uniform both for the purpose of income tax as well as for the information statutorily required to be placed, before the annual general meeting conducted, in accordance with Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956. 14. It may be mentioned here that under Section 166 of the Companies Act every Company is mandated to hold a general meeting in each year. Section 210 mandates that every year the Board of Directors of the Company in the general meeting shall lay before the Company a balance sheet as at the end of the relevant period and also a profit and loss account for the period. Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act specify the method and manner of maintaining the profit and loss account. 15. However, the appellant though is by d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessees which are Companies. The book profit of the Company is deemed to be total income of the assessee in the circumstances specified in the said Section, which are already noticed earlier. The expression book profit for the purpose of the said Section is explained in the Section itself to mean the net profit as increased or decreased by the various amounts shown in the various sub-clauses of the Section. The net profit itself must be the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account of the Company. Subsection (2) mandates that the profit and loss account of the Company is required to be prepared in the manner specified therein. Though in view of the requirement under Section 69 of the Electricity Supply Act the appellant is required to maintain accounts in a different form than the one contemplated under Section 115JB(2), the prescription under Section 69 is only regarding the general duty of the appellant for the purpose of Electricity Supply Act. Nothing in theory prevents the Parliament from obligating the appellant to prepare another profit and loss account as prescribed under Section 115JB(2) for the purpose of the Income Tax Act. The question is whether such an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less entitled to considerable weight, it is highly persuasive . to give the benefit of such clause any more to those who were getting the benefit of such exclusion clause, in our opinion, it is not an absolute rule. The other attendant circumstances, the context, the history and the mischief sought to be remedied by the amendment are all required to be examined before reaching at definite conclusion. 19. The Circular No.762 not only is binding on the respondents, but also explains the purpose in introducing Section 115JA. The relevant portion reads as follows:- 46.1 In recent times, the number of zero-tax companies and companies paying marginal tax has grown. Studies have shown that in spite of the fact that companies have earned substantial book profits and have paid handsome dividends, no tax has been paid by them to the exchequer. 46.2 The Finance Act has inserted a new section 115JA of the Income-tax Act, so as to levy a minimum tax on companies who are having book profits and paying dividends but are not paying any taxes. The scheme envisages the payment of a minimum tax by deeming 30 per cent of the book profits computed under the Companies Act, as taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d operating infrastructure facilities, as a matter of policy, are not brought within the purview of the amendment (Section 115JA) for the reason that such a policy would promote the infrastructural development of the country. Such an understanding of the CBDT is binding on the department. 20. If that is the background in which Section 115JA is introduced into the Income Tax Act, Section 115JB, which is substantially similar to Section 115JA, in our opinion, cannot have a different purpose and need not be interpreted in a manner different from the understanding of the CBDT of Section 115JA. 21. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [(1981) 128 ITR 294 (SC)] and CIT v. Eli Lilly and Co. (India) P. Ltd. [(2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC)], where the computation provision could not be applied in a particular case, it is indicative of the fact that the charging Section also would not apply. It was held in B.S. Srinivasa Setty's case (supra) as follows:- Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section . 22. Another reason is that the appellant or bodies similar to the appellant, which are totally owned by the Government - either State or Central - have no share holders. Profit, if at all, made by the appellant would be for the benefit of entire body politic of the State of Kerala. In the final analysis, all taxation is meant for the welfare of the people in a Constitutional Republic. Therefore the enquiry as to the mischief sought to be remedied by the amendment becomes irrelevant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the fiction fixed under Section 115JB cannot be pressed into service against the appellant while making the assessment of the tax payable under the Income Tax Act. 16.1 The Hon ble supreme in Civil No. 151, 152, 154 and 13571 of 2015 upheld the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court observing as under: 2. The judgment under appeal was rendered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Dy. CIT [20101 8 taxmann.com 118/[2011]196 Taxman 1/[2010] 329 ITR 91. 3. We have gone through the circumstances on record and considered the rival submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for AY 1999-2000. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming as income of the appellant an amount of Rs. 1,986.21 lacs, being Decommissioning Levy collected by the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming as income of the appellant an amount of Rs. 2,278.46 lacs, being interest credited to Decommissioning Fund. 3. The learned Commissioner Appeals erred in confirming as income of the appellant an amount of Rs. 4,965.52 lacs, being Renovation Modernisation levy collected by the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming as income of the appellant an amount of Rs. 322.09 lacs, being interest credited to Renovation and Modernisation fund. 5. Without prejudice to Grounds 3 and 4 above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the amount collected towards Renovation Modernisation levy was not in the nature of a capital receipt exempt from tax. 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming as income of the appellant an amount of Rs. 2,979.31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assistant Commissioner in including the following amounts as being part of book profits under section 115JA: Sr. No. Particulars Amount a) Interest income on deposits with banks 10,077.98 b) Interest income from Inter Corporate Deposits 267.46 c) Interest on staff loan 225.12 d) Interest Others 222.63 e) Delayed payment charges 9,312.97 f) Miscellaneous receipts 694.82 Total 20,800.98 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the above incomes were inextricably linked to the business of generation of power and were therefore derived from the business of generation of power. On this bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordingly dismissed. 21. Now, we take up the regular grounds of appeal of the assessee. The ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal relate to receipt of decommissioning levy by the assessee and the interest credited on the de-commissioning fund respectively. The issues in dispute being identical to ground Nos. 5 and 6 raised in assessment year 1998-99, therefore, following our finding in ITA No. 202/Mum/2004 for assessment year 1998-99, the ground No. 1 is dismissed, whereas the ground No. 2 is allowed for statistical purposes, 22. The ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the appeal of the assessee relate to amount of receipt of Rs. 4965.52 lakhs by way of renovation and modernization levy and interest of Rs. 322.09 lakhs credited to the renovation and modernization fund respectively. In ground no. 5, the assessee has prayed for treating the receipt of Rs. 4965.52 lakhs by way of renovation and modernization levy as capital receipt. The issues in dispute raised in above grounds have already been adjudicated by us in the appeal for assessment year 1998-99, therefore, following our finding in ground the appeal for assessment year 1998-99, the issues in dispute are decided mutatis mutandis. