M/s VRL Logistics Ltd, Hubli V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hubli

ITA 2781/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6789 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SOWMYA K
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Question of law
• Section: 72(1); 80IA; 113; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO. 2781 /BAN G/20 17 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 M/S. VRL LOGISTICS LTD., VARUR, POST CHABBI 581 207. HUBBALI TALUKA. BENGALURU 560 066. PAN: ACKPT 2378 J VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBBALI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. SOWMYA K., ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN , C IT(DR)(ITAT ), BENG ALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 .0 1 .202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 .0 1 .202 1 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 03.10.2017 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), HUBLI FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER I N THE MANNER HE DID. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF LOSSES FROM POWER GENERATION AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF THE APPELLAN T BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 72(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO.2781/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 9 3. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT TH E APPELLANT HAVING NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE A CT, THE QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF SEC 80-IA(5) WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AS MADE WAS AGAINST THE LAW AND THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF THE LOSS AS CLAIMED. 4, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC 80-IA(5) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY ONLY WITH RE GARD TO THE QUANTIFICATION OF RELIEF U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT A ND THE SAME CANNOT BE STRETCHED TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INC OME UNDER THE ACT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT TH E LOSS UNDER POWER GENERATION WAS A LOSS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER TH E HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' AND CONSEQUENTLY BY VIRTUE O F SEC 72(1) OF THE ACT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SET OFF AS CLAIMED. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAYBE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAYBE ALLOWED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS, COURIER SERVICE, PASSENGER TRAVELS, GENERATION OF WIND POWER AND AIR CHARTER. IT HAS INSTALLED WIND TURBINE GENERATOR TO GENERATE POWER COMMISSIONED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, A SSESSEE DECLARED LOSS OF RS.77,75,40,155 UNDER THE POWER GENERATION PROJECT AND CLAIMED THE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME AND OTHER INCOME WH ILE DECLARING THE LOSS OF RS.84,17,73,418. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSES SMENT REJECTED THE SET OFF OF THE LOSS UNDER THE POWER GENERATION ON T HE GROUND THAT THE SAID PROJECT WAS FALLING FOR ELIGIBILITY U/S.80-IA AND C ONSEQUENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80-IA(5) OF THE ACT, THE ABOVE LOSS WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME AND REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO SET OFF ITA NO.2781/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 9 AGAINST THE PROFIT IF ANY FROM POWER GENERATION IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE AO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF GOLD MINE SHARES & FINANCE LTD. (2008) 113 ITD 209 (AHD) . THE ASSESSEES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ITAT BANGALORE IN THE C ASE OF SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATION PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.200/BANG/2010 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECLINED ON THE GROUND, THAT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ITS CLAIM OF SET OFF OF LOSS FROM WINDM ILL OPERATION AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER HEADS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 27.05 .2011, 349 ITR 245 (KARN). 5. THE CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, RELYING ON THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PLASTICBLENDS INDIA LTD. V. ADDL. CIT, 86 TAXMANN.COM 137 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- .. SECTION 80IA IS A CODE BY ITSELF AND CONTAINS P ROVISIONS FOR SPECIAL DEDUCTION WHICH IS LINKED TO PROFITS. SECT ION 80IA NOT ONLY CONTAINS SUBSTANTIVE BUT PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTATION OF SPECIAL DEDUCTION. IF ASSESSEES AC TION OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA WITHOUT REDUCING THE D EPRECIATION IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO INFLATE THE PROFIT S LINKED INCENTIVES PROVIDED U/S. 80IA, WHICH CANNOT BE PERM ITTED. THUS, DEPRECIATION HAD TO BE REDUCED FOR COMPUTING PROFIT S ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. 6. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID SUPREME COUR T DECISION, THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTI NG THE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF LOSS FROM WINDMILL PROJECT AGAINST INCOME UNDER OTH ER HEADS. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.2781/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 9 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAD COME UP FO R CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.292/BANG/2011 FOR THE AY 200 7-08 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 02.02.2012 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCE D BELOW :- 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (SUPRA) HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENT ICAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SWA RNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (SUPRA) IS AS FOLLOWS: 6.5. THUS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION AS REFERRED IN SUB-SEC.(1) TO S.80IA IN RESPECT OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THE COMPUTATION WILL HAVE TO BE DONE AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WAS TH E ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE RELEVAN T YEARS OF CLAIM COMMENCING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON A BROAD READING OF THE ACT, IT MAY APPEAR THAT THE CA RRIED FORWARD LOSS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF FIRST AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WHILE DETERMINING THE PROFITS ELI GIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT AND SET OFF OF LOSSE S FROM OTHER SOURCES UNDER THE SAME HEAD IS NOT PERMISSIBL E. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT SECTION 80 IA OF THE ACT IS A BENEFICIAL SECTION PERMITTING CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOME UNDER CHAPT ER VIA OF THE ACT. A PROVISION GRANTING INCENTIVE FOR PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN TAX ING STATUTES SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED AND RESTRICT ION PLACED ON IT BY WAY OF EXCEPTION, SHOULD BE CONSTRU ED IN A REASONABLE AND PURPOSIVE MANNER SO AS TO ADVANCE TH E OBJECTS OF THE PROVISION. IT IS A GENERALLY ACCEPTE D PRINCIPLE THAT THE DEEMING PROVISION OF A PARTICULA R SECTION CANNOT BE BREATHED INTO ANOTHER SECTION. THEREFORE, THE DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTI ON 80IA(5) CANNOT OVERRIDE THE SECTION 70(1) OF THE AC T. CIT(A)S OBSERVATION ON THIS REGARD THAT THE SPECIF IC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) HAVE OVERRIDING EFFEC T IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE ASSESSEE INCURS LOSS AFTER CLAIMING ELIGIBLE DEPRECIATION. HENCE SECTION 80IA ITA NO.2781/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 9 BECOMES INSIGNIFICANT, SINCE THERE IS NO PROFIT FRO M WHICH THIS DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED. AT THIS STAGE, SECTI ON 70(1) COMES TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREBY HE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE LOSSES FROM ONE SOURCE AGAINST INCOM E FROM ANOTHER SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME. HOWEV ER, ONCE A SET OFF IS ALLOWED U/S. 70(1) FROM THE INCOM E ON ANOTHER SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD, ANOTHER DEDUCTI ON ON THE SAME COUNT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE I.E., DURING T HE SUBSEQUENT YEARS IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES SURPLUS PROF ITS AFTER CLAIMING ELIGIBLE ALLOWANCES AND IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA, THE EARLIER BENEFIT GIVEN UNDE R OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BE FORE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA. WE HERE BELOW BRING O UT THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATION TO EXPLAIN THE APPLICABI LITY OF SECTION 80IA. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (SU PRA) ARE IDENTICAL AND WITH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUE IN THE IN STANT CASE. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED SUPRA HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.5050/2010 DATED 27-5-2011. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SYNCO I NDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ASSESSING OFFICER(INCOME TAX) & ANOTHER RE PORTED IN (2008) 299 ITR 444(SC). THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 5. THE SUPREME COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER T HE SAME QUESTION IN THE CASE OF SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ASSESSING OFFICER (INCOME TAX) AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2008) 299 ITR 444 (SC), AND AT PARA 13 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 13. THE CONTENTION THAT UNDER SECTION 80-I (6) THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM ONE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST LOSS SUFFERED FROM ANOTHE R AND THE PROFIT IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED AS IF PRO FIT MAKING INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS THE ONLY SOURCE O F INCOME, HAS NO MERITS. SECTION 80-I (1) LAYS DOWN THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE PRIORITY UNDERTAKING/UNIT/DIVISION, THEN IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH ITA NO.2781/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 9 PROFITS OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 20% HAS TO BE MADE. SECTION 80-I (1) LAYS DOWN THE BROAD PARAMETERS INDICATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION. ON THE OTHER HAND SECTION 80-I (6) DEALS WITH DETERMINATION OF T HE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION. SECTION 80-I (6) LAYS DOWN TH E MANNER IN WHICH THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION HAS TO BE WORKED OUT. AFTER SUCH COMPUTATION OF THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION, ONE HAS TO GO BACK TO SECTION 80-I (1 ) WHICH CATEGORICALLY STATES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOT AL INCOME INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING TO WHICH SECTION 80-I APPLIES THEN THERE SHALL BE A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 20 PERCENT. THE WORDS 'INCLUDES