CLP India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2172/AHD/2015

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals and cross objections by both the Revenue and the Assessee, CLP India Pvt. Ltd., concerning the assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. The primary issues revolved around the disallowances made under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS on various payments including interest to foreign banks and agency fees, and the addition of reimbursement of tax liability. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the Assessee's appeal, leading to the Revenue's challenge in the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision largely upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing the validity of the TDS exemption certificates and the nature of the payments made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114332 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2015
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd., Director of Income-tax vs. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd., CIT-Vadodara vs. Vision Finstock Ltd., CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Permanent establishment; TDS; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 115JB; 40(a)(ia); 201(1); 195; 201; 195A; 194A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member The Dy. CIT, (OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad Vs CLP India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) 6 th Floor, Chankaya Building, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACG7999P CLP India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) 6 th Floor, Chankaya Building, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACG7999P (Appellant) Vs The Dy. CIT, (OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad (Respondent) ITA Nos. 2501 & 2172/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year 2009-10 ITA No. 3465 /Ahd/2015 & C.O. No. 12/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2010-11 I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 2 The Dy. CIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad Vs CLP India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) 6 th Floor, Chankaya Building, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACG7999P CLP India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) 6 th Floor, Chankaya Building, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACG7999P (Appellant) Vs The Dy. CIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Respondent) The Dy. CIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad Vs CLP India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) 6 th Floor, Chankaya Building, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad ITA No. 2267/Ahd/2016 & C.O. No. 163/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year 2011-12 I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 3 PAN: AAACG7999P CLP India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) 6 th Floor, Chankaya Building, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACG7999P (Appellant) Vs The Dy. CIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Respondent) The Dy. CIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad Vs CLP India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) 6 th Floor, Chankaya Building, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACG7999P ITA No. 2443/Ahd/2017 & C.O. No. 34/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year 2012-13 I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 4 CLP India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) 6 th Floor, Chankaya Building, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AAACG7999P (Appellant) Vs The Dy. CIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv. & Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 28-12-2022 Date of pronouncement : 27-03-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- 1. These five appeals and three Cross Objections are filed by both the Revenue and the Assessee are as follows: S. No. Appeal A.Y. filed by Assessee/Revenue Against CIT(A)’s order dated 1 ITA No. 2501/Ahd/2015 2009-10 Revenue 04.06.2015 2 ITA No. 2172/Ahd/2015 2009-10 Assessee 04.06.2015 3 ITA No. 3465/Ahd/2015 2010-11 Revenue 21.09.2015 4 C.O. No. 12/Ahd/2016 2010-11 Assessee 21.09.2015 5 ITA No. 2267/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Revenue 30.06.2016 6 C.O. No. 163/Ahd/2016 2011-12 Assessee 30.06.2016 I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 5 7 ITA No. 2443/Ahd/2017 2012-13 Revenue 31.08.2017 8. C.O. No. 34/Ahd/2019 2012-13 Assessee 31.08.2017 2. Since common issues are involved in the above appeals the same are disposed of by this common order and the issues in Assessment Year 2009-10 it taken as the lead case. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Company engaged in the business of Generation of Electrical Energy. For the Assessment year 2009-10, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.213,80,37,081/-. Regular assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed on 30.03.2013 making various disallowances and determining the total income at Rs. 293,68,54,031/-. 3. Aggrieved against the various disallowances, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) called for Remand Report from the Assessing Officer, rejoinder from the Assessee and passed a detailed order partly allowing the assessee’s appeal and partly confirming few disallowances made by the A.O. 3.1. Aggrieved against the Appellate order, both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeal before us. 4. Revenue’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 2501/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2009-10 are as follows: (1) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the dance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act at Rs.3,25,42,468/- being interest paid Bayerisehel Landesbanic (BLB). I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 6 (2) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on faces in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.10,38,090/- being agency fees/legal expenses paid to Bayerischel Landesbanic (BLB). (3) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.6,90,21,681/- paid to Krreditanstat Fur Wiedraufbau (KFW). (4) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.4,18,64,708/- paid to BNP Paribas. (5) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act at Rs.2,14,26,036/- paid to IFCL Ltd. (formerly the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd.). (6) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.19,59,688/- made to Solomon & Solomon. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.32,65.04,845/- on account of reimbursement of assessee's liability to tax. (8) The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act of payment of Rs.24,78.29,000 made to GUVNL. 4.1. Ground no. 1 & 2 namely disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on interest amounting to Rs. 5,25,42,468/- paid to Bayerisehel Landesbanic (BLB) and for non-deduction of TDS on legal charges paid to BLB amounting to Rs. 10,38,090/-. Since both the grounds relating to BLB and inter-connected, the same are adjudicated together. 4.2. The brief facts of the issue is that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has held that BLB is a foreign bank, hence tax is required to be deducted at source under Section 195 of the Act. The claim of Assessee that loan was approved under Section 10(15)(vi)(f) of the Act, hence TDS is not required to be deducted under Section I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 7 195 of the Act was rejected on the ground that Assessee has failed to submit loan agreement approved by Central Government as referred in said Section. So far as professional fees charged by BLB, it was argued that provisions of Section 194A(3) do not apply to foreign bank, hence Assessee was required to deduct TDS on such payment. During the course of appellate proceedings, Assessee submitted loan agreement with BLB as approved by Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, as envisaged in Section 10(15)(v)(ia) of the Act along with letter dated 8" December, 1994 issued by Government of India for granting exemption from tax on the payment of interest, management fee, commitment fee, arrangement fee/advisory fee. These evidences were forwarded to Assessing Officer for his comments wherein Assessing Officer has stated that certificate is issued in the name of State Bank of India, Frankfurt and not to BLB State Bank of India was only the arranger of the loan, hence it was contended that said certificate does not allow Assessee for not deducting TDS on payment made to BLB. It was also stated that original certificate was not produced for verification. 4.3. The Assessee replied that State Bank of India, Frankfurt, was arranger of the loan, whereas BLB was main lender of the loan, hence principal along with interest payment was to be made to BLB. The Assessee has also drawn attention to exemption certificate for non- deduction of TDS issued by Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, along with various terms of loan Agreement and contended that terms and conditions mentioned in certificate as well as terms and I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 8 conditions mentioned in loan agreement are similar, hence exemption certificate issued by Central Government in favour of State Bank of India also applies for payment made to BLB as State Bank of India, Frankfurt, was only arranger of loan with reference to observation of Assessing Officer that original TDS exemption certificates were not submitted by Assessee, it was stated that sad certificates were issued way back in the year 1994 and retrieving such certificate was extremely difficult. Hence disallowance cannel be made solely on the ground that original TDS exemption certificates were not produced. 4.4. Considering the above submissions, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “It is an undisputed fact that Appellant has obtained a loan from BLB in year 1994 wherein State Bank of India, Frankfurt, was arranger of the loan. The tax exemption certificate was issued by Central Government in 1994 where it was stated that Appellant is not required to deduct TDS on payment made for above loan. It is pertinent to note that Department for very first time made impugned disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) since 1994 and such disallowance cannot be upheld merely on the ground that original TDS exemption certificate was not submitted. The Assessing Officer has not brought any evidence to prove that TDS Exemption Certificate submitted by Appellant is false or incorrect certificate. The Xerox copy of certificate submitted by Appellant clearly reflects all the details of amount of loan, repayment terms, rate of interest, management fees, etc. hence Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that Appellant is required to deduct TDS on payment made to BLB on the ground that original tax exemption certificate was not submitted. The tax exemption certificate is issued in the name of arranger of the loan being State Bank of India whereas repayment of loan and interest payment is made to BLB, the lead manager of the loan. However, terms and conditions of certificates like amount of loan commitment fee, rate of interest, management fees, arrangement fees agency fees, repayment of loan, etc, duly match with the terms and conditions as mentioned in loan agreement as approved by the Central Government as per relevant provisions of the Act and such agreement clearly states that State Bank of India is arranger of the loan and BLB is main lender of the loan. It is settled legal practice that repayment of loan along with interest is always made to lender of loan and not to the arranger of the loan. When Appellant is making repayment of loan or paying interest to BLB, there is no reason why Appellant would obtain tax exemption certificate in the name of State I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 9 Bank of India, Frankfurt. As stated herein above, the terms and conditions mentioned in certificate issued on 8 December, 1994 matches with terms and conditions of loan agreement with BLB and State Bank of India. Appellant is not required to deduct any TDS under Section 195 on payment made to BLB. Further, payment of agency fees to BLB is also pursuant to above loan agreement and covered by tax exemption certificate issued by the Government of India. In the present case, separate order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) read with Section 195 was passed on 8" November, 2011 by ITO, International Taxation - II, Ahmedabad, and even he has not considered above payment as payment liable for deducting TDS under Section 195 of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by Assessing Officer for Rs. 5,25,42,468/- under Section 40(a)(i) is not justified and directed to deleted. Further, disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) made towards agency fees paid to BLB for Rs. 10,38,090/- is also directed to be deleted. Both the grounds of appeal are allowed.” 4.5. The Ld. CIT-DR Shri Atul Pandey appearing for the Revenue supported the order passed by the Lower Authorities and reiterated that the assessee failed to file original loan agreement approved by Central Government for professional fees charged by BLB. Therefore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 5.25 crores u/s. 40(a)(i) is to be upheld. Similarly, the agency fees paid to BLB for Rs.10,38,000/- is also to be upheld. 4.6. Per contra, the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri S.N. Soparkar appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee has availed loan from BLB in the year 1994 wherein State Bank of India, Frankfurt who is the lead Manager and arranged of the above loan. Consequently Tax Exemption Certificate was issued by Central Government in 1994 not to deduct tax on the above loan. The terms and conditions mentioned in the certificate issued on 8 th December 1994 matches with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement with BLB and State Bank of India. Thus the assessee is not required to deduct TDS u/s. 195 on payment made to BLB. Similarly, the agency fees paid to BLB is also pursuant to the above I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 10 loan agreement and covered by the Tax Exemption Certificate issued by Government of India. Therefore the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 5.25 crores u/s. 40(a)(i) is not justifiable and agency fees paid of Rs. 10,38,000/- is also not justifiable which is clearly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) which does not require any interference. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue are hereby liable to be rejected. 4.7. In support of its argument, reliance is placed in the case of CIT vs. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd. reported in [2012] 346 ITR 467 (Karnataka) wherein it has been held as follows: “... Where a Dutch company rendered technical services to assesses, without making available any technical expertise so as to enable assessee to use those services independently in future, payment made for services in question could not be termed as 'fee for technical services.” 4.8. Further reliance is placed in the case of Director of Income-tax vs. Guy Carpenter & Co. Ltd. [2012] 346 ITR 504 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as follows: “... Amount received by international reinsurance intermediary (broker) for services rendered to insurance company in India in process of re-insurance of risk placed by Indian Insurance company with international re-insurance companies would not amount to 'fees for technical services.” 4.9. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the Paper Book and case laws filed by the assessee. The assessee cannot be denied the TDS Exemption on the ground that the original certificate was not produced by the assessee. The Ld. D.R. could not produce before us any evidences to uphold the disallowance made by the Assessing I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 11 Officer. At the same time the Ld. D.R. could not produce contra findings of the Ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any contra evidences, we uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act for non deduction of Tax on interest amounting to Rs. 5.25 crores paid to BLB and also agency charges paid to BLB amounting to Rs. 10,38,000/-. 4.10. Thus the ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 5. Ground no. 3 Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act for not deducting TDS on interest payment of Rs. 6,90,21,681/- paid to Kreditanstat Fur Wiedraufbau (KFW). 5.1. The brief facts of the issue is that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order has held that KFW carries its business through permanent establishment and assessed to tax in India with ITO, Ward - 3(2)(4), Mumbai. Hence Appellant is required to deduct TDS on such payment. During the course of appellate proceedings, Assessee has provided tax exemption certificate issued by Government of India for not deducting TDS on the payment of interest, commitment fee, etc., under Section 10(15)(iv)(f) of the Act and contended that it was not required to deduct TDS on interest payment made to KFW. In the remand report the Assessing Officer has accepted the fact that this certificate was issued in the name of KFW. However, it was stated by Assessing Officer that Assessee has failed to produce original certificate. The Assessee has reiterated its contention for non-submission of original certificate, similar to the case for payment made to BLB and it was also stated that in I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 12 subsequent Assessment Year same Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance for interest payment made to KFW. 5.2. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “The Assessing Officer in the remand report has accepted the fact that payment made to KFW is as per certificate issued by Central Government vide letter dated 5 December, 1994. The contention of Assessing Officer that original certificate was not produced by Appellant for verification cannot be accepted for the reasons stated in para 5.2(B) herein above. Further, I have perused the Assessment Order passed in the case of Appellant for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein Assessing Officer at para - 3 has issued Show Cause Notice and asked the Appellant to submit why TDS is not deducted under Section 195 of the Act for payment made to KFW. The submission of the Appellant is reproduced in Assessment Order and same is accepted by Assessing Officer while passing the Assessment Order for said Assessment Year. It is, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a) made for payment to KFW for Rs. 6,90,21,681/- is not justified and directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 5.3. The Ld. D.R. supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) on interest payment to KFW and pleaded to uphold the same. 5.4. Per contra, Ld. Senior Counsel brought to our attention that for the subsequent assessment years, the very same Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for interest payment to KFW. Therefore the disallowance for present the Assessment Year 2009-10 is liable to be deleted which has been done by the ld. CIT(A). 