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said prior year's adjustments arise on this account from year to year and hence is an allowable expenditure for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The details of the prior period adjustments were provided in the Annual Report at Schedule 13. The net amount of Rs. 2,583.13 lacs was claimed as a deduction by the appellant. The learned Additional Commissioner vide letter dated August 16, 2000 requested the appellant to submit details of the prior period expenses and also requested the appellant to make submissions as to why disallowances should not be made in respect of the said expenditure. The appellant submitted the information requested vide letters dated November 27, 2000, December 12, 2000 and January 12, 2001. The information was furnished in respect of each item of expenditure and explanations were also provided in that respect. However, information in respect of legal expenses aggregating to Rs. 7 lakhs was not received by the appellant and the same could not be furnished during the course of the assessment proceedings. The learned Additional Commissioner in the assessment order held that the legal expenses incurred are not deductible in the absence of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither to employee s contribution or to employer s contribution, therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this matter to the Assessing Officer for verification and decide in accordance with law. The ground No. 11 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 27. In ground No. 12, the assessee has challenged that provisions of section 115JA are not applicable in the case of the assessee. The identical ground has been adjudicated by us in assessment year 1998-99 and therefore following our finding in assessment year 1998-99, the ground No. 12 of the appeal is adjudicated mutatis mutandis. 28. The ground Nos. 13 to 16 have been raised by the assessee alternatively to ground No. 12 of the appeal. Since ground No. 12 has been already adjudicated in favour of the assessee, therefore, these grounds are rendered academic only. Accordingly, same are dismissed as infructuous. 29. In ground No. 17 of the appeal, the assessee has raised the issue of adjustments to book profit u/s 115JA of the Act. Since, we have already held that section 115JA is not applicable over the assessee; therefore, this issue is merely academic hence dismissed as infructuous. AY 2000-01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff loan 59.80 Interest on others 440.83 Consultancy receipts 64.49 Other Income (including interest income other than on surplus funds) 1,998.59 Total 2,563.71 Disallowance for provision made for obsolete stock 10. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assistant Commissioner of disallowing the provision made for loss and obsolete stock of Rs. 36.22 lacs Taxability under section 115JA of the Act 11. The leamed CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 115JA apply to the appellant. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assistant Commissioner in holding that the other income of the appellant was not derived from the business of generation of power. 13. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assistant Commissioner in including the following amounts as being part of book profits under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dice to other grounds of appeal filed earlier, pending disposal. 2. The learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing assessment order under section 143(3) dated 26th February 2003 where the assessment proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Such order passed is bad in law, in the absence of an order transferring, jurisdiction under section 127 to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. Your appellants crave leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute the aforesaid ground of appeal or add a new ground or grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal as they may be advised 31.1 Before us, the Ld Counsel for the assessee relied upon his submission for AY 1998-99. The ld DR submitted that in the additional ground raised for the year under consideration, the assessee has challenged that notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of income-tax, whereas the assessment order has been passed by the Asst Commissioner of income-tax. He referred to his submission in the appeal for assessment year 98-99 that post restructuring in the Income tax department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, following our finding in ITA No. 202/Mum/2004 for assessment year 1998-99, the issues are decided mutatis mutandis. 33. The ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the appeal of the assessee relate to amount of receipt of Rs. 5495.24 lakhs by way of renovation and modernization levy and interest of Rs. 1398.90 lakhs credited to the renovation and modernization fund respectively. In ground no. 5, the assessee has prayed for treating the receipt of Rs. 5495.24 lakhs by way of renovation and modernization levy as capital receipt. The issues in dispute raised in above grounds have already been adjudicated by us in the appeal for assessment year 1998-99, therefore, following our finding in appeal for assessment year 1998-99, the issues in dispute are decided mutatis mutandis. 34. The ground Nos. 6 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee relate to amount of Rs. 3297.14 lakhs collected by way of research and development levy, interest of Rs. 885.08 lakhs credited to research and development fund and research and development levy being in the nature of capital receipt respectively. The identical grounds have been decided by us while adjudicating ground Nos. 3 and 4 of the appeal of the assessee fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly and has not been challenged in the past. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on following decisions in support of its claim: a. CIT v Hotline Teletube Components Ltd. (175 Taxman 286) Delhi HC) b. CIT v Hughes Communications India Ltd. (215 Taxman 136) Delhi HC) c. CIT v Becton Dickinson (India (P.) Ltd. (214 Taxman 636) (Delhi HC) 36.3 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. If a wrong claim has been allowed in the earlier year same cannot be ground for allowing in the year under consideration also. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributor (baroda) Private Limited 1985 AIR 1585, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 778 held that there is no heroism in continuing the error and it should be corrected when pointed out. Though the learned counsel of the assessee has relied on various decisions cited, but the factual information of the list of such stock and how same became obsolete was not submitted before the lower authorities. Before us also no such evidences have been submitted to establish that relevant stock became obsolete. Unless properly identified the obsolete stock or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd. 5. Without prejudice to Grounds 3 and 4 above, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount collected towards Renovation Modernisation levy was not in the nature of a capital receipt and accordingly taxable. Research Development Levy 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant an amount of Rs. 4,432.79 lacs, being Research Development levy collected by the appellant. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant an amount of Rs. 1,336.46 lacs, being interest credited to Research and Development fund. 8. Without prejudice to Grounds 6 and 7 above, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that a portion of the amount collected towards Research Development levy was not in the nature of a capital receipt and accordingly taxable. Income arising from /during Construction Period 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing as income, the following amounts which had been reduced by the appellant company from the expenditure incurred during construction period: Sr. No. Particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st credited to Renovation Modernisation Fund 2,269.66 e. Research Development levy 4,432.79 f. Interest credited to Research Development Fund 1,336.46 Total 21,674.39 17. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that the amounts credited to the Decommissioning fund, Renovation Modernisation fund and Research Development fund are the amount transferred to 'reserves as specified in clause (b) of Explanation to Section 115JB 18. The learned CIT(A) erred in not confirming that that the amounts credited to the respective funds above are diverted at source and do not form part of the turnover of the appellant company. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the said amounts do not form part of the profit and loss account, prepared in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and Ill of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 and therefore the same could not be included in the book profit computed under Section 115JB 19. Without prejudice to Ground 16 abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, following our finding in ITA No. 202/Mum/2004 for assessment year 1998-99, the issues are decided mutatis mutandis. 43. The ground Nos. 3 to 9 of the appeal for year under consideration are identical to ground raised in assessment year 2000-01, accordingly following our finding in assessment year 2000-01, the ground Nos. 3 to 9 of the year under consideration are decided mutatis mutandis. 44. As far as ground No. 10 of the appeal against not allowing the deduction for expenditure incurred in respect of income of ₹ 2,764.70 lakhs, which has held to be income assessable under the head income from other sources . While adjudicating round No. 9, we have already upheld the finding of the lower authorities that said income is liable to be assessed under head the income from other sources . We are of opinion that under the provisions for assessment of the income under the head income from other sources , the assessee is eligible for expenses incurred for earning such income. Accordingly, we restore this ground to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the assessee and decide in accordance with law. The ground No. 10 of the appeal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a copy of letter dated 10th February 2004 filed before the 10 during assessment proceedings giving the details of various expenses claimed as prior period expenses. The reasons for claiming these expenses in the year under consideration have also been given in the said letter. According to the appellant, as against the total expenditure of Rs. 1,93.709.11 lacs debited in the P L Alc, the amount of Rs. 542.02 lacs claimed on account of prior period expenses does not constitute even 0.3% of the total expenditure. In such a big organisation, it is not possible to account for each and very expenditure relating to the relevant year. Delayed receipt of some bills can never be avoided. Since the expenditure claimed by the appellant on account of prior period expenses is quite minuscule, it should have been allowed by the AO as deduction in the current year. It Prada Bi was further stated that the cut-off date for accounting liabilities for the year is 30th June. Any liability crystallizing after 30th June is accounted for in the succeeding year. According to the appellant, the liability in respect of prior period expenses claimed by the appellant at Rs. 542.02 lakhs arose in the current ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts are maintained on mercantile basis it wowskaswe be found in respect of any claim, whether such liability was crystallized and quantified Felusing the previous year so as to be required to be adjusted in the books of accounts of that previous year. If any liability, though relating to the earlier year, depends upon making a demand and its acceptance by the assessee and such liability has been actually claimed and paid in the later previous years cannot be disallowed as deduction merely on the basis the accounts are maintained on mercantile basis and that it related to a transaction of the previous year. The true profit and gain of a previous year are required to be computed for the purpose of determining tax liability. The basis of taxing income is accrual of income as well as actual receipt. If for want of necessary material crystallising the expenditure is not in existence in respect of which such income or expenses relate, the mercantile system does not call for the adjustment in the books of accounts on estimate basis. It is actually known income or expenses, right to receive or liability to pay which has come to be crystallised, is to be taken into account under mercan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents appear at page 78 79 of the letter dated 10.2.2004 filed by the appellant before the AO during the assessment proceedings. Since the amount recovered from the employees in the earlier years has been refunded by the appellant to the employees in the year under consideration, the appellant is entitled to deduction in respect of amount of Rs. 6.44 lakh. Accordingly, the appellant is tled to deduction of Rs. 6.44 lakh on this account. (ii) Repairs and Maintenance expenses - Rs. 17.40 lakhs. It has been submitted that the appellant had got the machinery repaired from M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. in the earlier years. The bill for Rs. 17,39,943/- in respect of the same was received from BHEL during the current year because of which the deduction was claimed in this year. Along with the letter dated 10.2.2004 filed before the AO, the appellant had also filed copies of invoices of BHEL in respect of these expenses. I have perused the documents filed by the appellant to contend that the liability in respect of these expenses crystallized in the current year since the bills were received in the current year. The copies of the bills filed by the appellant are qui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had paid advances to various state government agencies for Civil work. The amount paid was debited to the advance account. The civil work was completed in the earlier years. However, the company did not receive any bills from the Government agencies after the completion of the work. The company during the relevant A.Y. 2001-02, on the basis of certification from the Civil Engineer, transferred the amount from advances to the expense account. A copy of the letter dated May 19, 2001 of the Civil Engineer, Nuclear Power Corporation was enclosed at pages 102 of the compilation filed before the AO during asstt. proceeding. It was submitted that as the status of work completed was finalised in the A.Y. 2001-02, the expenses must be allowed as deduction. I have considered the contention of the appellant. On the basis of reply of the appellant it cannot be said that the liability in respect of the expenses of Rs. 23.37 lakhs crystallized during the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2001-02. Since the expenses had crystallized prior to 1.4.2000, these expenses cannot be allowed as deduction for AY. 2001-02. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 23.37 lakh made by the AO in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration. Although the appellant was specifically asked to file evidence during the hearing of appeal but no evidence has been filed so far. In the absence of any evidence the claim of the appellant that these expenses had crystallized during the year under consideration cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 51.79 lakhs made by the AO is upheld. 9.2.1(f) Corporate Office - Rs. 1.51 lakhs. Neither before the AO nor before me, the appellant has filed any evidence to show that the liability in respect of these expenses has crystallized during the year under consideration. Although the appellant was specifically asked to file evidence during the hearing of appeal but no evidence has been filed so far. In the absence of any evidence the awes claim of the appellant that these expenses had crystallized during the year under consideration cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 1.51 lakhs made by the AO is upheld. On the basis of the above discussion, the relief allowed to the appellant in respect of the ground of appeal at S. No. 12 is worked out as under: Accordingly, the ground of appeal at S. No. 12 is partly allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and after considering submission of the assessee upheld the disallowance of the observing as under: 10. The ground of appeal at Sr.No.13 is against the action of the AO in disallowing expenses of Rs. 1038.88 lakhs debited by the appellant under the head extra ordinary item written off. As per the assessment order, the appellant had incurred this expenditure on the delamination of the IC dome. It was explained by the appellant before the AO that this amount represented the expenditure on inner lining of Dome constructed in a nuclear power plant. Since this expenditure was not of recurring nature, the AO treated the expenditure of Rs. 1038.88 lacs in the nature of capital expenditure thereby making addition of Rs. 1038.88 lacs to the income of the appellant. 10.1 Before me, it was submitted that the amount of Rs. 1038.88 lacs was incurred on the construction of the dome of a power plant which had collapsed during construction period. It was submitted that the said expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure. 10.2 I have considered the contention of the appellant. The nature of the expenditure of Rs. 1038.88 lacs as explained by the appellant before me is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been disposed of below cost in the succeeding years. In absence of any documentary evidence, the claim made by the appellant in respect of the obsolete stock at Rs. 64.08 lacs appears to be ad hoc and arbitrary. It is pertinent to note that, in the case of the appellant for the A.Y. 2000-01, similar disallowance made by the AO has been upheld by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 15th March 2004. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, the claim made by the appellant cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 64.08 lacs made by the AO is upheld. Therefore, the ground of appeal at Sr. No. 14 is rejected. 47.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We note that neither itemised detail of obsolete stock was filed nor any evidence was filed to show that any of those items had been disposed off being below cost in succeeding years. In absence of any documentary evidence filed by the assessee before the lower authorities, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly uphold the same. The ground No. 15 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that a portion of the amount collected towards Research Development levy was not in the nature of a capital receipt and accordingly taxable. Deduction under Section 80IA 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the exclusion of the amount of interest income of Rs. 48.34 lakhs and miscellaneous income of Rs. 23.93 lakhs from the Profit of the business eligible for deduction under Section 80 lA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Without prejudice to Ground No. 9, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the exclusion of the gross interest income from the Profits of the business eligible for deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of the net interest income. The learned CIT(A) erred in not netting off the interest income against the interest expenditure. Income arising from /during Construction Period 11. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing as income, the following amounts which had been reduced by the appellant company from the expenditure incurred during construction period: Sr. No. Parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Interest credited to Renovation Modernisation Fund 2,999.27 Research Development levy 5,173.99 Interest credited to Research Development Fund 1,752.77 Total 25,650.73 51. The assessee has also filed additional ground on 18/07/2018, which are reproduced as under: 1. The ground of appeal is independent and without prejudice to other grounds of appeal filed earlier, pending disposal. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing assessment order under section 143(3) without having legal and valid jurisdiction under the Act to pass the assessment order. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax lacked jurisdiction to pass the assessment order under section 143(3) dated 28 th December 2004 and to exercise the powers of performing the functions of an Assessing Officer. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing assessment order under section 143 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion. The appellant has claimed deduction u/s 80 IA on interest received from the staff loans. There is no direct nexus of the interest income with the appellant's industrial undertaking. The nexus between the income and the industrial undertaking is incidental. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to deduction u/s 80 IA on the said income. Even in the case of Madras Motors Ltd. (supra) relied upon the appellant, the Court did not allow deduction u/s 80 HH (similar to 80-IA) on the interest received on bank deposits which were kept with the bank in connection with opening of letter of credit since the connection of the said interest income with the industrial undertaking was held to be only incidental. The Court allowed deduction u/s 80 IA only in respect of interest received on belated payments from the customers which were directly relatable to the business of the industrial undertaking. The other decisions relied upon by the appellant have been rendered prior to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 6.3.2 As regards the miscellaneous income of Rs. 52.22 lacs the said income consists of the following items. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The issue in dispute is regarding claim of deduction on interest income earned from giving loans to staff working at undertaking namely KAPS, under section 80IA of the Act. In our opinion, the activity of providing loans or advances to the employees working at the eligible unit, is not part of the business activity of the undertaking. It might be a welfare activity on the part of the assessee but interest earned on such loans and advances to a staff cannot be any income derived from the operation of the power plant. In our opinion finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and we do not find any error in the same, accordingly we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. 53.5 Regarding the deduction in respect of the miscellaneous income, no details have been submitted by the assessee before the lower authorities, therefore Ld. CIT(A) is justified in rejecting the claim of deduction under section 80IA in respect of miscellaneous income. The ground No. nine of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 54. In ground No. 10, the assessee has prayed for exclusion of net interest income from the profit of the business for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said amount and only the net income should be brought to tax. However, neither in the ground of appeal nor in the statement of facts or during the course of hearing of appeal, the appellant specified the expenses which have been incurred to earn the income of Rs. 336.02 lacs. In absence of any details or documentary evidence to prove that any expenditure has been incurred for earning the income of Rs. 336.02 lacs, the claim made by the appellant cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the 13 th ground is rejected. 56.1 We find that Ld. CIT(A) has only referred to the ground of appeal and statement of the facts but did not provide any opportunity to furnish such details. Therefore in the interest of the justice and to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, claim for deduction of expenditure against the income under the head income from other sources is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and deciding in accordance with law. The ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 57. The ground Nos. 14 to 16 of the appeal relate to disallowance of prior period expenses to the extent of ₹ 1181.41 lakhs. We heard ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs. 82.50 lacs has been provided in respect of capital project which has to be treated as capital expenditure. Such expenditure is not allowable as deduction u/s 37 of the I.T. Act. The appellant has not made any argument or filed any evidence to claim that the said expenditure is allowable under any other provisions of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the appellant is not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 82.50 lacs. Therefore, the action of the AO in this regard is upheld. Therefore, the ground of appeal at Sr. No. 21 is rejected. 59.2 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute in the light of the material available on record. The fact that expenditure was incurred for capital asset, which was installed at BARC, has not been disputed by the assessee. Evidently said expenditure is in the nature of the capital expenditure and not allowable as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and we uphold the same. The ground No. 17 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 60. The ground No. 18 of the appeal relates to provision ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pment fund. 8. Without prejudice to Grounds 6 and 7 above, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that a portion of the amount collected towards Research Development levy was not in the nature of a capital receipt and accordingly taxable. Deduction under section 80-IA 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the exclusion of an amount of interest income of Rs. 128.65 lakhs and miscellaneous income to the extent of Rs. 477.45 lakhs from the Profit of the business eligible for deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act. 1961. 10. Without prejudice to Ground No. 9, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the exclusion of the gross interest income from the Profits of the business eligible for deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instead of the net interest income. The learned CIT(A) erred in not netting off the interest income against the interest expenditure. 11. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that the Research Development expenditure was relatable to the units that were eligible for the deduction under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently apportioning Research and Development ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 10.34 lakhs. Computation of book profits under section 115JB 20. The learned CIT(A) erred confirming the action of the assessing officer in increasing the net profit by the following amounts, while computing the book profit of the appellant under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Sr. No. Particulars Amount in lakhs 1. Decommissioning Reserve 3,470.39 2. Renovation Modernization Reserve 8,675.97 3. Research Development Reserve 5,205.58 4. Interest on above reserves 9,069.02 Total 26,420.96 21. The learned CIT(A) erred in denying the claim for deduction of Renovation Modernisation expenditure claimed by the appellant vide Note No. 7 of the notes to the return of income, which reads as under - During the previous year the assessee has incurred expendi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) where the assessment proceedings were initiated by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax. Such order passed is bad in law, in the absence of an order transferring, jurisdiction under section 127 to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. 64.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of jurisdiction in passing the assessment order challenged by the assessee. The identical additional grounds raised by the assessee have been admitted in appeal for AY 1998-99, but after detailed discussion and following finding of the Tribunal in the case Stock Traders P Ltd (supra), same have been dismissed. Accordingly, following our finding in AY 1998-99, the additional grounds of the appeal for year under consideration are accordingly admitted and dismissed. 65. Now we take up regular grounds for adjudication. 66. The ground Nos. 1 to 10 of the year under consideration are identical to ground Nos. 1 to 10 of the appeal for assessment year 2002-03, and therefore following our finding, the ground Nos. 1 to 10 of the appeal for the year under consideration are decided mutasis mutandis. 67. The ground No. 11 of the appeal relates to apportionment of research and deve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the allocation of the R D expenditure to the eligible units. The ground No. 11 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 68. The ground Nos. 12 to 15 of the appeal of the assessee relates to rejection of reducing certain incomes from the expenditure incurred during construction period. The identical rounds raised in assessment year 2001-02 have been decided by us, therefore relevant ground No. 12 to 15 of the present appeal are also decided mutatis mutandis. 69. The ground Nos.16 to 18 of the appeal relate to prior period expenses of ₹ 552.41 lakhs. The identical grounds have been adjudicated by us in the appeal for assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03. Following our finding on those assessment years, the ground No. 16 to 18 of the appeal are decided mutatis mutandis. 70. Ground of 19 of the appeal relates to provision made for obsolete stock. This ground of the appeal was not pressed before us and therefore same is dismissed as infructuous. 71. As far ground No. 20 of the appeal is concerned, we have already held that provisions of section 115 JB of the act are not applicable in the case of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t building for R D at cost of Rs. 2.63 lacs. The amount of Rs. 14,63,152/- has also been incurred in connection with the construction of the building which is capital in nature. Such types of expenses are not allowable w/s 37 of the I.T. Act. The appellant has not made any argument or filed any evidence to claim that the said expenditures is allowable under any other provisions of the I.T. Act. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant is not entitled to deduction of Rs. 14,63,152/- being amount spent out of the Research Development Fund. Accordingly, the ground of appeal at Sr. No. 30 is rejected. 73.1 We have perused the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and heard rival submission of the parties. The assessee has not disputed that the expenditure has been incurred in relation with construction of the building for research and development. The expenses and construction of the building for the purpose of research and development is in the nature of the capital expenditure. Before us the learned counsel has not submitted any evidence to support that said expenditure was in the nature of revenue expenditure. In the facts and circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of interest income of Rs. 281.63 lakhs and other income to the extent of Rs. 658.85 lakhs from the Profit of the business eligible for deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 10. Without prejudice to Ground No. 9, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the exclusion of the gross interest income and other income from the Profits of the business eligible for deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act 1961 instead of the net income. The learned CIT(A) erred in not netting off the interest income and other income against the interest and other expenditure. Income reduced from expenditure incurred during Construction Period 11. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in taxing as income, the following amounts which had been reduced by the appellant company from the expenditure incurred during construction period: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs. In Lakhs) 1. Interest on Staff Loan 215 46 2. Penal Interest recovered from employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer in increasing the net profit by the following amounts, while computing the book profit of the appellant under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act; 1961. Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs. In Lakhs) 1. Decommissioning Reserve 3,052.70 2. Renovation Modernization Reserve 5,361.98 3. Research Development Reserve 3,217.19 4. Interest on above reserves 9,605.31 Total 21,237.18 Renovation and Modernisation Expenditure 22. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in disallowing the claim of the appellant company to allow the Renovation and Modernisation expenditure incurred in Kalpakkam unit as revenue expenses. 75. Before us, the assessee vide letter dated 18/07/2018, has raised additional ground, which are identical to additional ground rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur finding in assessment year 2002-03, the ground Nos. 9 in 10 of the appeal under consideration are also dismissed accordingly. 81. The ground Nos. 11 to 14 of the appeal relate to disallowance of reduction of certain income(s) from expenditure incurred during construction. Identical grounds have been raised in assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04, therefore following our finding in assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04, ground No. 10 to 14 of the appeal are decided mutatis mutandis. 82. The ground Nos. 14 and 15 of the appeal relate to disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 82.1 The brief facts, the issue in dispute that the assessee shown tax-free exempted income from investments, however no disallowance for earning such exempted income was shown by the assessee. Before the Assessing Officer assessee submitted that company has made investment of ₹ 2,63,198 lakhs in bonds as per the recommendation of the Ahluwalia committee of Government of India. It was submitted that those Bonds were compulsorily allotted by the different Electricity Board for converting existing debt as investment. It was explained that investment in Bond was from internal funds i.e. debt and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the total income under I.T. Act. Therefore, while computing income of assessee, all the expenses relating to exempt income have to be disallowed. In the case of DCIT Vs. S.G. Investment Industries Ltd 89 ITD 14 (Cal.), it has been held that, in section 14A, the expression expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of total income should be given a wide meaning and it cannot be construed in a narrow or restricted manner. If such a wider meaning is given, the said expression would encompass not only the direct or proximate expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning exempt income but would include all other expenses attributable or in relation to exempt income. In other words, it would signify or imply both direct and indirect relationship between the expenditure and the exempt income. Further, in the case of Southern Petro Chemical Industries Vs. DCIT (2005) 3 SOT 157 (Chennai), it has been held that investment decisions are very strategic decisions in which top management is involved and, therefore, proportionate management expenses are required to be deducted while computing the dividend income for the purpose of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e establishment expenses etc would be sufficient to cover expenses corresponding to earning of exempted income. Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for making disallowance on some reasonable basis . The assessee is directed to provide details of expenses including office establishment expenses related to employees engaged in work related to earning of exempted income so that Assessing Officer after verification of the same may be in position to decide the quantum of disallowance on reasonable basis. The ground Nos. 15 and 16 of the appeal of assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 83. The ground Nos. 17 to 19 of the appeal relate to disallowance of prior period expenses. Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04, therefore following our finding in assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04, the ground No. 17 to 19 of the appeal are adjudicated mutatis mutandis. 84. The ground No. 20 of the appeal relates to disallowance of provision made for obsolete stock of ₹ 20.66 lakhs. The learned counsel of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction on interest received by assessee company on over due payments from its customer us 80lA on sale of electricity to the extent of R.32474.94 lakhs without appreciating that the said income cannot be said to have derived from the business of sale of electricity. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the provisions for doubtful debts to the extent of Rs. 74.33 lakhs made by the A.O while working out book profit u/s 115JB . 3. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 89. In the ground no.1, the Revenue has challenged finding of the Ld. CIT(A) of allowing deduction under section 80IA in respect of the interest received by the assessee company on overdue payments from its customers. The Assessing Officer noted that delayed payment charges were in the nature of interest and same emanated from the debit balance lying with the debtors, which are not a profit of the ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest at the specified rate which would be charged on the unpaid sale price and added to the outstanding till the time of realization, or (b) that in case of delay the payment for sale of products worth Rs. 100 to carry the sale price of Rs. 102 for first month's delay, Rs. 104 for second month's delay, Rs. 106 for third month's delay and so on. If the contention of revenue is accepted merely because the assessee has described the additional sale proceeds as interest in case of contract as per illustration, (a) above, such payment would not be profits derived from industrial undertaking, but in case of illustration (b) above, if the payment is described as sale price it would be profits derived from the industrial undertaking. This can never be, because in sum and substance these are only two modes of realizing sale consideration, the object being to realize sale proceeds at the earliest and without delay. Purchaser pays higher sale price if it delays payment of sale proceeds. In other words, this is a converse situation to offering of cash discount. Thus, in principle, in reality, the transaction remains the same and there is no distinction as to the source. It is inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mong other grounds: Decommissioning Levy 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 2,956.60 lakhs being Decommissioning Levy collected by the appellant company. Interest on Decommissioning Fund 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 3,739.48 lakhs being interest credited to the Decommissioning Fund. Interest on Renovation Modernisation Fund 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 3,386.77 lakhs being interest credited to the Renovation and Modernisation Fund. Research Development Levy 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 49.07 lakhs being Research Development Levy collected by the appellant company. Interest on Research Development Fund 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 1,676.53 lakhs being interest credited to the Research and Development Fund. Research Development Levy - portion represents capital receipt 6. Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 4 5 above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in not re-computing the depreciation allowance, as due to the appellant company pursuant to the exclusion of income reduced from expenditure during construction period in earlier assessment years. Prior period expenses 13. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 1,991.02 lakhs. 14. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) / Assessing Officer may be directed to disallow only the net prior period expenditure, if any, after setting off prior period expenditure against prior period income. 15. Without prejudice to Ground Nos. 13 14 above, the learned CIT(A) may be directed to allow deduction of the prior period expenses in the respective assessment years. Provision made for Obsolete Stock 16. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the provision, for obsolete stock of Rs. 45.92 lakhs. 92. The assessee also raised additional grounds by letter dated 18/07/2018, which are reproduced as under: 1. The ground of appeal is independent and without prejudice to other grounds of appeal filed earlier, pending disposal. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 95. In ground No. 1(one) revenue has challenged finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act on interest on delayed payments amounting to Rs. 60.82 lakhs, provision no longer required amounting to ₹ 1,11,124 and scrap sales amounting to ₹ 7,76,029/-. 95.1 The learned Assessing Officer noted that delayed payment charges emanated from the debit balance lying with the debtors and therefore same is not profit of the industrial unit directly and it could be considered as profit attributable to the business of the assessee but not derived from the business of the assessee. Similarly regarding the provision no longer required, the Assessing Officer held that same are not part of the income of the year under consideration. Similarly the claim of scrap sales for deduction was also disallowed. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction under section 80 IA in respect of those receipts observing as under: 2. Ground No. 9 is against excluding from the profits of the business eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA the following amounts: 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss operation of the assessee and since the said income crystallized in the year under consideration, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in considering the same for deduction under section 80IA in the year under consideration. Regarding charges from contractors amounting to ₹ 1,11,124/- and sale of a scrap amounting to Rs. 7,76,029/-, the Ld. CIT(A) held that same are directly having nexus with the manufacturing activity of the assessee. The learned DR failed to rebut such finding of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of our discussion, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. The ground No.1 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 96. The ground No. 2 (two) of the appeal relate to the disallowance of ₹ 2017.19 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act. The assessee claimed that tax-free interest income was earned from debts converted by the state Electricity Board as bonds therefore no borrowed funds had been utilised for yielding taxable income. The Assessing Officer admitted the claim of the assessee regarding interest expenditure, however according to him certain admini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,021.02 lakhs being Decommissioning Levy collected by the appellant company. Interest on Decommissioning Fund 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 3.594.39 lakhs being interest credited to the Decommissioning Fund. Interest on Renovation Modernisation Fund 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 3,269.47 lakhs being interest credited to the Renovation and Modernisation Fund. Interest on Research Development Fund 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming as income of the appellant, an amount of Rs. 1,934.30 lakhs being interest credited to the Research and Development Fund. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A of the Act of Rs. 4.073.58 lakhs. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the appellant company had not incurred any expenditure for earning the tax free interest income and accordingly, the disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to determine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant company in the earlier assessment years, the learned CIT(A) erred in not re-computing the depreciation allowance, as due to the appellant company pursuant to the exclusion of income reduced from expenditure during construction period in earlier assessment years. Prior period expenses 16. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of prior period expenses of Rs. 354.04 lakhs 17. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions made by the appellant company in correct perspective. 18. The appellant company prays that the prior period expenses should be allowed as deduction. 19. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) / Assessing Officer may be directed to disallow only the net prior period expenditure, if any, after setting off prior period expenditure against prior period income. 20. Without prejudice to above grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the submission of the appellant company to allow deduction of the prior period expenses in the respective assessment years, to which it pertains. Provision made for Obsolete Stock 21. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le computing the book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs. In Lakhs) 1. Decommissioning Reserve 3,021.02 2. Interest on decommissioning Reserve 3,594.39 3. Interest on Renovation Modernization Reserve 3,269.47 4. Interest on Research Development Reserve 1,934.30 5. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act 4.073.58 Total 15,892.76 98. The assessee has filed additional ground vide it s letter dated 18/07/2018, which are reproduced as under: 1. The ground of appeal is independent and without prejudice to other grounds of appeal filed earlier, pending disposal. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax erred in passing assessment order under section 143(3) wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee made proportionate disallowance of administrative expenses amounting to ₹ 2062.9 7 lakhs. But the Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D of Rules and computed disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to rupees to Rs. 2544. 42 lakhs [under rule 8D(2)(ii) of rules] and disallowance of administrative expenses amounting to rupees to ₹ 1529.16 lakhs [ under rule 8D(2)(iii) @ 0.5 % of average investment] totaling to Rs. 4073.58 and after subtracting the su-moto disallowance by the assessee, made net disallowance under section 14A amounting to ₹ 2010.61 lakhs. The relevant computation of disallowance by the AO is reproduced as under: 3.5 The working of disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D is as follows: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs. In Lakhs) a. Opening Balance of Investment 302291.45 b. Closing Balance of investment 309372.05 c. Average Investment (a+b) /2 305831.75 d. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. 2165 of 2012) held that Rule 8D is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 onward and can t be applied for prior assessment years. Therefore the computation of disallowance made under section 14A of the Act following Rule 8D for the AY under consideration is rejected. 101.4 The fact that no interest has been incurred for investment in the bonds bearing tax-free interest income has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06, therefore no disallowance for interest can be made under section 14A of the Act in the year under consideration following the Rule of consistency. As far as disallowance for administrative expenses, the assessee itself has made suo-moto disallowance following the method of disallowance adopted by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2004-05. Therefore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer following the rule 8D is rejected. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute are set aside . We find that identical issue of the disallowance under section 14A in respect of the administrative expenses has been restored by us to the file of the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2004-05, and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the case pertain to the revenue recognition principles being followed by the appellant company from year to year. As per the revenue recognition policies of the appellant company, it recognises the income only after the approval is received from the Quality Assurance department. This principle cannot be challenged saying that the books of accounts are maintained using mercantile system. Accordingly, the above addition cannot be said to be permissible for computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, the above ground no. 60 is allowed. (relief allowed for 115JB Rs. 36.17 lakh) 105.1 Accordingly this ground, being infructuous, same is dismissed. 106. The ground nos. 24 to 28 of the appeal relate to interest income and miscellaneous income. The identical grounds have been decided by us in earlier assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06, therefore following our finding in those assessment years, the grounds no. 24 to 28 of the appeal are decided mutasis mutandis . 107. The ground No. 29 of the appeal relates to claim of the assessee for depreciation on a reactor building at higher rate being classified as plant and machinery. In the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim of depreciation at the rate of 10% (i.e.15% -5% = 10%) stands disallowed. The disallowance on this account works out to Rs. 53,43,70,410/-. 107.1 Before us the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided this issue of the classification of the asset under plant and machinery. 107.2 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused relevant material on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has referred to the submission of the assessee on the issue in dispute, which are reproduced as under: The learned Addl. Commissioner erred in not considering the submissions made by the appellant company in its correct perspective. The appellant is a Public Sector Enterprise wholly owned by Government of India, engaged in the business of generation of electricity. In the process of generating nuclear power, the appellant company requires Reactor building, Service Building, Pump house building Turbine building. As per Note No. 5 of Annexure VI of the Tax Audit Report Additions to Plant Machinery includes an amount of Rs. 53,437 lacs relating to Building constructed in TAPP # units 3 4, which in view of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... water systems supply water to the steam generators (3) Circulating water to and from condenser, (4) Electrical switchgear rooms that supply electrical power to plant components, (5) Demineralised water system that supplies clean water for cooling plant components, and (6) Control Room outside the building are the transformers that either supply power to the plant for start-up or that supply power to the grid for distribution In view of the above, the appellant company submitted that as such nomenclature does not affect the nature of the assets. The essence of classification of assets should be based on the use of the assets. One type of assets may be considered as the 'Building' for an entity whereas the same assets can be considered as 'Plant' for another entity. The appellant submitted that for determining the nature of an asset one needs to examine on the basis of functional test. In CIT v Navodaya (2004) 271 IT 173(Ker), the Hon'ble High court found exception for a film studio, because it could be modified to suit different settings necessary for production of films, so that the functional test cannot be disregarded. Bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uilding but serves the commercial function of a plant. The appellant also submitted that in the earlier year and subsequent assessment years, the nuclear reactors were treated as machinery by the assessing officer and no disallowance was made by the AO in respect of the same. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the asset is in the nature of plant. CAPITALIZATION OF TAPS-4 The AO had held that the appellant had not provided any data or material when the addition on as count of factory building is made to class of plant and machinery. Therefore it was taken of having put into use for a period less than 182 days. Consequently the appellant company was granted deprecation @ 5% (50% of 10% ie. rate of deprecation applicable to building). In this regard, the appellant submitted that the date of commercial operation of TAPS -4 was 12.9.2005 and hence the assets are put into use from this date and therefore are put into use for more than 180 days. In this connection, a letter dated 12 September 2005 written by the appellant company to Western Regional Electricity Board was submitted during the course of appellate proceedings. In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of plant and machinery eligible for depreciation at the rate of the 80% and 100 % (hundred percentile). It was submitted by the assessee that the above errors were identified during the tax audit for assessment year 2008-09. A copy of the relevant annexure to tax audit report for assessment year 2008-09 was also submitted during the course of the appeal before ld CIT(A). It was further submitted that assessee obtained supplementary tax audit report from the tax auditor in which revised claim of the depreciation was certified by the auditor and reason for the claim of additional depreciation were stated. In view of the additional supplementary tax audit report, the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the ground of the appeal. In our opinion, there is no error in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and accordingly we uphold the same. The ground No. 30 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 109. The ground no. 31 of the appeal relates to increase in net profit for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 110. The ground nos. 31 32 being general in nature, are dismissed as infructuous. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the A while passing the assessment order, has apportioned proportionate administrative and other expenses debited to Profit Loss account to units claiming deduction under section 80lA of the Act of Rs. 11,557.04 lakhs stating that administrative expenses debited to the aforesaid units is not proportionate to and on much lower side as compared to the administrative other expenses shown in Profit loss account. In this connection, the appellant company submitted that each unit of NPCIL is a profit center. All the expenses relating to each unit is captured at the respective unit and no unrelated expenditure is debited to any site/ unit. The identifiable Head office expenses are transferred to the respective locations. Unidentifiable head office expenses are allocated to Power stations and projects in the ratio of aggregate of annual net sale of electrical energy annual capital outlay. Hence, the administrative and other expenses shown in the consolidated Profit Loss Account is a consolidation of the expenses of all units including that of 80lA units and therefore, there is no unrelated/common expenditure for apportionment to the units eligible for dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 202/Mum/2004 98-99 Assessee Allowed partly for statistical purpose 2 114/Mum/2004 99-2000 Assessee Allowed partly for statistical purpose 3 4413/Mum/2004 2000-01 Assessee Allowed partly for statistical purpose 4 3867/Mum/2008 2001-02 Assessee Allowed partly for statistical purpose 5 4743/Mum/2007 2002-03 Assessee Allowed partly for statistical purpose 6 4744/Mum/2007 2003-04 Assessee Allowed partly for statistical purpose 7 4745/Mum/2007 2004-05 Assessee Allowed partly for statistical purpose 8 4603/Mum/2007 2004-05 Revenue Dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