ANY PROFITS' USED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN SECTION 80-I(1) ARE VERY IMPORTANT WHICH INDICATE THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE SHALL INCLUDE PROFITS FROM A PRIORITY UNDERTAKING. WHILE COMPUTING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I(6) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO DOUBT, HAS TO TREAT THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS THE ONLY SOURCE O F INCOME IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A. HOWEVER, THIS COURT FINDS THAT THE NO N- OBSTANTE CLAUSE APPEARING IN SECTION 80-I(6) OF THE ACT, IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION , WHEREAS, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 80B(5) WHICH IS ALSO REFERRED TO IN SECTION 80I(1) IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT WHICH PRESUPPOSES THAT THE GROSS TOTA L INCOME SHALL BE ARRIVED AT AFTER ADJUSTING THE LOSS ES OF THE OTHER DIVISION AGAINST THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IF THE INTERPRETATI ON AS SUGGESTED BY THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED IT WOULD ALMOST RENDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80A(2) OF T HE ACT NUGATORY AND THEREFORE THE INTERPRETATION CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER SECTION 80-I(6) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION, THE LOSS SUSTAINED IN ONE OF THE UNITS, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE SUB-SECTION 6 CONTEMPLATES THAT ONLY THE PROFITS SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS IF IT ITA NO.2781/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 9 WAS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME. HOWEVER, SECTION 80A(2) AND SECTION 80B (5) ARE DECLARATORY IN NATUR E. THEY APPLY TO ALL THE SECTIONS FALLING IN CHAPTER V I-A. THEY IMPOSE A CEILING ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION AND THEREFORE THE NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE IN SECTION 80-I(6) CANNOT RESTRICT THE OPERATION OF SECTIONS 80A(2) AND 80B(5) WHICH OPERATE IN DIFFERENT SPHERES. AS OBSERVED EARLIER SECTION 80-I (6) DEALS WITH ACTUAL COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION WHEREAS SECTION 80- I(1) DEALS WITH THE TREATMENT TO BE GIV EN TO SUCH DEDUCTIONS IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 80-I(1), WHICH ALSO REFERS TO GROSS TOTAL INCOME ONE HAS TO READ THE EXPRESSION 'GROSS TOTAL INCOME' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 80B(5). THEREFORE, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE HI GH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOSS FROM T HE OIL DIVISION WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED BEFORE DETERMINING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND AS THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS 'NIL' THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLE D TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A WHICH INCLUDES SECTION 80-I ALSO. 6. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT A S AFORESAID, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS SUCH, NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IS MADE OUT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS FRA MED IS ANSWERED AGAINST REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. .... SINCE THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS DIRECTLY COV ERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT C ITED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY DIRECTING THE AO TO SET OFF LOSS FROM WINDMILL BUSI NESS AGAINST OTHER HEADS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 8. FURTHER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN T HE CASE OF CIT V. M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD. IN ITA NO.23 OF 2013 BY JUDGMENT DATED ITA NO.2781/BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 9 19.03.2020 AFTER FOLLOWING ITS JUDGMENT IN CIT V. SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) ON THE SAME ISSUE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE. 9. THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHILE DEN YING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR SET OFF OF LOSS FROM WINDMILL PROJECT AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER HEADS PLACED RELIANCE AND FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PLASTICBLENDS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). THAT DECISION WAS RENDERED ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA WITHOUT REDUCIN G DEPRECIATION, WHILE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO SET OFF OF LOSS AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER HEADS AND THEREFORE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PLASTICBLENDS INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) STANDS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V. M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD. (SUPRA) AND CIT V. SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , THE LATTER DECISION FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 2007-08 IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE, WE SET THE ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE MAKE I T CLEAR THAT THE LOSS RELATING TO WINDMILL TURBINE GENERATOR UNIT IS TO B E NOTIONALLY CARRIED FORWARD TO SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, SO AS TO SET OFF TH E SAME AGAINST THE INCOME OF THAT UNIT IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- ( BEENA PIL LAI ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 25 TH JANUARY, 2021. / DESAI S MURTHY / ITA NO.2781/BANG/2017 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.