IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 2221/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) DY . CIT, CIR - 4(2), ROOM NO. 642, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CENTRE NO.1, 10 TH FLOOR, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 400 005 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACH 2831 H ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. RADHA KATYAL NARANG / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAYESH DESAI / DATE OF HEARING : 23.09.2015 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 12.04 .2016 / O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH , JM : TH E PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 8 , MUMBAI DATED 20.1.2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. (A) 'ON THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE'. (B) 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF SUBSIDY WHICH 2 ITA NO. 2221/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010 - 11) DY. CI T VS. HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASING INSTALLED CAPACITY DOES NOT REDUCE THE ACTUAL COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY' . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDIN G THAT SUBSIDY RECEIVED AS EXCISE DUTY REIMBURSEMENT IS NOT A REVENUE RECEIPT'. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IN CASE OF ANY ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE CALCULATING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB, ARE NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THE SAME CAN BE INCREASED OR DECREASED AS PER FINDINGS BY A.O.' 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF C O - ORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 , I N ITA NO. 772 OF 2012 AND ITA NO. 4474 OF 2012 RESPECTIVELY. 3. IN ITA NO. 4474/M/2012, IT WAS HELD THAT CAPITAL SUBSIDY IS NOT RE QUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COST OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, SUBSIDY RECEIVED AS EXCISE DUTY REIMBURSEMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO ADD THE ABOVE SAID TWO ITEMS TO THE BOOK PROFIT COMPUTED U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 4 . WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE CONSISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE , WHEREIN ALL THE THREE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WERE IDENTICAL FOR THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF A.Y S. 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT (A) IS BASED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENC H OF ITAT AND OF SUPERIOR COURTS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY AND FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE CO - ORDINA TE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3 ITA NO. 2221/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2010 - 11) DY. CI T VS. HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/4/ 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( B. R. BASKARAN ) ( PAWAN SINGH ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DA TED : 12.04. 201 6 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI