SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CIRCLE 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8020/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 October 2026AY 2017-1818 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessment order was passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed a revised return declaring a total income of Rs. 1,61,48,170/-. During scrutiny assessment, the AO disallowed expenses claimed on account of Provisions for Decommissioning (Rs. 9.04 lakhs) and Retention Bonus (Rs. 30.06 lakhs) under Section 37 of the Act. This led to an assessed income of Rs. 2,00,58,864/-. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenge the legality of the assessment order, the validity of the notice under Section 143(2), the disallowance of the provision for decommissioning, the disallowance of the provision for retention bonus, and the levy of interest and fees.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that Ground No. 1 was general and Ground No. 2 regarding the validity of the assessment order was not pressed and thus dismissed. Regarding the disallowance of the provision for decommissioning, the Tribunal observed that the assessee's contentions before the Tribunal were different from those made before the lower authorities. The CIT(A) had noted that the lease deed only permitted removal of fixtures and restricted liability to damages, not a general obligation to restore the premises. The Tribunal, considering the different angles presented and for better appreciation of facts, decided to remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to examine all contentions and decide in accordance with law, allowing adequate opportunity of hearing. Similarly, for the retention bonus, the Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions before it differed from those made before the lower authorities. The CIT(A) had found no basis for the provision and directed the AO to verify the claim regarding double addition in the next year. The Tribunal, for better appreciation of facts, decided to remand the issue to the CIT(A) to examine all contentions and decide in accordance with law, allowing adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order is liable to be quashed for legal defects, including violation of principles of natural justice, being passed in the name of a non-existent entity, and contrary to law and facts? (Assessee's contention: Yes, due to various legal defects. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 2. Whether the notice issued by the AO under Section 143(2) is contrary to the Act and CBDT circulars, rendering the consequential assessment order void-ab-initio? (Assessee's contention: Yes. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 3. Whether the lower authorities erred in disallowing the provision for decommissioning of INR 9.04 lakhs under Section 37, considering it was based on scientific computation, acquired under slump sale, and reversed in subsequent years? (Assessee's contention: No, it should be allowed. Revenue's contention: It was a mere provision not yet crystallized). 4. Whether the lower authorities erred in disallowing the provision for retention bonus of INR 30.06 lakhs under Section 37, considering it was based on scientific computation, acquired under slump sale, and reversed in subsequent years? (Assessee's contention: No, it should be allowed. Revenue's contention: Not recorded). 5. Whether the AO erred in levying interest and fee amounting to INR 11.83 lakhs? (Assessee's contention: Yes. Revenue's contention: Not recorded).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 143(3),Section 143(2),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah (virtual) / Vinay Jain, ARs
For Respondent: Shri Rajgopal K. Parthsarthy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.09.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The instant appeal arising from the appellate order dated 25.09.2025 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A), Chennai-18 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment order

P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited passed u/s. 143(3) of the Inco

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,202 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →