M/s. Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited, Jaipur V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

ITA 817/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0112 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA
• Keywords: Diversion of income; Competent authority
• Section: 43B; 37(1)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 772/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014 THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION LTD., E-166, YUDHISTER MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACL 3171 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 817/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION LTD., E-166, YUDHISTER MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACL 3171 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11/10/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/12/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 2 PER: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AN D THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2 , JAIPUR DATED 23.03.2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. THESE APPEALS WERE HEA RD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- REVENUES GROUNDS OF APPEAL (ITA NO. 772/JP/2018): (I) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE C ONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE RENEWAL FUND?. (II) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,60,731/- MADE BY A.O. FOR DEPOSITING THE EMPL OYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIM E LIMIT PROVIDED IN RESPECTIVE ACTS? (III) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING TH AT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 43B AND NOT BY SECTION 36(1) (VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) O F THE I.T. ACT? (IV) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF ENERGY CONSERVATION FUND OF RS. 1,0 0,00,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES AN D IT IS ONLY APPLICATION OF INCOME? ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL (ITA NO. 817/JP/2018): ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 3 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS TO THE CONTRIBUTION TO RAJASTHAN BHAWAN OF RS. 1 CRORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR INST EAD OF DECIDING THE ISSUE WHEN ASSESSEE AS PER THE SAID DIRECTION O F THE HONBLE ITAT HAS SUBMITTED THE REQUISITE LETTER FROM THE GO VERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN. THE DIRECTION SO GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS OTHERWISE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF THE EXPENSES OF RS. 57,98,634/- INCURRED ON PUBLICITY A ND ADVERTISEMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IN LOT OF ENTRIES DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ARE NOT APPEARING IN THE LEDGER AMOUNT WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH SUCH DETAIL IGNORI NG THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED WHICH IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,33,005/- OUT OF THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND T HAT IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THE EXPENSES CRYSTALLIZE D IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR NOT. 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION U/S 80IA BY RS. 10,63,92,647/- (10,73,66,052-9,73,405) OUT OF T HE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 12,21,63,337/- BY EXCLUDING THE INDIRECT INC OME OF RS. 10,63,92,647/- BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOT EXCLUDING T HE INDIRECT EXPENSES OF RS. 7,53,19,051/-. SHE HAS FURTHER ERRE D IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REVISED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AT RS. 8,56,70,349/- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE D IRECTION OF HONBLE ITAT FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 4 2. FIRSTLY, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL. IN GR OUND NO. 1, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETING OF ADDITION OF RS. 20 LACS TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE RENEWAL FUND. THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY ITAT S ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 202/JP/2015 DATE D 18.08.2017. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERE D IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. IN D BIT APPEAL NO.4/2016 DATED 29.04.2016 REPORTED IN 386 ITR 267. IN VIEW OF SAME, CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AND THUS TH E GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT BE DISMISSED. 3. IN THIS REGARD, OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE D ECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 202/JP/2015 DATED 18.08 .2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UN DER:- 5. IN D.B APPEAL NO. 4/2006 DATED 29.04.2016, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS RAJASTHAN STATE SEED CORPORATION LTD HAS HELD AS UNDER: 9. INSOFAR AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON STATE RE NEWAL FUND IS CONCERNED, SAID EXPENDITURE ALSO GOES TO SHOW THAT THE RENEWAL FUND WAS SET UP BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND WAS CRE ATED WITH THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING A SAFETY NET FOR THE WORKER S LIKELY TO BE EFFECTED BY RESTRICTING IN THE STATE PUBLIC ENTERPR ISE AND THAT A FINDING OF FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THE CONTRIBU TION MADE TO THE STATE RENEWAL FUND IS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES O F THE WELFARE AND BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEES. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS F OR THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE INCURRE D IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND EXPENDITURE OF THIS NATURE B EING FOR ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 5 BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IS CERTAINLY ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, ANY NORMAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE WELFARE AND BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES IS ALLOWABLE E XPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37(1), THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO A FIN DING OF FACT THAT IT WAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION OF THE RESPONDENT AS SESSEE TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION OF THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE STATE RENEWA L FUND AND THERE BEING A LEGAL OBLIGATION AS WELL IN OUR VIEW THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO A CORRECT CONCLUSION. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE STATE RENEWAL FUND WAS SET UP TO PROVIDE SAFETY TO THE EMPLOYEES WORKING U NDER THE STATE OWNED ENTITIES IN CASE OF RESTRUCTURING/WIND-UP/CLO SURE OF THE UNDERTAKING. BASED ON THE STUDY DONE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED AN AMOUNT OF RS 20 LACS FOR T HE PURPOSES OF WELFARE AND BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEES. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THUS PARI-MATERIA TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HO NBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RAJASTHAN SEED CORPORATION LTD AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD C IT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS CON TRIBUTION TO STATE RENEWAL FUND. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF T HE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH REFERRED SUPRA, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A ) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS CON TRIBUTION TO STATE RENEWAL FUND. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF T HE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 6 5. IN GROUND NO. 2 AND 3, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGE D THE DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,60,731/- MADE BY THE A.O. FOR DEPOSITING THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI BEYOND THE PRESC RIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN RESPECTIVE ACT AND HOLDING THE EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B AND NOT BY SECTION 36(1)(VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) OF THE IT ACT. 6. THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY ITAT ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A Y 2011-12 IN ITA NO. 202/JP/2015 DATED 18.08.2017. IT WAS FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR (2014) 99 DTR 131, CIT VS. JAIPUR VIDYUT VIT RAN NIGAM LTD. 363 ITR 307, CIT VS. UDAIPUR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAN GH LTD. (2013) 366 ITR 163, PCIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES COR PN. LTD.AND CIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. (2017) 393 ITR 0421. 7. ADMITTEDLY, THE EMPLOYEESS CONTRIBUTION TO PF HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U /S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT REFERRED SUPRA. WE ACCORDINGLY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WH O HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS EMPLOYEES C ONTRIBUTION TO PF. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE REV ENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 7 8. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ENERGY CONSERVATION FUND OF RS. 1 C RORE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES WAS NOT INC URRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURCHASES AND IT IS ON LY APPLICATION OF INCOME. THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY ITAT ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A Y 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 983/JP/2013 DATED 30.09.2015 AND FOR AY 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 88/JP/2016 DATED 18.08.2017. 9. IN THIS REGARD, OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE D ECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 88/JP/2016 DATED 18.08. 2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UN DER:- 91. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 7, THE REVENUE HAS CH ALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A) IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF CON TRIBUTION TO ENERGY CONSERVATION FUND OF RS. 1 CRORE. BRIEF FACTS OF TH E CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTRIBUTED RS.1 CRORE TO STATE ENERGY CON SERVATION FUND TO BE SPENT ON CONSERVATION OF ENERGY AS AND WHEN REQU IRED. THE AO HELD THAT THE CONTRIBUTION SO MADE IS NOT WHOLLY & EXCLU SIVELY FOR ASSESSEE BUSINESS OF GENERATING RENEWABLE ENERGY. HE THEREFO RE, DISALLOWED THE SAME. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) BY RELYING ON THE D ECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.9 83/JP/13 FOR AY 2008-09 DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 92. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED B Y THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTRIBUTION IS MADE TO RAJASTHA N STATE ENERGY ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 8 CONSERVATION FUND CONSTITUTED AS PER SECTION 16 OF THE ENERGY CONSERVATION ACT, 2001. THE OBJECT OF THE FUND IS M ENTIONED AT PG 11- 12 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IS INCORPORATE D WITH THE OBJECT OF PROMOTING THE NON CONVENTIONAL AND RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND THEREFORE THE CONTRIBUTION SO MADE IS WHOLLY & EXCL USIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. OTHERWISE ALSO, ANY CONTRIBUTI ON MADE TO A STATUTORY FUND IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AS HELD BY SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. NEW HORIZON SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD.26 9 ITR 397 WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT AMOUNT SET APART TOWARDS MOLASSES STO RAGE RESERVE FUND IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME ON T HE PRINCIPLE OF DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AND THUS THE GROUN D OF THE DEPARTMENT BE DISMISSED. 93. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPR ODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE FACT OF T HIS ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THE FACT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, APPEAL NO. ITA NO. 983/JP/2013. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOW:- THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID TOWARDS ENERGY CONVERSATION C ONTRIBUTION FUND, WHICH IS STATUTORY LIABILITY AS PER PROVISION S OF ENERGY CONSERVATION ACT, 2001. THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJ SHIPPING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. (SUP RA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUND SET UP FOR PRODUCTS W HICH WAS ALSO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DIRECT NEXUS TO TH E ADVANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BUSINESS. ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 9 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, THE DISALLOWANCE ON A CCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO ENERGY CONSERVATION FUND OF RS. 1,0 0,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BE DEL ETED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 94. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OR ANY AUTHORITY WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2008-09. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH REFERRED SUPRA, WE AFFIRM THE FIND INGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE ARE NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE COORDINATE BENCH REFERRED SUPRA, WE AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE GROUND NO. 4 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 CRORE IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUT ION TO RAJASTHAN BHAWAN. 12. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE CONTRIBUTED RS.1 CRORES TO THE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF RAJASTHAN BHAWAN AT MUMBAI WHEREIN EMPLOYEES OF T HE RAJASTHAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS COMPANIES CAN STAY DURING THEIR VISIT FOR GOVERNMENT WORK IN VIEW OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 10 IN ITS 65 TH BOARD MEETING DATED 13.12.2010 WHERE IT WAS DECIDE D TO CONTRIBUTE RS.2 CRORES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RAJASTHA N BHAWAN AT MUMBAI OUT OF WHICH RS.1 CRORES WAS PAID IN AY 2011-12 AND BALANCE RS.1 CRORES WAS PAID THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCOR DINGLY, ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1). THE AO M ADE THE DISALLOWANCE BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE SO INC URRED BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TO RAJASTHAN BHAWAN IS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF GENERATING RENEWABLE ENERGY AND IT IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME. 13. IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.10.2017 ISSUED BY GOVERNM ENT OF RAJASTHAN WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN HAS INTIMATED T O ALL THE CORPORATIONS WHO HAVE MADE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE CO NSTRUCTION OF THIS BUILDING TO ALLOW THEM REBATE ON THE ROOM TARIFF. T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED A REBATE OF 75% OF THE TARIFF RATE CONSIDER ING THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION MADE BY IT. 14. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE LD. CIT( A) THOUGH ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED THE LETTER FROM GOVERN MENT OF RAJASTHAN BUT STILL DIRECTED THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE ITAT FOR AY 2011-12 WHEREBY HO NBLE ITAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO AO AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: 55. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSU ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE C ONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 11 CONSTRUCTION OF RAJASTHAN BHAWAN HAS BEEN MADE AS D IRECTED AND AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, BEING THE OWNER AND SHAREHOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE QUESTION IS THEREFORE NOT ABOUT THE AUTHORIZATION BEFORE INCURRENCE OF THE SAID EXPENDI TURE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS OR NOT. T HE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ESTABLISH THE SAID FACT. THE L D AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS WRITTEN TO THE GOVERN MENT OF RAJASTHAN TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION FACILITIES IN THE RAJASTHA N BHAWAN TO ITS OFFICERS ON THEIR VISIT TO MUMBAI, HOWEVER, THERE I S NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE SAID CONTENTION. WE ARE ACCORDINGLY SE TTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAID CO NTENTION AND THE EXAMINE THE MATTER A FRESH. IN THE RESULT, THE GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COV ERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN CASE OF RIICO LTD. FOR AY 2012-1 3 WHERE AFTER CONSIDERING ITS DECISION IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR AY 2011-12 IN PARA 36 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 36. SINCE THIS LETTER DATED 24.10.2017 WAS NOT AVA ILABLE BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF RAJASTHAN RENEWAL ENERG Y CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) THEREFORE, THE AO WAS ASKED TO EXAMINE THE FACT. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 24.10.201 7 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE REBATE OF 75% AS WELL AS THE R IGHT TO USE THE ACCOMMODATION BY ITS OFFICERS/EMPLOYEES VISITING AT MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE EARLIER DECISION OF THI S TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 12 ASSESSEES OWN CASE AS WELL AS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE BENEFIT IN THE SHAPE OF ACCOMMODAT ION AGAINST THE SAID EXPENDITURE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RAJASTHAN HOUS E WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITU RE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. 16. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PURUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE AFRESAID LETTER DATED 24.10.2017, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE REBATE OF 75% AS WELL AS THE RIGHT TO USE T HE ACCOMMODATION BY ITS OFFICERS/EMPLOYEES VISITING MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY , IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE BENEFIT IN THE S HAPE OF ACCOMMODATION AGAINST THE SAID EXPENDITURE FOR CONS TRUCTION OF RAJASTHAN HOUSE, WE HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT AND THE AO IS DIRE CTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSE ES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 17. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF THE EXPENSES OF RS. 57,98,634/- INCURRED ON PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISEMENT ON THE GROU ND THAT IN LOT OF ENTRIES, DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ARE NOT APPEARING I N THE LEDGER ACCOUNT WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH SUCH DETAI L IGNORING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED WHICH IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 18. THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED EXPENDITURE OF RS.57,98,634/- ON ACCOUNT OF PUBLICITY & ADVERTISEM ENT. IN SUPPORT OF ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 13 THE EXPENDITURE, ASSESSEE FILED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSES AND EXPLAINED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH EXPENSES AS PE R LETTER DT. 05.12.2015 REPRODUCED AT PG 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. THE AO OBSERVED THAT EXPENDITURE IS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AN D EXCLUSIVELY FOR GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY BUT IS ONLY AN APPLICATIO N OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE. ON APPEAL , THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THAT EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS BUT HE NOTED THAT IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AGAINST CERTAIN EN TRIES NO DETAIL IS GIVEN. HE THEREFORE, RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE. 19. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT AFTER THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD THAT AGAINST CERTAIN ENTRIES NO DETAILS IS GIVEN WHEREAS IN THE LEDGER A CCOUNT AGAINST ALL THE ENTRIES, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF EXPENSES OR PERIOD OF EXPENSES OR BILL NO. IS MENTIONED. THESE EXPENDITURE ARE INC URRED ON PUBLICATION OF AKSHAY URJA SANDESH ON QUARTERLY BASIS OR ON ADV ERTISEMENT THROUGH NEWSPAPER, BROCHURES, MAGAZINES, ETC. FOR DISSEMINA TING THE DETAILS OF SUBSIDIES OFFERED UNDER VARIOUS PROGRAMS OF RENEWAB LE ENERGY SOURCES, PUBLISHING THE SCHEME OF BUREAU OF ENERGY EFFICIENC Y (BEE), INFORMATION ABOUT STAR LABELLED PRODUCT, AWARENESS & IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL MISSION, I.E. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SOLAR MISSION, NATIO NAL MISSION ON ENHANCED ENERGY EFFICIENCY, ETC. AS A RESULT, ASSES SEE RECEIVED SUM OF RS.6.42 CRORES AS REGISTRATION FEES FROM VARIOUS EN TREPRENEURS FOR SETTING RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANTS. THE LD. CIT(A) WIT HOUT REQUIRING ASSESSEE TO FURNISH FURTHER DETAIL IN RESPECT OF TH E EXPENDITURE DEBITED ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 14 IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT HAS SUMMARILY DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENSES BY HOLDING THAT NO DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN THE LEDGER ACC OUNT FOR ALMOST 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE. 20. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR EXPENDIT URE OF RS.3,25,71,656/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AY 201 2-13 WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THIS ORDER IS UPHELD BY HONB LE ITAT IN ITA NO. 88/JP/2016 DATED 18.08.2017 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 100. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 9, THE REVENUE HAS C HALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A) IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF PUB LICITY AND ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 3,25,71,656/- ON ACCO UNT OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, RECRUITMENTS, TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PRIN TING OF ENERGY POLICY, INVITING TENDERS, ETC. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THESE E XPENDITURES ARE IN THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT/EXPLORATION OF NEW BUSINE SS AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATU RE OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH LARGELY RELATED TO PAYMENT TO ADV ERTISEMENT, PRINTING & PUBLISHING AGENCIES ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE. 101. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROMOTE AND FACILITATE ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES. FOR THIS PURPOSE IT CARRIES OUT MASS COMM UNICATION IN PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAMS BY PUBLICATION OF AKSHAY URJA SA NDESH ON QUARTERLY BASIS, DISTRIBUTING BROCHURES, LEAFLETS & HAND BILLS AND ADVERTISING THROUGH TV, RADIO, CABLE NETWORK, CINEM A SLIDES, DISPLAY ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 15 BOARDS, HOARDINGS, ETC. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEE RECEI VED A SUM OF RS.16.77 CRORES AS REGISTRATION FEES FROM VARIOUS ENTREPRENE URS FOR SETTING RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANTS. ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3.50 LACS IS INCURRED FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WHICH IS ALSO A PART OF ITS BUSI NESS ACTIVITY. HENCE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ADVERTI SEMENT IS WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE SAM E IS ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELE TED THE DISALLOWANCE AND THUS THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT BE DISMISSED 102. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REP RODUCED AS UNDER:- 7.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS HEAD AS HE FOUND T HAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVE Y, RECRUITS MEMBERS, TECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS, PRINTING OF ENER GY POLICY AND INVITING TENDERS ETC. AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT T HIS SEEMED IN THE NATURE OF NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND EXPLORAT ION OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO FELT THA T THIS EXPENDITURE HAD INCREASED EXCEPTIONALLY DURING THE YEAR ALMOST 4 TIMES. IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AR IN HIS WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING THE STATE NO DAL AGENCY OF THE MINISTRY OF NEW & RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPARTMEN T, GOVT. OF INDIA, IS REQUIRED TO POPULARIZE THE USAGE OF RENEW ABLE ENERGY SOURCE & POLICY DEPLOYMENT TOO. FURTHER, IN THE F.Y. 2010-11, THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, ISSUED RAJASTHAN SOLAR ENERGY POLICY, 2011 VIDE NO TIFICATION NO. F.20(6) ENERGY/2010 DATED 19.04.2011 FOR THE PROMOT ION THE SOLAR ENERGY IN RAJASTHAN, PRIOR TO ENACTMENT TO TH IS POLICY, THE PROMOTION OF SOLAR ENERGY WAS BEING DONE UNDER THE POLICY FOR PROMOTING GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY THROUGH NON-CON VENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES, 2004. ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 16 THE COMPANY WAS ALSO APPOINTED AS NODAL AGENCY FOR SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE OF PROJECT OF SOLAR POWER PROJECT SET UP IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, AS PER RAJASTHAN SOLAR ENERGY P OLICY, 2011 AS NOTIFIED AND ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN ENERGY DEPARTMENT VIDE DATED 19.04.2011. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN FILE D AND PERUSED. LARGELY, THE EXPENDITURE IS RELATED TO PAY MENT TO ADVERTISING AGENCIES AND PRINTING AND PUBLISHING AG ENCIES. A SMALL AMOUNT OF 3.50 LAKHS APPROX. IS FIXED FOR TOP OGRAPHIC SURVEY GEO TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN E XPLAINED BY AR AS IN PURSUANCE OF THE PROMULGATION OF THE NEW P OLICY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS DELETED. 103. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUS ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ONE OF THE BUSINESS OBJECTS O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO PROMOTE AND FACILITATE ENERGY CONSERV ATION AND POPULARIZE THE USAGE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES & ENCOURAGE COMPANIES TO SET UP RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANTS. AS PA RT OF ITS ACTIVITIES, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INCURRED THE PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE DURING THE YEAR. THE LD CIT(A) HAS GIV EN A FINDINGS ON PERUSAL OF LEDGER ACCOUNT THAT THESE EXPENDITURE LA RGELY RELATED TO PAYMENT TO ADVERTISING AGENCIES AND PRINTING AND PU BLISHING AGENCIES. THE SAID FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) REMAIN UNCONTROVE RTED BEFORE US. IN THE RESULT, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) A ND GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 21. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE FINDIN GS OF THE LD CIT(A) WHICH READS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 17 8.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 57,98,634/- F OR PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THAT THE E XPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY WHICH IS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E. THE AMOUNT WAS HELD NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NON CONVENTIONAL ENERGY IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND I S ALSO THE NODAL AGENCY OF THE MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND IS REQUIRED TO POPULARISE U SAGE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THIS EXPENSES WAS ALS O ENCLOSED. IT IS SEEN THAT IN A LOT OF ENTRIES, IT IS ONLY MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT IS PAID FOR PUBLICITY EXPENSES BUT NO DETAILS ARE GIVEN AND THIS IS ALSO 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE. SINCE, THE DETAILS OF THESE EXPEND ITURE ARE NOT APPEARING IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, THE VERACITY CANNO T BE VERIFIED AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTR ICTED TO 50% OF THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEAD. GROUND OF APPEAL IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 22. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PURUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD PUBLICITY AND A DVERTISEMENT AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. I N THE RESULT, THE GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 18 23. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,33,005/- OUT OF THE PRIOR PER IOD EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THE EXPENSES CRYSTALLIZED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR NOT. 24. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED RS.3,71,601/- UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. THE AO DIS ALLOWED THE SAME HOLDING THAT SAME IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. TH E LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ALLOWED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,38,604/- BY HOLDING THAT THE SA ME CRYSTALLISED DURING THE YEAR BUT FOR THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE H E HELD THAT IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THEY CRYSTALLISED DURING THE YEAR OR NOT AND THUS, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF R S.2,33,005/-. 25. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A STA TE GOVERNMENT CORPORATION. NO EXPENDITURE IS BOOKED WITHOUT THE A PPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. FROM THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IT CAN BE NOTED THAT THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE IS ON PAYMENT OF SALARY, BONU S, PUBLICITY EXPENSES, AMC CHARGES, ETC. WHICH ARE ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY AFTER APPROVAL OF SUCH EXPENDITURE BY THE COMPETENT AUTHO RITY. BONUS OF RS.9,631/- IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE U/S 43B ON PAYMEN T BASIS. SIMILARLY EXPENDITURE OF RS.35,037/- WAS BOOKED SINCE THIS AM OUNT WAS RECEIVABLE FROM MNRE BUT SINCE THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN THIS AMOUNT AFTER DISCUSSION IT WAS CHARGED TO EXPENDITURE DURING THE YEAR. OTHERWISE ALSO THE TAX RATE BEING THE SAME, IT DOESNT MAKE A NY DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN W HICH IT IS ACCOUNTED FOR OR IN THE YEAR TO WHICH IT RELATES TO. IN SUPPO RT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 19 ON CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. 358 ITR 295 (SC), PR. CIT VS. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. (2016) 386 ITR 267 (RA J.), SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS CIT 213 ITR 52 3 (GUJ.), RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INV. CORPN . LTD. VS. ACIT (66 & 354/JP/08, DATED 30-09-2008 FOR AY 2004-05 AND 13 8 & 235/JP/09 FOR AY 05-06 DATED 08-01-2010). 26. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE INCURRENCE OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS IS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. FURT HER, THE LD AR HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN BOOKED AFTE R SEEKING THE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY DURING THE YE AR AND THE SAME IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ACCOUNTING PRACTICE OF BOOKING THE EXPENSES IN EARLIER YEARS. WE ACCORDINGLY DONOT SEE ANY BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIE W OF THE SAME, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME AND THE GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 27. IN GROUND NO. 4., THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED T HE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA BY RS. 10,63,92,647/- O UT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 12,21,63,337/- BY EXCLUDING THE INDIRECT INC OME OF RS. 10,63,92,647/- BUT AT THE SAME TIME NOT EXCLUDI NG THE INDIRECT EXPENSES OF RS. 7,53,19,051/-. SHE HAS FURTHER ERRE D IN NOT CONSIDERING THE REVISED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA AT RS. 8,56 ,70,349/- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE ITA T FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 20 28. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(IV) IN RESPECT OF ITS POWER G ENERATING UNDERTAKINGS AT RS.12,21,63,337/-. THE WORKING OF T HE SAME IS GIVEN BY THE AO AT PAGE 15-16 OF THE ORDER. IN ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT REVENUES IN FORM OF SALES OF SERVICE S OF RS 7,80,18,030, FDR INTEREST INCOME OF RS 2,76,01,651, OTHER INCOME OF RS 7,72,966 AND AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTFALL IN THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,73,405 TOTALLING TO RS 10,73,66,052/- ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HE THEREFORE, REDUCED T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA TO THIS EXTENT AND THUS, ALLOWED DEDUCTIO N U/S 80-IA AT RS.1,47,97,286/- AS AGAINST ORIGINALLY CLAIM OF RS. 12,21,63,337/-. 29. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COST AU DITOR HAS TAKEN THE INDIRECT INCOME ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS AND INDIRECT HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN TAKEN WRONGLY AT RS 7,53,19,050 AS AGAINST COMMON HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES OF RS 5,14,57,675 AND N ECESSARY WORKING IN FORM OF A CHART WAS FURNISHED. THE LD. CIT(A) H OWEVER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR AY 2012-13 ALL OWED THE DEDUCTION ON INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTFALL/ LOW GENERATION O F POWER OF RS.9,73,405/- BUT CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 30. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE EXCLUDED THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF SERVICES, FDR INTEREST AND OTHER INCOME FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N U/S 80-IA WITHOUT ALLOCATING ANY EXPENDITURE AGAINST THESE RECEIPTS. AS A RESULT, ALL THE ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 21 EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AGAINST THE INCOME WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA. 31. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS TWO ACTIVITIES, ONE IS FROM SALE OF POWER ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 80-IA AND ANOTHER IS RECEIPT FROM SERVICES, FDR INTEREST AND OTHER RECEI PTS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA. AGAINST THE SALE OF POWER AND SHORTFALL IN GENERATION OF POWER OF RS.30,25,45,701/-, THE EXPEN DITURE DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THIS ACTIVITY IS RS.21,14,66,341/- AND THUS, PROFIT FROM THIS ACTIVITY IS RS. 9,10,79,361/-. FROM THIS AMOUNT, AF TER REDUCING THE OFFICE EXPENSES AND SALARY EXPENSES OF THOSE UNITS WHO ARE EXCLUSIVELY LOOKING AFTER THIS ACTIVITY AT RS.35,59,240/-, THE REMAINING PROFIT FROM THIS ACTIVITY IS RS.8,75,20,120/-. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE DIRECT EXPENSES, THE INDIRECT EXPENSES REMAINS AT RS.27,93,611/-. TH IS EXPENDITURE WHEN ALLOCATED IN THE RATION OF TURNOVER OF BOTH THE ACT IVITIES, THE EXPENDITURE ALLOCABLE TO THE ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA WORKS OUT AT RS,18,49,771/- AND THUS, THE PROFIT ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION U/S 80-IA WORKS OUT AT RS.8,56,70,349/- (8,75,20,120-18,49,77 1). THEREFORE, AS AGAINST THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80-IA AT RS.12,21,63,337/-, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AT RS.8,56,7 0,349/- AS PER THE REVISED WORKING PLACED AT PAGES 7-8 OF PAPERBOOK. T HIS WORKING HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY HONBLE ITAT IN AY 2011-12 AS PER THE DISCUSSION MADE AT PARA 42 TO 45 OF THE ORDER AND THE SAME WAS FOLLOWED IN AY 2012-13 AS PER THE FINDING EXTRACTED AT PG 34 OF TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 22 32. IN THIS REGARD, OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 202/JP/2015 DATED 18.08 .2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD IN PA RA 42 TO 45 AS UNDER:- 42. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(IV) IN RESPECT OF ITS SEVEN W IND AND SOLAR POWER PLANTS ESTABLISHED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN RAJASTHA N. THE AO WHILE EXAMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE COMPANY, HAS OBSERVED THAT ONLY DIRECT OPERATION AND MAINTEN ANCE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND EXPENSES OF COMMON NATURE I.E, HEAD OFFICE AND OTHER DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION EXP ENSES HAVE NOT BEEN APPORTIONED AMONGST THE UNITS/PLANTS CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 80IA(5), RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF NITCO TILES (30 SOT 474 MUM) AND HELD THAT ADMINIST RATIVE, HEAD OFFICE AND OTHER EXPENSES HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE RUN NING OF VARIOUS ELIGIBLE UNITS. IN OUR VIEW, THERE CANNOT BE ANY D ISPUTE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) ARE ATTRACTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. AT THE SAME TIME, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) HAVE TO BE READ HARMONIOUSLY ALONG WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(1) WHICH PROVIDES FOR PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. 43. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ZANDU PHARMACEUTICALS WORKS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 350 ITR 366 WHEREIN DRAWING SUPPORT FRO M THE DECISION OF ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 23 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. STERLING FO ODS REPORTED IN 104 TAXMAN 204, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 13. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THERE MUST BE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE WORDS 'DERIVED FROM' A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE PROFITS AND GAINS AND AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. SECTIONS 80-I AND 80 -IA ALSO USE THE EXPRESSION 'DERIVED FROM'. IF THERE MUST BE A DIREC T NEXUS BETWEEN THE PROFITS AND GAINS AND AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, IT MUST FOLLOW EQUALLY THAT THERE MUST BE A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN AN INDUST RIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE SOUGHT TO BE APPORTIONED /ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT. EXPENSES WHICH DO NOT RELATE TO AN INDUSTRIAL UNDER TAKING/UNIT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEY RELATE TO OTHER UNITS OR TO THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WHAT IS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHE R THERE IS PROXIMATE CONNECTION OR DIRECT NEXUS WHICH HAS BEEN ESTABLISH ED BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN THE I NSTANT CASE. 44. THE EXPENDITURE UNDER CONSIDERATION FALLS UNDE R TWO BROAD BASKETS. THE FIRST EXPENDITURE RELATES TO PAYMENT TO AND PROVISION FOR EMPLOYEES AMOUNTING TO RS 3,02,06,576. IN THIS REG ARD, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SEVEN POWER PLANTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE THIRD PARTY OPERATORS FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND T HE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY SPECIFIED AMOUNTS AS PER THE AGREEMEN T EXECUTED WITH THEM. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO EMPLOY ANY PERSON FOR DAY-TO- DAY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THESE PLAN TS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,0 2,06,576/- ON ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 24 ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT AND PROVISION TO EMPLOYEES IS CO NCERNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE EMPLOYEE-WISE DETAILS OF TH E EXPENDITURE UNDER THIS HEAD, IT CAN BE NOTED THAT SALARY TO THE EMPLO YEES WHO ARE EXCLUSIVELY EMPLOYED TOWARDS PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES IS OF RS.2,56,29,076/-. THE REMAINING SALARY OF RS.45,77, 500/- IS BOTH TOWARDS THE PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THE POWER PR OJECTS WHICH CAN AT THE MOST BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS THE POWER PLANTS IN T HE RATIO OF THE TURNOVER OF THE POWER PLANTS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH COMES TO RS 18,13,289/-. IT IS NOTED FROM DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AT APB 189-190 THAT THERE ARE EMPLOYEES LIKE FINANCIAL ADVISOR, CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL MAN AGER, PROJECT MANAGER, ETC WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS PERFORMING WO RK FOR BOTH THE PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS ACTIVITIES RELATI NG TO POWER PLANTS. THESE ARE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION IN TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ARENA AND EM PLOYED AT THE HEAD OFFICE AND THUS HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE ACTIVI TIES OF THE SEVEN PLANTS IF NOT AT THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL BUT DEFINITE LY AT THE STRATEGIC AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL. THE SALARY EXPENSES OF RS.45,77, 500/- IS THUS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE ELIGIBLE UNITS IN T HE RATIO OF THEIR TURNOVER TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOCATE COMMON EXPENDITURE OF RS 45,77 ,500 TO THE POWER UNITS OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,02,06,576/- IN THE RATIO OF THEIR TURNOVER TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE WORKING OUT TH E ELIGIBLE PROFITS UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 45. NOW COMING TO THE SECOND CATEGORY OF EXPENDITU RE AMOUNTING TO RS.4,76,62,462/- WHICH FALLS UNDER THE HEAD ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 25 ADMINISTRATIVE/ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHER RELATES EXPE NSES. OUT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.24,84,561/- HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE WORKING OUT THE PR OFIT OF POWER UNITS. FURTHER, LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2, 61,09,810/- ON BIOMASS FUEL SUPPLY DISCOUNT, IEC PLAN EXPENSES, EX PENSES RELATING TO RURAL VILLAGE ELECTRIFICATION (RVE), ENERGY CONSERV ATION CONTRIBUTION EXPENSES PERTAIN DIRECTLY TO THE PROMOTIONAL ACTIVI TIES OF THE APPELLANT AND CANNOT BE APPORTIONED ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS WI TH POWER GENERATION ACTIVITY. THE SAID FINDING OF THE LD CIT (A) REMAIN UNCONTROVERTED BEFORE US. THEREAFTER, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,90,68,091/- REMAINS AS THE COMMON HEAD OFFICE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE/ ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1 CRORES IS ON AC COUNT OF CONTRIBUTION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RAJASTHAN BHAWAN AT MUMBAI AND IT HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE POWER UNITS. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS 90,68,091/- AGAIN HAS NO NEXUS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TO ALLOCATE 5% OF THE SAID EXP ENDITURE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND WHERE THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME CAN BE ALLOCATED IN THE RATIO OF TURNOVER OF THE POWER PLANTS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. WE AGREE WI TH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION TO RESTRICT THE POOL OF COMMON EXPENSES TO RS 90,68,091. GIVEN THE FACT THAT THESE ARE COMMON HEAD OFFICE EX PENSES RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF MANAGEMENT AND SUPE RVISION AT THE HEAD OFFICE, THEY HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE ACTIVITIE S OF THE SEVEN PLANTS AT THE STRATEGIC AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL. AS WE HAVE DIRE CTED EARLIER TO ALLOCATE THE SALARY EXPENSES OF THE HEAD OFFICE EMP LOYEES, THE COMMON HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES ARE ALSO DIRECTED TO BE ALLOCA TED IN THE RATIO OF ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 26 TURNOVER OF THE POWER PLANTS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS THE MOST RATIONAL AN D REASONABLE BASIS FOR ALLOCATION OF COMMON EXPENSES IN ABSENCE OF ANY THING MORE SPECIFIC WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN ANY CASE, THE POOL OF COMMON EXPENSES HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN TO A LARGE EXTENT AS THE EXPENSES WHICH HAVE A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE PROMOTIONAL ACTI VITIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXCLUDED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED TH IS ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALL OCATE RS 90,68,091 OUT OF THE TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE/ESTABLISHMENT EXPEN SES OF 4,76,62,462/- TO THE POWER UNITS IN THE RATIO OF THEIR TURNOVER T O THE TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE WORKING OUT THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS UNDER SECTIO N 80IA OF THE ACT. 33. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, IT IS NOT UNDER DISP UTE THAT REVENUES IN FORM OF SALES OF SERVICES, FDR INTEREST INCOME AND OTHER INCOME ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80(IA) AND HENCE, THE SA ID ACTION OF THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THE SECOND ISSUE RELATES TO ALLO CATION OF INDIRECT EXPENSES INCURRED AT THE HEAD OFFICE IN FORM OF EMP LOYEES AND ADMINISTRATIVE/ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES. THE LD AR HA S CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WORKED OUT THE ALLOCATION OF INDIR ECT EXPENSES AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN AY 2011-1 2 AND AS PER ITS WORKING, THE INDIRECT EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO THE ELI GIBLE UNDERTAKINGS AMOUNTS TO RS 18,49,771. FURTHER, TAKING THE SAME INTO ACCOUNT, AS PER THE REVISED WORKING, IT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IA AT RS 8,56,70,349 AS AGAINST ORIGINAL CLAIM OF RS 12,2 1,63,337. THE MATTER IS ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO E XAMINE AND VERIFY THE SAID REVISED WORKING SO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE A VAILABLE AT ITA NO. 772& 817/JP/2018 DCIT VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATI ON LTD. 27 ASSESSEES PAPERBOOK PAGES 7-8 AFTER PROVIDING REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, AND WHERE THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH REFERRED SUP RA, ALLOW THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPE AL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED A ND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/12/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 10/12/2018. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S RAJASTHAN RENEWABLE ENERGY CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. ITA NO. 772 & 817/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR