VMD Mills Private Limited, Coimbatore V. ACIT, Tiruppur

CO 109/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0979 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKARC A
• Keywords: Business income; Capital receipt

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHE NNAI , . ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' #$ #$ #$ #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2166/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 & C.O. NO.109/MDS/2014 [IN I.T.A. NO. 2166/MDS/2014] THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE, 121, 60 FEET ROAD, TIRUPUR - 2. VS. M/S. VMD MILLS P. LTD., 427-B, POLLACHI MAIN ROAD, KAMANAIKENPALAYAM, PALLADAM, COIMBATORE 641 658. [PAN: AAACV6929J] ( APPELLANT ) (R ESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR ) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, C.A. % & / DATE OF HEARING : 09.06.2015 '() % & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.06.2015 * * * * / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJE CTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) II, COIMBATORE, DATED 29.05.2014 RELE VANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 2166 166166 166/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 & 4 &4 & 4 & C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 109 0909 09/M/14 /M/14 /M/14 /M/14 2 HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VE LAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS & OTHERS V. ACIT 231 CTR 368, THE DEPARTMENT HAS PREFERRED SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. IN APPEAL, THE LD . CIT(A), BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS & OTHERS V. ACIT (SU PRA), DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. 3. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, THE LD . DR HAS FAIRLY ACCEPTED THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS COVER ED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS & OTHERS V. ACIT (SUPRA), HOWEVER, HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE DEPA RTMENT IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS & OTHERS V. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 13. SEC.80-IA READS AS FOLLOWS: [(1) WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IN CLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FR OM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (4) (SUCH BUSINESS BEING HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS), THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTIN G THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSEC UTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS.] (2) THE DEDUCTION SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) MAY, AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BE CLAIMED BY HIM FOR ANY TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 2166 166166 166/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 & 4 &4 & 4 & C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 109 0909 09/M/14 /M/14 /M/14 /M/14 3 FIFTEEN YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS AND BEGINS TO OPERATE ANY INFRA STRUCTURE FACILITY OR STARTS PROVIDING TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE OR DEVELOPS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK [OR DEVELOPS A SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE REFERRED TO IN CLA USE (III) OF SUB-SECTION (4)] OR GENERATES POWER OR COMMENCES TRANSMISSION O R DISTRIBUTION OF POWER [OR UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL RENOVATION AND MODERNISA TION OF THE EXISTING TRANSMISSION OR DISTRIBUTION LINES ): (4) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO (I) ANY ENTERPRISE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS [OF (I ) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING] ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY WHICH FULF ILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, NAMELY : (A) IT IS OWNED BY A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA OR BY A CONSORTIUM OF SUCH COMPANIES [OR BY AN AUTHORITY OR A BOARD OR A CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER BODY ESTABLISHED OR CONSTI TUTED UNDER ANY CENTRAL OR STATE ACT;] (B) IT HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTR AL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY OR ANY O THER STATUTORY BODY FOR (I) DEVELOPING OR (II) OPERATING AND MAINTAINING OR (III) DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A NEW I NFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY;] (C) IT HAS STARTED OR STARTS OPERATING AND MAINTAIN ING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1995: 5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (1) APPLY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERM INING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SUB-SECTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SUBSE QUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, BE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE I NITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND TO EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR UP TO AND INCLU DING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE. FROM READING OF SUB-S (1), IT IS CLEAR THAT IT PROV IDES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AN D GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FOR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REF ERRED TO IN SUB-S(4) I.E. REFERRED TO AS THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION, BE ALLOWE D, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQ UAL TO 100 PERCENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TE N CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. DEDUCTION IS GIVEN TO ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THE SAME IS DEFINED IN SUB- I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 2166 166166 166/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 & 4 &4 & 4 & C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 109 0909 09/M/14 /M/14 /M/14 /M/14 4 S (4). SUBS-S(2) PROVIDES OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS OUT OF 15 YEARS. OPTION HAS TO BE EXERCISED. IF IT IS NOT EXERCISED, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE GETTING THE BEN EFIT. FIFTEEN YEARS IS OUTER LIMIT AND THE SAME IS BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR IN WH ICH THE UNDERTAKING OR THE ENTERPRISE DEVELOPS AND BEGINS TO OPERATE ANY INFRA STRUCTURE ACTIVITY ETC. SUB- S(5) DEALS WITH QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION FOR AN ELIGIBL E BUSINESS. THE WORDS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE USED IN SUB-S(5) AND THE SAME IS NOT DEFINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS. IT IS TO NOTED THAT INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR EMPLOYED IN SUB-S(5) IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WORDS BEGINNING FRO M THE YEAR REFERRED TO IN SUB-S(2) IMPORTANT FACTORS ARE TO BE NOTED IN SUB-S (5) AND THEY ARE AS UNDER:- (1) IT STARTS WITH NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHICH MEAN S IT OVERRIDES ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND OTHER PROVISIONS ARE TO B E IGNORED. (2) IT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE QUANT UM OF DEDUCTION; (3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR; (4) IT IS A DEEMING PROVISION; (5) FICTION CREATED THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS T HE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME; AND (6) DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE INITIA L ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FROM READING THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ELIGIB LE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHEN THE AS SESSEE EXERCISES THE OPTION, THE ONLY LOSSES OF THE YEARS BEGINNING FROM INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ALONE ARE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND NO LOSSES OF EA RLIER YEARS WHICH WERE ALREADY SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING FORWARD TO A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT IS CONTEMPLATED. IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE REVENUE TO LOOK BACKWARD AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AND BRING FORWARD NOTIONALLY EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WERE SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SET OFF AGAINS T THE CURRENT INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, ONCE THE SET OFF IS TAKEN PLACE IN EARLIER YEAR AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE CANNOT RE WORK THE SET OFF AMOUNT AND BRING IT NOTIONALLY. FICTION CREATED IN SUB-SEC TION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE TO BRING SET OFF AMOUNT NOTIONALLY. FICTION IS CRE ATED ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 2166 166166 166/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 & 4 &4 & 4 & C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 109 0909 09/M/14 /M/14 /M/14 /M/14 5 6. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE ISSUE RAISED IS RELATING TO CARBON CREDIT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE RECEIPTS ON SALE OF CARBON CREDIT S CANNOT BE FORMED A PART OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, BUT IT HAS TO BE INCLUDED AS INCOME WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA AND ACC ORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CARBON CREDIT RECEIPTS AS A REVENUE RECEI PT IN ITS RETURN. HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED THE STAND THAT THESE RECEIPTS ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. HE HAS FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT THE VERY ANALYSIS OF SALE OF CARBON CREDIT WOULD INDICATE THAT THE CE RS ARE SOLD TO PERSONS IN ADVANCED COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE OBLIGATION TO REDUCE GREEN HOUSE GASES. THESE RECEIPTS HAVE NO DIRECT NEXUS TO GENERATION O F ELECTRICITY AND HELD THAT IT IS A REVENUE RECEIPT AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED CROS S OBJECTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MY HOME POWER LTD. V. DCIT 21 ITR (TRIB) 186 (HYDERABAD) AND ALSO THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MY HOME POWER LTD. (2014) 365 ITR 82. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 2166 166166 166/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 & 4 &4 & 4 & C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 109 0909 09/M/14 /M/14 /M/14 /M/14 6 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES L TD. V. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO. 616/COCH/2011 DATED 20.12.2013. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND TH AT THE ISSUE OF CARBON CREDITS RECEIPTS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MY HOME POWER LTD. V. DCIT (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THESE RECEIPTS ARE CAPITAL RECEIPTS. WHEN THE MATTE R CARRIED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE HONBLE H IGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING AS UNDER: ITAT HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION AND ITAT ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SAME, AS THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS FAC TUALLY FOUND THAT 'CARBON CREDIT IS NOT AN OFFSHOOT OF BUSINESS BUT A N OFFSHOOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. NO ASSET IS GENERATED IN TH E COURSE OF BUSINESS BUT IT IS GENERATED DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.' ITAT AGREE WITH THIS FACTUAL ANALYSIS AS THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING O N THE BUSINESS OF POWER GENERATION. THE CARBON CREDIT IS NOT EVEN DIR ECTLY LINKED WITH POWER GENERATION. ON THE SALE OF EXCESS CARBON CRED ITS THE INCOME WAS RECEIVED AND HENCE AS CORRECTLY HELD BY THE TRI BUNAL IT IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND IT CANNOT BE BUSINESS RECEIPT OR INCOME . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ELEMENT OF LAW IN THIS APPEAL. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE H IGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, WE HOLD THAT THE CARBON CREDITS RECEIPTS A RE CAPITAL IN NATURE. SO FAR AS CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES LTD. V. ACIT (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, ONCE THERE IS A JUDGMENT OF T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 2166 166166 166/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 & 4 &4 & 4 & C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 109 0909 09/M/14 /M/14 /M/14 /M/14 7 IS BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO FOLLOW THE JUDGM ENT OF THE HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 11. IN SO FAR AS TUF SUBSIDY IS CONCERNED, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TUF INTEREST SUBSIDY IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE IN DUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF LIBERTY INDIA V. CIT 183 TAXMAN 349 HELD THAT TUF SUBSIDY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 12. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LTD. IN I. T.A. NOS. 1147 & 1157/HYD/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.11.2014. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. [2013] 356 ITR 235 (GAU) AND ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. V. CIT IN CIVIL A PPEAL NO. 1914 OF 2012 DATED 08.02.2012. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON TH E DECISION IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA V. CIT (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT TUF INTEREST SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRI AL UNDERTAKING. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 2166 166166 166/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 & 4 &4 & 4 & C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 109 0909 09/M/14 /M/14 /M/14 /M/14 8 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL S ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE TUF INTEREST SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA V. CIT (SUPRA) DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, AFTER ELABORATELY CONSID ERED SECTION 80IA AND SECTION 80IB, HAS HELD THAT THE INCENTIVE PROFITS A RE NOT PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, DUTY DRAW BACK RE CEIPTS/DEPB DOES NOT FORM PART OF NET PROFIT OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKIN G FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA/80IB OF THE ACT. WE, T HEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE TUF INTEREST SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THEREFORE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80IA. THE SUBSIDY IS A SUM OR MONEY E MANATED TO SUPPORT THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING HELD TO BE PUBLIC INTEREST. IT IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THEREFORE, NO ELIGIBLE F OR CLAIMING DEDUCTION AND INTEREST RECEIVED THEREON, IS ALSO NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS CASE LAW RELIED ON BY TH E ASSESSEE HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THER EFORE THOSE JUDGEMENTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CROS S OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO. .. .2 22 2166 166166 166/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 & 4 &4 & 4 & C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 1 C.O. NO. 109 0909 09/M/14 /M/14 /M/14 /M/14 9 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 30 TH OF JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30.06.2015 VM/- * % +'&,- .-)& /COPY TO: 1. /0 / APPELLANT, 2. +1/0 / RESPONDENT, 3. 2 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 2 /CIT, 5. -3 +'&' /DR & 6. 4! 5 /GF.