5.5. We have perused the materials available on record and we found that the ld. CIT(A) after calling for a Remand Report that the A.O. accepted the payment made to KFW is as per certificate issued by Central Government vide letter dated 5 December, 1994. I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 13 Further in the subsequent Assessment Year 2010-11 though a show cause notice was issued to make such disallowance, but no disallowance were made by the Assessing Officer while passing an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Thus the ground no. 3 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. 6. Ground no. 4 disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) for non- deducting TDS for interest amounting to Rs 4,18 64,708/- paid to BNP Paribas, Mumbai. 6.1. The brief facts of the issue is that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has observed that BNP is foreign bank and exemption provided under Section 194A(3) do not apply to such bank, hence interest paid to such bank is chargeable to tax in India as per section 9(1)(v) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that as Assessee has not deducted TDS on such amount same is required to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, Assessee has submitted copy of order at 26/03/2008 passed by the Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(2) Mumbai under Section 195(3) of the Act authorizing BNP Paribas, Mumbai, to receive interest and other payments without deduction of TDS under Section 195 of the Act. On this basis, the assessee has contended that Assessee is not required to deduct TDS under Section 195 of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the remand report has stated that certificate is issued to BNP Paribas, but Assessee has failed to produce original I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 14 certificate. The Assessee has reiterated its contention for non- submission of original certificate, similar to the case for payment made to BLB and it was also stated that in subsequent Assessment Year same Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance for interest payment made to BNP Paribas. 6.2. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “The Assessing Officer in the remand report has accepted the fact that payment made to BNP Panbas as per order under Section 195(3) dated 26 th March, 2008, The contention of Assessing Officer that original certificate was not produced by Appellant for verification cannot be accepted for the reasons stated in para-5.2(B) herein above In the present case, separate order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) read with Section 195 was passed on 8 November. 2011 by ITO. International Taxation-II, Ahmedabad, and even he has not considered above payment as payment liable for deducting TDS under Section 195 of the Act. It is, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a) made for payment to BNP Paribas for Rs.4,18,64,708/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 6.3. Heard rival submissions, the contention of the Assessing Officer that BNP is a foreign bank and exemption provided under Section 194A(3) do not apply to foreign bank. Thus assessee ought to have deducted TDS on payments made to the bank. During the Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted copy of the non- deduction certificate dated 26.03.2008 issued by Asst. Director of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mumbai without to receive interest and other payment without TDS. Though the Assessing officer accepted this view in the Remand Report but however submitted original certificate not produced before the A.O. 6.4. We are of the considered view, this cannot be a good ground to denying the exemption given by the Department to the assessee. I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 15 Therefore the disallowance made by the Assessing officer is liable to be deleted since no disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on similar payments. Thus the grounds raised by the Revenue is hereby devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Ground no. 5 disallowance for non-deduction of TDS on interest payment of Rs. 2,14,26,036 paid to IFCL Limited. 7.1. The brief facts of the issue is that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has observed that IFCL is not covered by any sub-clauses of Clause (iii) of sub-section (3) of Section 195A of the Act and Assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to prove its contention, hence payment made by Assessee without deduction of TDS is required to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessee has referred to provisions of Section 194A and contended that provision of sub-section (1) requiring deduction of tax at source from payment of interest other than interest on security shall not apply, if payment is made to any financial corporation established by Central, State or Provincial Act. The Assessee has referred to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Steel & Tubes Vs. IFCI and contended that Central Government vide notification No.SO98(E), dated 15 th February, 1995 specified Industrial Finance Corporation of India to be a financial institution and accordingly, amended the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs, Department of Company Affairs. It was also stated that the contention of the Assessee is accepted by Assessing I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 16 Officer in subsequent Assessment Years. In the remand report Assessing Officer has not disputed the contention of the assessee. 7.2. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “The provisions of Section 194A referred in Appellant's submission before Assessing Officer and reproduced herein above clearly suggest that tax is not required to be deducted at source when the payment of interest is being made to financial institution established under Central, State or Provincial Act. In the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, it was specifically stated that IFCI is a public financial institution and necessary amendment is also made by Central Government in its notification referred supra makes it clear that payment of interest made to IFCI is not subject matter of TDS. Further, I have perused the Assessment Order passed in the case of Appellant for AY. 2010-11 wherein Assessing Officer at para 3 has issued Show Cause Notice and asked the Appellant to submit why TDS is not deducted under Section 195 of the Act for payment made to IFCI. The submission of the Appellant is reproduced in Assessment Order and same is accepted by Assessing Officer while passing the Assessment Order for said Assessment Year. It is, therefore, disallowance under Section 40(a) made for payment to IFCI for Rs. 2,14,26,036/- is not justified and directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 7.3. We found that the Assessing Officer has not accepted IFCL is covered by any financial corporation established by Central, State or Provincial Act but made a disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) for interest amounting to Rs. 2,14,26,036/- paid to IFCL Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) held that IFCL is a public financial institution and necessary amendment was made by Central Government in its notification and for the Assessment year 2010-11, the Assessing Officer has not made any such disallowance. Therefore he deleted the disallowance made under section 40(a)(i) for the present assessment year 2009- 10. This factual things are not disputed by the Ld. CIT-DR. Therefore when the Assessing Officer in his Remand Report accepted that IFCL is a public financial institution, the question of I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 17 disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) does not arise. Therefore the grounds raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Ground no. 6 for non-deduction of TDS for legal and professional charges paid to Solomon & Solomon amounting to Rs. 19,59,688/-. 8.1. The brief facts of the issue is that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has observed that payment made to above party is for technical services and Assessee was required to deduct TDS on such payment. The Assessee has contended that said party has no permanent establishment in India and fees are not taxable in India. It was also submitted that Assessing Officer while passing the order under Section 201 contended that Assessee has failed to deduct TDS on such payment, but ld. CIT(A) in first appeal has held that Assessee is not liable for deducting TDS on such payment, hence disallowance made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. 8.2. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “In the present case, the ITO, International Taxation- II, Ahmedabad, vide his order date 8 th December, 2011 in order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) read with Section 195 has held that payment made to Solomon Associates is liable for deduction of TDS. However, the ld. CIT (Appeals), Gandhinagar, vide his order dated 1 st October, 2013 at para 6.4 has discussed the scope work included for remittance of Rs.19,59,688/- made to such party came to conclusion that no technical knowledge, skill, experience, know how or process is made available to Appellant Company in terms of Article 12(b) of the India-US Treaty and Appellant has not defaulted in deducting TDS under Section 195 of the Act. Considering the order passed in Appellant's own case in year under consideration, it is observed that provisions of deducting TDS under Section 195 for payment I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 18 made Solomon & Solomon Associates do not apply. It is, therefore, disallowance of Rs.19,59,658/- made by Assessing Officer is not justified and directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 8.3. Regarding non-deduction of TDS for legal and professional charges paid to Solomon & Solomon. The Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(1A) read with Section 195 of the Act held that the scope work included for remittance of Rs.19,59,688/- made to Solomon & Solomon and came to conclusion that no technical knowledge, skill, experience, knowhow or process is made available to assessee Company in terms of Article 12(b) of the India-US Treaty and Assessee has not defaulted in deducting TDS under Section 195 of the Act. Therefore the disallowance is unwarranted. Further the Ld. D.R. could not produce before us, the Revenue is on appeal before the Tribunal as against the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the 201(1) and 201(1A) proceedings. In the absence of the same, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted. Thus the ground no. 6 raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 9. Ground no. 7 addition of Rs. 32,65,04,845/- on account of reimbursement of assessee’s tax liability. 9.1. The brief facts of the issue is that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order has observed that during the course of Assessment Proceedings Assessee was asked to explain as to why amount of Rs.32,64,04,845/- accrued on account of reimbur sement of MAT by GUVNL should not be brought to tax as income. The Assessee's reply is reproduced at page 10 of Assessment Order. The contention of Assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 19 on the ground that Assessee raised a debit note for the amount along with a certificate of Chartered Accountant which is acknowledged by GUVNL and on that basis it was held that said income has accrued during the year under consideration. On this basis Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs32,65,04,845/-. The assessee has referred to power purchase agreement entered into with GUVNL and contended that it has followed consistent practice of accounting income on accrual basis for the estimated liability of income tax that it was likely to incur on its income for financial year. Accordingly, during the year under consideration, it has offered income of Rs. 100.33 crore in its profit and loss account and such income is included under the head "sale of electrical energy of Rs 2,226.90 crores shown in profit and loss account. It was also stated that precise income tax liability is only known at the time of filing of return, which in present case was worked out at Rs. 32,65,04,845. It was thus argued that even against legitimate right of Assessee to get reimbursement of income tax liability for present year to the tune of Rs. 32.65 crores Assessee has already credited Rs. 100.33 crores in profit and loss account hence addition made by Assessing Officer has resulted into double taxation of same item and deserves to be deleted. 9.2. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “The undisputed facts of the present case are that Appellant is entitled to reimbursement of taxes payable by it by GUVNL as per Power Purchase Agreement executed with other party. Pursuant to such agreement, Appellant has offered income of Rs. 100.33 crores in year under consideration under the account head "other provisions. The Appellant has accounted such income on month to month basis on the basis of its estimated tax liability worked out by it. The Appellant has disclosed I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 20 income of Rs. 2226 90 crores under the head "sale of electric energy which comprises of three incomes mainly sale of electrical energy, sale of wind energy and other provisions. The amount of Rs. 100.33 crores considered as part of other provisions is already included in the gross income of Rs. 2226.90 crores shown in profit and loss account. The contention of Appellant that actual tax liability can be worked out only at the time of filing of return is found to be correct and on this basis Appellant's actual tax liability has been worked out at Rs 32.65 crores and on this basis Chartered Accountant has issued certificate confirming that income tax liability that would be reimbursed from GUVNL by Appellant pursuant to PPA is Rs. 32.65 crores. However, the Assessing Officer is incorrect in holding that as Assessee has raised debit note for recovery of such taxes along with certificate of Chartered Accountant, income of Rs 32.65 cores, appellant was required to offer such amount as income in the year under consideration because while I making this observation Assessing Officer has ignored the fact that Appellant has already made provision for such income at Rs. 100.33 crores in its audited accounts. It is observed that when Appellant has already offered income pertaining to MAT tax liability to be recovered from GUVNL at Rs. 100.33 crores, which is higher in comparison with actual MAT tax liability of Rs. 32.65 crores. Assessing Officer was not justified in making separate addition of such amount on the ground that Appellant has not offered income on mercantile basis. This issue for the first time raised by A.O. The appellant follows consistent policy of accounting monthly provision of such MAT liability reimbursement and adjustment on account of final determination. The A.O. in subsequent two years accepted such consistent policy and not made such addition. Accordingly, the addition made by Assessing Officer for Rs. 32,65,04,845 is not justified and directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 9.3. The Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue could not contravent the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), when the assessee has already offered income pertaining to Mat Tax Liability to be recovered from GUVNL at Rs. 100.33 crores, which is higher in comparison with actual Mat Tax liability of Rs. 32.65 crores. Thus the Assessing Officer was not justified in making separate addition of such amount on the ground that the assessee has not offered income on mercantile basis. It is further noticed that the A.O. in subsequent two years accepted such consistent accounting policy of the assessee and has not made any additions. Thus the grounds raised I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 21 by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Ground no. 8 disallowance of rebate of Rs. 24,78,29,000/- given by assessee to its customer GUVNL. 10.1. The brief facts of the issue is that the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order has made above disallowance relying on the finding given in immediately preceding year, wherein it was observed that rebate given to GUVNL is nothing but interest for early payment and rebate allowed is basically a saving passed on by the receiver to the payer which is “pay back of interest” on which provisions of Section 194A are applicable. The Assessee has reiterated its contention as raised before Assessing Officer and argued that it was only cash discount which cannot be treated as payment of interest. It was also argued that Assessee has not incurred any debit in favour of its customer, but it is the Assessee customer who by purchasing electricity power from the Assessee had incurred a debit in favour of Assessee and against prompt payment Assessee has given rebate to customer which is not covered by provisions of Section 194A of the Act. The Assessee has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Ahmedabad I.T.A.T., in its own case for A.Y. 2006-07 wherein similar disallowance was deleted. 10.2. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “The issue whether payment made by Appellant to GUVNL for early payment of charges for power supplied by it as rebate is in the nature of interest or not is already decided in favour of Appellant by Hon'ble Ahmedabad I.T.AT., in A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA 1031/Ahd/2010 vide its order dated 20 th September, 2013 wherein it was held as under: I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 22 "19. AO noticed that Assessee had paid Rs 10,64,06,649/- to GUVNL as "rebate" for early payment charges for power supplied to it. He was of the view that the rebate was in the nature of interest and therefore the Assessee should have deducted TDS u/s 194A. Since the Assessee had not deducted TDS u/s 194A, the entire expenditure was disallowed us 40(a)(ia). Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of Assessee by holding as under: 9.5 I have considered the facts and submission of the Ld. AR carefully. The rebate allowed by the appellant to its customers for early payment cannot be equated with interest as defined in section 2(28A) of the Act. Even it is a common knowledge that for earning an interest a deposit is required to be made with the concerned person and that deposit is called principal amount which is considered for earning the interest. Here, in this case there is no deposit of principal by the recipient of discount with the appellant therefore, there is no question of allowing interest the payments under reference made by the appellant is discount only and the same cannot be termed as interest as wrongly held by the A.O. In view of this, neither the provisions of sec. 194A are applicable nor the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act are attracted on such payments would be invoked. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is hereby deleted.” 10.3. This issue is squarely covered by assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1031/Ahd/2020 relating to the Assessment Year 2006-07 which is followed by Ld. CIT(A). The ld DR could not produce any materials or decision of higher forum that the findings of the Tribunal is over-ruled or otherwise. Therefore we have no hesitation in following the above decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and this ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10.4. In the result, all the grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2501/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2009-10 are hereby rejected and the appeal field by the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 11. Now coming to Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal in ITA No. 2172/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2009-10 are as follows: I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 23 1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.35,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) paid to ERDA even though the income of said association is exempt u/s 10(21) of the Act, hence appellate is not required to deduct TDS on above payment. 2. In law and on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs.66,936/- u/s 40(a)(i) being payment made to Law Debenture Services Corporate services Ltd. (LD) which is not liable for deduction of tax at source under Article 7 of DTAA between India and UK. 3. In law and on facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition u/s 40(a)(i) on payment made to Norton Rose for Rs.1,08,39,146/-. 4. In law and on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred upholding the addition of Rs.2,08,946/- u/s. 40(a)(i) without appreciating the fact that payment made to CLP Power India Pvt. Ltd. is in nature of reimbursement of expenditure and on such payment, TDS is not required to be deducted. 12. In support of the grounds filed by the assessee, the Ld. Counsel pleaded that various documents were filed for the first time before the Tribunal for claim of non-deduction of TDS. The assesse was not able to locate the copies of the invoices and agreements along with supporting documents which were filed along with the payment vouchers and hence could not retrieve the documents from its record. Therefore the same were not produced before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence the additional evidences may kindly be admitted in the interest of natural justice and fair play, and the additional documents were sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 12.1. The Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue though objected to the admission of the additional evidences but agreed to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 24 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record including the Paper Book and additional documents filed before us. Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules provides for admission of additional evidence before the Tribunal for the first time. It is seen from record, the assessee could not produce the same for reasons beyond is control and therefore in order to meet the ends of justice, we think it fit to entertain the additional documents filed by the assessee and set aside the same to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who is to adjudicate the various additional documents filed by the assessee. Needless to say that the assessee should co-operate with the department by producing all the additional evidences before the Ld CIT[A] and get adjudicated its grounds. 14. In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2172/AHD/2015 are allowed for statistical purpose by remitting the same to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the additional documents. 15. In remaining Revenue appeals in ITA 3465/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11 and ITA 2267/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 deletion of disallowance made u/s.40[a][ia] on interest paid to BLB is the ground raised by the Revenue. This ground is already adjudicated by us in ITA No. 2501/AHD/2015 vide para 4.9 of this order. Applying the same ratio, we uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act for non deduction of Tax on interest paid to BLB. I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 25 16. In ITA 3465/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11, one of the ground namely deletion of addition on rebate u/s.40[a][ia] to GUVNL is the ground raised by the Revenue. This ground is already adjudicated by us in ITA No. 2501/AHD/2015 vide para 10.3 of this order, where we followed earlier order of this Tribunal. Applying the same ratio, we uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act 17. In remaining three Revenue appeals in ITA 3465/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11; ITA 2267/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 and ITA 2443/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 common Ground raised by the Revenue is “partly deletion of disallowance made u/s.14A read with Rule 8D”. 18. During the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee had made huge investment and has claimed exemption on dividend income of Rs. 50,000/-. As per the Profit and Loss A/c., the assessee has claimed interest payment to the loans and incurred other expenses. However the assessee has not deducted such interest payment/expenses relating to the investment in shares for earning interest. Therefore the Assessing Officer invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowed Rs. 3,43,25,371/- as follows: (i) The amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income 0 (ii) In a case where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest during the previous year which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, an amount computed in accordance with following formula, namely – A X B/C- where A amount of expenditure by way of interest other than the amount of interest included in clause (i) incurred during the previous year: 76899000 13776621 B the average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance-sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year: P.Y. Invest 552860000 0 C.Y. Invest . 269090000 0 Total PY+CY 82195000 00 2 41 09 75 00 I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 26 00 C the average of total assets as appearing in the balance-sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year; P.Y. Assets 223148940 00 C.Y. Assets 235651020 00 Total PY+CY 45879996 000 2 22 93 99 98 00 0 (A) (B) (C) AXB/C Intere st Exp. (A) 76899000 Aveg. Invest . (B) 410975000 0 Aveg. Assets. © 22399980 00 Tota AXB /C 13 77 66 21 (iii) An amount equal to one-half precent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day of the previous year. 20548750 Aveg. Investment 4109750000 0.5 100 20 54 87 50 2054 8750 AGGREATE OF (i)+ (ii) + (iii) 34325371 19. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly deleted Rs. 1,37,76,621/- under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and uphold the balance disallowance of 2,05,48,750/-. The Ld. CIT(A) also deleted the disallowance under section 14A while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. 20. Aggrieved against the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us on the disallowance made by Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) of Rs. 1,37,76,621/-. 21. Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Assessing Officer and pleaded to uphold the entire disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 22. Per contra Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee submitted before us Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT-Vadodara vs. Vision Finstock Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 486 of I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 27 2017 dated 31.07.2017 wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court restricting the disallowance made under section 14A only to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee, which in turn Followed Jurisdictional High Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 97. 22.1. The Ld. Senior Counsel also further submitted Revenue SLP before Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vision Finstock Ltd. in SLP Civil Diary No. 13152/2018 dated 07.05.2018 was also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows: “...There is a delay of 159 days delay in filing the present petition which is not satisfactorily explained. Notwithstanding the same, we have gone into the merits of the case and do not find any substance in the special leave petition. The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.” 22.2. Thus the Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that as per the Jurisdictional High Court judgment, the disallowance u/s. 14A is to be restricted to the dividend income of Rs. 50,000/- received by the assessee during the financial year. Thus the Revenue appeal is to be dismissed. The Ld. Senior Counsel also has raised a ground in C.O. NO. 12/Ahd/2016 and the disallowance should be restricted to the dividend income earned by the assessee. 23. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra) as well as in Vision Finstock Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 486 of 2017 has held that I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 28 the disallowance made u/s. 14A are restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the financial year. Now the issue has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No. 13152 of 2018 (cited supra), therefore the disallowance u/s. 14A is to be restricted to the extent of dividend income earned by the assessee namely Rs. 50,000/- and during the assessment year and the orders of the Lower Authorities is modified to the extent of disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- only u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. 23.1. In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue is hereby dismissed and the grounds raised by the assessee in Cross Objection is here by allowed. 24. ITA No. 2267/Ahd/2016 relating to the Assessment Year 2011- 12 and ITA No. 2443/Ahd/2017 relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 wherein the Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s. 14A of Rs. 6.85 crores and Rs. 1.03 crores respectively. Wherein also the assessee has received dividend income of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 62,500/- only. Thus following the decision in Para 23 above, the disallowance u/s. 14A is restricted to the dividend income of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 62,500/- for the respective assessment years. 24.1. Thus the ground raised by the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the ground raised by the assessee in C.O. No. 163/Ahd/2016 and C.O. No. 34/Ahd/2019 are hereby allowed. I.T.A No. 2172 & 2501/Ahd/2015 and Ors. A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-13 Page No DCIT vs. CLP Power India Ltd. 29 25. In the result, the four appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal filed by the Assessee and three Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-03-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 27/03/2023 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदावाद