Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad V. M/s Kaktiya Cement Sugar & Industries Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1024/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74548 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADAGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: M V ANIL KUMAR; A V SADASIVA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 THE DY. CIT CIRCLE-2(1) HYDERABAD VS. M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD., HYDERABAD PAN: AABCK1868J APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI B. YADAGIRI RESPONDENT BY: S/SHRI A.V. SADASIVA & M.V. ANIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 21.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.02.2014 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD DATED 24.04.2013 FOR A.Y. 200 9-10. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS F OLLOWS: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN HOLDING T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA OF THE IT ACT, IN RESPECT OF ITS POWER DIVISION ON THE PRE MISE THAT THE SAME CONSTITUTES AN INDEPENDENT UNIT DE HORS IT S EXISTING SUGAR PLANT. 2. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE CA PTIVE STEAM GENERATION PLANT IS NOTHING BUT AN INTEGRAL P ART OF THE SUGAR DIVISION. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS A FULLY OPE RATIVE PLANT/UNDERTAKING PRODUCING STEAM AND ELECTRICITY F OR ITS REGULAR OPERATIONS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A NEW PL ANT FOR POWER GENERATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESS EE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IA OF THE IT ACT. I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. 2 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS RELATING TO ISSUE RAISED IN T HIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF MANUFACTURE OF CEMENT, SUGAR AND IN GENERATION OF POWER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS A SUGAR MANUFACTURING UNIT ALO NG WITH A CO-GENERATION PLANT IN KHAMMAM DISTRICT OF AP. IT A LSO HAS A CEMENT FACTORY IN KRISHNA DISTRICT OF THE SAME STAT E. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE TURNOVER OF THE PO WER DIVISION AT RS. 25,91,65,000/-. THIS TURNOVER INCLUDED SALE OF ELECTRICITY TO SUGAR DIVISION AMOUNTING TO RS. 146.14 LAKHS, SA LE OF ELECTRICITY TO CEMENT DIVISION AMOUNTING TO RS. 770 .04 LAKHS, SALE OF ELECTRICITY TO APTRANSCO AT RS. 398 LAKHS A ND SALE OF STEAM TO SUGAR DIVISION AT RS. 287.54 LAKHS. THE AS SESSEE GENERATES ELECTRICITY USING BAGASSE AS FUEL, WHICH IS THE RESIDUE OBTAINED UPON CRUSHING OF SUGARCANE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT AS AND WHEN REQUIRED COAL IS ALSO USED AS A FUEL. 3.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE IT ACT. IT W AS STATED THAT THE NEW UNDERTAKING ONLY CONTINUED THE EARLIER BUSI NESS OF PRODUCING STEAM AND ELECTRICITY AND AS SUCH NO NEW UNIT WAS FORMED. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE THE ADDITION U/S 80IA OF RS. 10,07,52,120/-. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS AND ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF ORDERS OF ITAT, HYDERA BAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR THE SAID YEARS, HELD THAT THERE IS NO RECONSTRUCTIO N OR SPLITTING OF THE BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY AS PER THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. 3 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR CONCEDED THAT THE ISSU E IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE JU RISDICTIONAL ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES FOR AY 2007-08 IN ITA NOS. 931 & 1051/HYD/2011 DATED 10/02/2012 AND FOR 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 917/HYD/2012 DATED 12/10/2012. COPIES OF THE SAID O RDERS ARE PLACED ON RECORD. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUAREL Y COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDE RABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2007-08 AND 2008-09 (SUP RA). IN AY 2008-09, THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS FOLLOWS: 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 931/HYD/2011. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 10.2.2012 HELD AS FOLLOWS: '17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY UNDER LICENSE OBTAINED FROM APERC COMMENCED A DISTINCT INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE GENERATION OF POWER. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PREMISES OF THE UNDERTAKIN G ARE DISTINCT FROM THE SUGAR UNIT. SEPARATE TECHNOLOGY IS USED AND LOAN WAS ALSO OBTAINED AT CONCESSIONAL RATE FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LIKE IREDA. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE POWER PLANT WAS NOT A DISTINCT UNI T ALTHOUGH ALL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY AUTHORITY CONSIDERED IT AS SUCH. THE TRUE PRINCIPLE AS LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT, IN THE CASE OF TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., VS. CIT [SUPRA], DIRECTLY AND SQUARELY APPLIE S TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRUE I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. 4 TEST IS NOT WHETHER THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CONNOTES EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WHETHER IT IS ALL THE SAME A NEW AN IDENTIFIABLE UNDERTAKING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WHETHER I T IS ALL THE SAME A NEW AND IDENTIFIABLE UNDERTAKING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE EXISTING BUSINESS. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AGREES THAT FROM 2002-03, A NEW CO-GENERATION PLANT WAS PUT UP AND ALSO THEY AGREES THAT INSTALLATION OF SOPHISTICATED AND HIGH CAPACITY MACHINERY TO PRODUCE STEAM AND ELECTRICITY HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE PLACE OF EXISTING OLD TECHNOLOGY. THUS, THEY IMPLIEDLY AGREE THAT THE NE W MACHINERY AND PLANT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED UNDER SEPARATE LICENCE AND PREMISES. EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION OF TEXTILE MACHINERY [SUPRA] WAS CONCERNED WITH THE CLAUSE DEALING WITH RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUSINESS BUT THE EXPRESSION 'NOT FORMED' WAS CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT THE UNDERTAKING SHOULD NOT BE A CONTINUATION OF THE OLD BUT EMERGENCE OF A NEW UNIT. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE UNDERTAKING IS ESTABLISHED BY TRANSFER OF BUILDING, PLANT OR MACHINERY, IT IS NOT FORMED AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW; TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT. WE ALSO FIND THAT A NEW UNDERTAKING FOR MANUFACTURE OF POWER WITH STEAM AS BY-PRODUCT WAS FORMED OUT OF FRESH FUNDS, IN SEPARATELY IDENTIFIABLE PREMISES, UNDER A SEPARATE LICENSE WITH MANIFOLD INCREASE IN CAPACITY WITH NEW MACHINERY AND BUILDINGS WITHOUT TRANSFER OF ANY PORTION OF THE OLD BUILDINGS OR MACHINERY WHICH PRE-EXISTED. THE POWER AND STEAM PRODUCED EARLIER WAS PART OF THE SUGAR UNIT AND COULD SERVICE ONLY THE SUGAR UNIT AND HENCE WAS AT BEST BY-PRODUCT OF THE SUGAR UNIT MANUFACTURING FACILITY. THE NEW UNIT HAD POWER AS THE MAIN PRODUC T AND APART FROM SERVICING THE CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION IN THE SUGAR UNIT ALSO SERVICED THE CEMENT UNIT POWER REQUIREMENTS, WHICH THE OLD CAPTIVE POWER PLANT WAS NOT DOING AND THE SURPLUS POWER IS BEING SUPPLIED TO APTRANSCO IN TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT. THE PRICING OF POWER IS ALSO SUBJECTED TO THE VARIO US POWER TARIFF PRESCRIPTIONS. IT CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN THAT THE NEW UNDERTAKING IS THEREFORE NOT FORMED BY THE SPLITTING UP OF THE OLD UNDERTAKING. THE OLD UNDERTAKING FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF POWER STILL EXISTS. THERE IS NO CASE ALSO MADE OUT BY THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES THAT THE NEW UNDERTAKING IS FORMED BY THE SPLITTING UP OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS. THE LEAN ED I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. 5 DR REFERS TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMBRA PEAK ESTATES LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 85 ITR 401 WHICH IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS REFERRED ABOVE. FURTHER, THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION (CITED SUPRA) WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT NEW UNIT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MANUFACTURING ARTICLES USED AS INTERMEDIATE PRODUCTS IN THE OLD DIVISION, WHICH TH E ASSESSEE WAS BUYING FROM THE MARKET EARLIER, IS NOT RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. T O CONSTITUTE RECONSTRUCTION, THERE MUST BE TRANSFER O F ASSETS OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS TO THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IN OUR OPINION, GENERATIO N OF POWER UNIT IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT UNDERTAKING FOR WHICH SEPARATE APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED AND RECOGNISED BY THE IREDA AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SPLITTING OF EXISTING BUSINESS STRUCTURE. THEREFOR E, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E NOT CORRECT IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AGAINST THE REVENUE.' 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. SINCE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS MATERIALLY IDEN TICAL TO THAT OF AY 2007-08 AND 2008-09, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THOSE YEARS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS FOLLOWS: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,87,54,037/- BY IGNORING THE ARTIFICIAL NATURE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SALE OF STEAM BY POWER DIVISION TO SUGAR DIVISION. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT STEAM IS NO T A POWER AS ENVISAGED IN THE SECTION 80IA. SECONDLY IT IS ONLY A BYE-PRODUCT WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF PO WER GENERATION. SINCE NO VALUE HAS BEEN ASCRIBED TO IT BY APERC IN TARIFF FIXATION, ITS I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. 6 VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS NIL. SIMILARLY SINCE THE C OST OF FUEL HAS BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED IN FIXING THE TARIFF, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IN THE FUEL COST CAN BE ALLOWED. HE FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE DEDUCTION OF SECTION 80IA IS DENIED ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 287.54 LAKHS, THE VALUE HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT NIL ON STEAM AND, THEREFORE, TH E INCOME OF THE SUGAR DIVISION INCREASED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 287.5 4 LAKHS. 12. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF THE ITAT IN 2008-09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE VALUE OF THE STEAM PRODUCED IN THE MA NNER AS DIRECTED BY THE ITAT. 13. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 14. THE LEARNED DR, BEFORE US, CONCEDED THA T THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN AY 2007-08 AND 2008-09 (SUPRA) 15. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECO RD WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN AY 2 007-08 AND 2008- 09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IN AY 2008-09, THE COORD INATE BENCH HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAME ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 931 /HYD/2011. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 10.2.2012 HELD AS FOL LOWS: 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE PROFIT CREDITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN RESPE CT OF STEAM IS ONLY RS. 11.43 LAKHS. THUS, EVEN ASSUMING THAT STEAM IS NOT POWER AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT BEST THE DEPARTMENT COULD HAVE TREATED ONLY RS. 11.43 LAKHS AS INELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. 7 UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. TO HOLD OTHERWISE, WOULD BE A GROSS ERROR AS THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE POWER UNIT IS STILL BEING RETAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHILE MAKING THE COMPUTATION. THE CIT [A] ALSO AGREES THAT STEAM HAS NO VALUE AS NO PRICE WAS CHARGED FOR THE SAME IN THE EARLIER YEAR BUT IGNORES THE FACT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME IN THE EARLIER YE AR NO EXEMPTION COULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THAT ONLY RS.11.43 LAKHS IS TO BE TREATED AS INELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT AND FOR THE BALANCE SALE AMOUNT OF STEAM TO SUGAR DIVISION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCW LTD.VS. ADDL. CIT, ITA NO. 126/MUM/2008, AY 2003-04 DATED 29 TH JANUARY, 2010 REPORTED IN 42 DTR (MUMBAI) (TRIB.) 369 AT PAGE 383 PARA 18.8 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 18.8 THE NEXT ITEM OF MISCELLANEOUS INCOME IS THE INCOME FROM SALE OF STEAM PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. BRIEFLY THE FACTS AND NATURE OF STEAM AR E THAT THE CAPTIVE POWER UNDERTAKING ALSO HAS WASTE HEAT RECOVERY BOILER, WHICH IS PART OF THE POWER UNDERTAKING. THE POWER GENERATED BY THE RUNNING OF DIESEL GENERATING SET IS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CAUSTIC SODA. RUNNIONG OF DIESEL GENERATING SET S PRODUCE HEAT, WHICH IS RECOVERED FROM THE WASTE HEAT RECOVERY BOILER IN THE FORM OF STEAM. DURING THE YEAR ENDED MARCH, 2002, THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF STEAM GENERATED IS 1,02,295 MT. THE SAID STEAM IS USED AS POWER FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF PVC AND LIMENITE AND 6,240 MT WAS USED TOWARDS INTERNAL CONSUMPTION. DURNG THE YEAR 66,900 MT OF STEAM WAS CONSUMED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PVC AND 29,065 MT WAS CONSUMED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF LIMENITE. 18.9 THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE POWER IN THE FORM OF STEAM WAS GENERATED BY THE CAPTIVE POWER PLANT AND CONSUMED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PVC AND LIMENITE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80IA. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF ACTS, THE DEPARTMENT FILED SLP BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. 8 JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TAX CASE NO. 1773 OF 2008 AND VIDE JUDGEMENT DT. 6TH NOVEMBER, 2008, THE APEX COURT, DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80-IA OF THE ACT ON THE VALUE OF STEAM USED FOR CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION BY THE ASSESSEE. CIT VS. TANFAC INDUSTRIES LTD., SLP(C) NO. 18537 OF 2009 (319 ITR 8 AND 9). IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT STEAM PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE UNIT IS A BY-PRODUCT AND INCOME FROM SALE OF STEAM IS THE INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, THEREFORE, DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80-IA IS ALLOWABLE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 22. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IN RESPECT OF SALE OF STEAM TO THE SUGAR UNIT IS PARTLY ALLOWED.' 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN P RINCIPLE, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, TH E CALCULATION OF VALUE OF THE STEAM PRODUCED BY THE POWER PLANT H AS TO BE DETERMINED AFTER CONSIDERING THE COST AND PRODUCTIO N RECORD OF RESPECTIVE UNIT AND THEREAFTER QUANTIFICATION OF DE DUCTION HAS TO BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L CITED SUPRA. THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NECESSARY RECORDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE STEAM PRODUCED AND TRANSFERRED TO SUGAR UNIT. 16. AS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS IDENTICAL T O THAT OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR AY 2007- 08 AND 2008-09, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DI RECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS THAT WILL BE FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FU RNISH NECESSARY RECORDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE STEAM PRODUCED AND TRANSFERRED TO SUGAR UNIT. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NO. 1024/HYD/2013 M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. 9 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/02/2014. SD/ - (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 05/02/2014. KV COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD. 2. M/S. KAKATIYA CEMENT SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD., 1- 10- 140/1, GURUKRUPA, ASHOK NAGAR, HYDERABAD-500 020. 3. THE CIT(A)-III, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CIT-II, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR A BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD