Gujarat Power Corporation Limited-GPCL, Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 2332/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8875 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Revised return; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI O. P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2332/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) GUJARAT POWER CORP. LTD. (GPCL), BLOCK NO.8, SIXTH FLOOR, UDHYOG BHAVAN, GH ROAD, SECTOR -11, GANDHINAGAR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, GANDHINAGAR [ PAN NO. AAACG 5596 J ] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH PARIN SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L. P. JAIN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 17.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 .0 9 . 2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT) ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2016 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, GANDHINAG AR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. GROUND NO. 1:- THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDE R SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D. ITA NO.2332/AHD/2017 GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS ITO ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 2 - AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL T HE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 UND ER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1 172/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2011-12, 1361/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND 1928/AH D/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012- 13. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANYTH ING CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 3. HEARD THE PARTIES, WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RELE VANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT IS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY P ROMOTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT MAINLY ACTED AS NODAL AGENCY FOR AUGMENTING POWER GENERATION IN THE STATE OF GUJARAT, GENERATION OF P OWER THROUGH WIND MILL, DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR PART ETC. THE APPELLANT COMPA NY DECLARED ITS INCOME AT RS. 8,65,350/- THROUGH ITS RETURN FILED ON 29.11.20 14 FOLLOWED BY A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.02.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT NIL. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUO MOTO DISALLOWED RS. 1 ,00,000/- AS EXPENSES RELATING TO THE EARNING OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. UPO N PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INC OME OF RS. 1,26,94,978/- FROM LARGE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN ASSETS YIEL DING TAX FREE DIVIDEND AND CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BY THE LD. AO BY MAKING ADDITION OF R S. 51,61,129/- AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 14A BEING EXPENSES INCURRED TO EARN INCOME NOT FORMING PART OF TOTAL INCOME. 4. IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH WHEREIN THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN ITA NO. 1172/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 RELYING UPON THE JUD GMENT PASSED BY THE ITA NO.2332/AHD/2017 GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS ITO ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 3 - JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF PCIT VS. SHRENO LTD. REPORTED IN [2019] 102 TAXMAN.COM 129 (GUJ.). THE RELEVANT POR TION WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS:- 10. GROUND NO.3 THIS GROUND RELATES TO DELETING OF ADDITION INVOKI NG SECTION 14A OF THE ACT TO THE TUNE OF RS.47,23,579/-. 11. UPON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T FOR A.Y. 2010-11, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,60,74,728/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THE INCOME TO BE EXEMPTED U/S 10(34) O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.1,00,000/- TOWARDS E XPENSES RELATED TO THE EARNING OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THREE COMPANIES WERE DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEAR NED AO. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THERE WERE NO BORROWING AND NO INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MA DE. FURTHER THAT, DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENSES EARLIER WAS AL SO DELETED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF ANY EXPENSES COULD BE SOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH EXEMPT IN COME THE SAME COULD BE ALL ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE FOR RECEIVING THE CHEQUES AND DEPOSITING THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE APPROXIMATE SUM WAS RS.1000/- ONLY TO BE THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME APPLYING UNDER PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISALLOWED RS.1,00,000/- NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. HOWEVER, APPLYING SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D, THE LEARNED AO DISALLOWED RS.47,23,579/- WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN TAX APPEAL NO.1587 OF 200 9 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 DATED 28.03.2011. HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, T HE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT IN THE MATTER OF PCIT-VS- SHRENO LTD. REPORTED IN [2019] 102 TAXMANN.COM 129 (GUJARAT). ON THE CONTRARY THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEAR NED AO. 13. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEV ANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,60,74,728/- FROM SHARES HELD BY IT. TAKING INT O CONSIDERATION THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR THE LEARNED AO HAS APPLIED SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULE AND DISALLOWED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.47,23,579/-. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT MOST OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT EARLIER YEARS. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF PCIT-VS-SHRENO LTD. IN THE SAID MATTER, B USINESS FUNDS AND INVESTMENT FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MIXED UP AND IT WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE LEARNED AO IN HOLDING THAT THE FUNDS DEPLOYED FOR EARNING TAX FRE E INCOME WERE ENTIRELY OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND RESULTANTLY THE ENTIRE INTE REST COST WAS TO BE LOCATED ON TWO ACTIVITIES LEADING TO TAXABLE INCOME AND THUS SECTI ON 14A R.W.R. 8D WAS INVOKED. THE ITA NO.2332/AHD/2017 GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS ITO ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 4 - LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED A SPECIFIC SATISFACTION BEFORE RESORTING TO DISALLO WANCE APPLYING SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D TO THIS EFFECT THAT DISALLOWANCE OFFERING BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INADEQUATE TO COVER THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN EARNING TAX EXEMPT INCOME. APPLICATION OF RULE 8D CANNOT BE AUTOMATIC HENCE DISALLOWANCE WAS DELETED. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ON ITS OWN ADDED BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,000/- AS DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 14A TOWARDS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INCU RRED FOR EARNING SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL WA S THUS UPHELD. WE FIND THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED FACTUALLY AND L EGALLY, HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF AS CLAIMED FOR WHICH WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO WITHOU T ANY INFIRMITY SO AS TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE. THE QUESTION IS ACCORDINGLY ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E. IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FAILS AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE HAS A LSO BEEN DEALT WITH IN ITA NO. 1928/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13. THE RELEVANT P ORTION WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS:- 29. GROUND NO.1 THIS GROUND RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D TO THE TUNE OF RS.51,61,079/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISION. 30. UPON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T FOR A.Y. 2011-12, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,71,72,097/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE EX EMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. FURTHER THAT, THE ASSESS EE HAS DISALLOWED SUO MOTO SUM OF RS.1,00,000/- AS EXPENSES RELATING TO THE EARNING O F SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT INVESTMENT ON WHICH EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED WERE NOT MADE FROM INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AS THERE ARE NO BO RROWINGS MADE BY THE COMPANY WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET. ULTIMATELY , APPLYING SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN WORKED OUT TO RS.51 ,61,079/- BY THE LEARNED AO, ADDITION WHEREOF WAS IN TURN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARN ED CIT(A). HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL. 31. WE FIND THAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AS ALREADY B EEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.1172/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IN REVENUES APPE AL WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES HAS BEEN DELETED BY US RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF PCIT-VS-SHRENO LTD. REPORTED IN [2019] 102 TAXMAN.COM 129 (GUJ). H ENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSI DERED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WE FOUND N O REASON TO OBSERVE ITA NO.2332/AHD/2017 GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS ITO ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 5 - OTHERWISE AND HENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED C IRCUMSTANCES RESPECTFULLY RELYING UPON THE SAME WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. GROUND NO. 2:- 7. THIS GROUND RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE APPLYING PRO VISION OF SECTION 115JB WHILE COMPLETING DISALLOWANCES UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL T HE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT PASS ED IN THE MATTER OF ACIT, CIRCLE 17(1) VS. VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. PASSED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT AT DELHI WHICH HAS BEEN DULY TAKEN CARE OF BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN PASSING ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1928/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. HENCE, HE PRAYS FOR THE SAME RELIEF. 8. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR FAILED TO MAKE ANY CONTRARY SUBMISSION AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION MADE BY THE LD. AR. 9. HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORDS INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA 1928/AHD/2016 FOR A.Y. 2012-13. THE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS:- 32. GROUND NO.2 THIS GROUND RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BY APP LYING PROVISION OF RULE 8D TO THE TUNE OF RS.51,61,079/- WHILE CALCULATING INCOME UNDER PROVISION OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 33. IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED AO DISALLOWED RS.51 ,61,079/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT BY APPLYING PROVISION OF RULE 8D WHILE CALCULATING INCOME UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 115JB MAT (DISALLOWANCE AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER RS.52,61,079 = ALREADY DISALLOWED IN THE RETURN OF RS.1,00,000/-). IT IS T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNED AO ERRONEOUSLY DISALLOWED U/S 14A BY APPLYI NG THE PROVISION OF RULE 8D WHILE CALCULATING THE INCOME UNDER PROVISION OF SEC TION 115JB MAT WHEN IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS THAT SO FAR AS COMPUTATION OF ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT IS CONCERNED PROVISION OF SECTION 2 AND SUB SECTION 3 OF SECTION 14A CANNOT BE IMPORTED INTO CLAUSE (F). IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMEN T HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT AT DEL HI IN THE MATTER OF ACIT, CIRCLE ITA NO.2332/AHD/2017 GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS ITO ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 6 - 17(1)-VS-VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. ON THE OTHER H AND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 34. HEARD THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEV ANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE JUDGM ENT IN THE MATTER OF VIREET INVESTMENT (P.) LTD. THE RELEVANT PORTION WHEREOF I S AS FOLLOWS: THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS OF E XPENDITURE RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) COULD BE ARRIVED AT BY RESORTI NG TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OR NOT. THE DEPARTM ENT, CONTENTION, IS THAT THE OBJECT OF SECTION 14A AND CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) IS SAME AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT SECTION 14A CAN BE RESORTED TO FOR FINDING OUT THE EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO ANY INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT. [PARA 6.2] WHEN THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATUTE, THEN IT IS NOT ONLY LEGITIMATE BUT PROPER TO READ BOTH THE PROVISIONS IN THEIR CO NTEXT. IF CONTEXT IS SAME, DIFFERENT MEANING CANNOT BE ASS IGNED. IT IS TO BE FOUND OUT THAT WHAT MISCHIEF WAS INTENDED TO BE REMEDIED BY INSERTING A PARTICULAR SECTION. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE ONCE IS MANIFESTED IN A PARTICULAR SECT ION IN THE STAT UTE THEN SAID INTENTION CANNOT BE GIVEN A DIFFERENT MEANING, IF A SIMILAR PROVISIO N HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN A DIFFERENT SECTION IN THE STATUTE. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISL ATURE MUST BE FOUND OUT BY READING THE STATUTE AS A WHOLE. [PARA 6.3] LITERAL MEANING CANNOT ALWAYS BE FOLLOWED LOGICALLY, BECAUS E SOMETIMES IT TENDS TO DEFECT THE OBVIOUS INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND RESULT S IN PRODUCING A WHOLLY UNREASONABLE RESULT. [PARA 6.4] THUS, THE SUBMISSION OF DEPARTMENT IS THAT WHEN BAS IC OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF SECTION 14A AND CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) IS SAME, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT MERELY BECAUSE SECTION 14A HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED I N CLAUSE (F), IT HAS NO APPLICATION. THE MODE OF COMPUTATION WITH SAME PURPOSE CANNOT BE DIFFERENTLY MADE MERELY BECAUSE SECTION 115JB CREATES A DEEMING SECTION. THE OBJECT OF DEEM ING PROVISIONS IS TO SUBSTITUTE THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS BY THAT COM PUTED UNDER MAT PROVISIONS. SUBMISSION OF DEPARTMENT IS THAT THIS CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO COMPUTATION FOR SAME ITEMS UNDER NORMAL AS WELL AS MAT PROVISIONS. UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES IN RELATION TO EARNING OF EXE MPT INCOME ARE TO BE REDUCED. THEREFORE, DIFFERENT MEANING CANNOT BE ASCR IBED IN CLAUSE (F) AND, THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY DIRECTLY RELATABLE EXPENDITURE I S TO BE REDUCED, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. [PARA 6.10] IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115J B(2), IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE COMPUT ATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A, READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 196 2. WE FIND FROM THE ISSUE CITATION THAT IN THE SAME SE T OF FACTS THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1962 IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AND HENCE SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS QUASHED THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. ITA NO.2332/AHD/2017 GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS ITO ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 7 - SINCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED AS AFORESAID BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY RELYING UPON THE SAME W E DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 3:- 10. IT IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, NO ORDER NEE DS BE PASSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20 / 0 9 /201 9 SD/- SD/- ( O. P. MEENA) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/09/2019 TANMAY, SR. PS TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 18.09.2019 (DICTATION PAGES 6) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.09.2019 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S19.09.2019 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT19.09.2019 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S20.09.2019 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK20.09 .2019 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER