ADDL CIT 10(1), MUMBAI V. RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5160/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84352 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATH SWAMY
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BE NCH, MUMBAI , !' #$% , !& ! ' BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I .T.A. NO. 5160/MUM/2012 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DCIT-10(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. M/S. RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, RELIANCE ENERGY CENTRE, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI-400 055 ) !& ./ * ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCR 7446Q ( )+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-)+ / RESPONDENT ) )+ . ! / APPELLANT BY: SHRI MANJUNATH SWAMY ,-)+ / . ! / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI JITENDRA SANGHAVI / 0& / DATE OF HEARING :26.11.2014 12( / 0& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :26.11.2014 !3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-21, MUMBAI DT.10.5.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y.20 09-10. 2. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ITA NO. 5160/M/2012 2 THE AO ON MONITORING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,32,84,790/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON METER REPLACEMENT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,17,04,626/- TREATING THE SAME AS REVENUE IN NATURE INSTEAD OF UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO, TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY NOT CONSIDERING APPORTIONING THE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES AND ALLOCATING RS. 3,87,00,186/- TO GOA UNIT RS. 3,90,07,681/- TO SAMALKOT UNIT AND RS. 13,43,995/- TO WINDMILL UNIT AND THEREBY REDUCING T HE AMOUNT OF PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IN RESPECT OF THE SAID UNITS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE STAND TAKEN B Y THE AO BY COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IN RESPECT OF DAHANU UNIT AT RS. 114.12 CRORES. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE STAND TAKEN B Y THE AO RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA TO THE E XTENT OF BUSINESS INCOME. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 115JB WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN EAR LIER YEARS BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A DETAILED CHART EXPLAINING HOW THE GROUNDS ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL /HIGH COURT. ITA NO. 5160/M/2012 3 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY CONCE DED TO THIS. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL/HIGH COURT BROUGHT ON RECORD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. 6. THE GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS ST ARTING FROM A.Y. 1999- 2000 TO 2008-09 AND BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FROM A.Y. 2001-02 TO 2007-08. 6.1. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DECISIONS BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE IN A.Y. 2008-09. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 5039/M/2011 & 4419/M/11 HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AT PARA-6 OF ITS ORDER AND AT PARA-7 FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS HAS DELE TED THE ADDITION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 2 ALSO HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL FROM A.YRS 1999-2000 TO 2008-09 AND BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FROM A.YRS 2001-02 TO 2007-08. 7.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN A.Y. 2008-09. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AT PARA-8 OF ITS ORDER AND AT PARA-9, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE EARLIE R DECISIONS AND DELETED THE ADDITION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ITA NO. 5160/M/2012 4 8. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 3 HAS BEEN CONS IDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL SINCE A.YRS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 AND THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND A.Y. 20 07-08. 8.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L FOR A.Y. 2008-09. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AT PARA-10 OF ITS ORDER AND AT PARA-11 THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISI ONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS AND DISMISSED REVENUES GROUND. RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, THE GROUND R AISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 4 HAS BEEN DECI DED BY THE TRIBUNAL FROM A.Y. 2000-01 TILL A.Y. 2008-09 AND TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE SINCE A.Y. 2001-02 TO A.Y. 2007-08. 9.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT P ARA-12 OF ITS ORDER AND PARA-13 THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS OF THE EARLIER YEARS AND DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, THIS GROUND RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 5 HAS BEEN DEC IDED BY THE TRIBUNAL FROM A.YRS 2001-02 TO 2008-09 AND BY THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT FROM A.Y. 2001-02 TO 2007-08. 10.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL FOR A.Y. 2008-09. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA-14 OF ITS ORDER AND AT PARA-15 THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION FOR EARLIER ITA NO. 5160/M/2012 5 YEARS AND HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE RE VENUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, TH IS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 6 HAS BEEN DEC IDED BY THE TRIBUNAL FROM A.YRS 2001-02 TO 2008-09 AND THE HON BLE HIGH COURT FROM A.YRS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 AND IN A.Y. 2007-08. 11.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AT PARA-16 O F ITS ORDER AND AT PARA- 17 DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE BY FOLLOWIN G THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER !& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4 DATED : 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 5160/M/2012 6 !3 !3 !3 !3 / // / ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 5!(0 5!(0 5!(0 5!(0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-)+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 6 / CIT 5. 78 ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8 9 / GUARD FILE. !3 !3 !3 !3 / BY ORDER, -0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// : :: : / ; ; ; ; (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI