M/S NLC INDIA LTD, vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 and CMP.Nos.17689 to 17693 of 2017 and 687 to 690 of 2018 M/s. NLC India Limited (formerly known as Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited) (F&AB) Income Tax Section, Corporate Office Neyveli - 607 801. ... Appellant in all TCAs Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai - 600 034.

... Respondent in TCA.Nos.684, 686 to 688 of 2017 and 64 of 2018 The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer unit, Chennai - 600 034. Page 1/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019

... Respondent in TCA.No.685 of 2017 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II, Chennai - 600 034.

... Respondent in TCA.Nos.62, 63, 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the orders dated 28.04.2017, 10.08.2017 and 18.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" & “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1983/Mds/2011, I.T.A.Nos.855, 2029, 2077 and 2140/Mds/2013, I.T.A.Nos. 2199, 2161, 2163 and 2200/Mds/2016 and I.T.A.No.1707/Chny/2015. For Appellant : Mr.Lakshmi Kumaran in all TCAs For Respondents : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel in all TCAs COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / assessee, challenging the orders dated 28.04.2017, 10.08.2017 and 18.12.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, relating to the respective Page 2/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2007-08, 2010-11, 2010-11, 2009-10, 2009-10, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2011-12, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- TCA.Nos.684, 685, 687 of 2017:- "(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the finding of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in so far it arrived at a conclusion regarding assurance of recovery based on an agreement to which the Appellant is not even a party? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'surcharge recoverable from electricity boards' is to be taxed as income in the year of accrual only despite the fact there existed uncertainty in realization? (iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for fresh consideration when the Bonds were issued towards adjustment of dues from EBS and no expenditure per se was incurred for obtaining the tax free bonds?" TCA.Nos.686 of 2017 and 64 of 2018:- "(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the finding of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse in Page 3/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 so far it arrived at a conclusion regarding assurance of recovery based on an agreement to which the Appellant is not even a party? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'surcharge recoverable from electricity boards' is to be taxed as income in the year of accrual only despite the fact there existed uncertainty in realization?" TCA.No.688 of 2017:- "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'other income' is to be excluded from the calculation of total income for the purpose of availing deduction under Section 80IA?" TCA.No.62 of 2018:- "(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the re-opening of assessment under Section 148 of the IT Act was valid? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'other income' is to be excluded from the calculation of total income for the purpose of availing deduction under Section 80IA? Page 4/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 (iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, with respect to 'other income' the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in estimating only 10% as expenses without any reference to any material or documentary evidence to support such a negligible expense element, when the actual operating expenses for the year as per published accounts is around 77%?" TCA.No.63 of 2018:- "(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in denying deduction under section 80-IA with respect to handing charges received by the appellant? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, with respect to 'handling charges' the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in estimating only 10% as expenses without any reference to any material or documentary evidence to support such a negligible expense element, when the actual operating expenses for the year as per published accounts is around 77%?" TCA.No.64 of 2018:- "(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the finding of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is incorrect in Page 5/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 so far as it arrived at a conclusion regarding assurance of recovery based on an agreement to which the Appellant is not even a party? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'surcharge recoverable from electricity boards' is to be taxed as income in the year of accrual only despite the fact there existed uncertainty in realization?" TCA.No.65 of 2018:- "(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'other income' is to be excluded from the calculation of total income for the purpose of availing deduction under Section 80IA? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, with respect to 'other income' the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in estimating only 10% as expenses without any reference to any material or documentary evidence to support such a negligible expense element, when the actual operating expenses for the year as per published accounts is around 64%? (iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding the matter back to the learned Assessing Officer for fresh Page 6/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 consideration when the Bonds were issued towards adjustment of dues from EBs and no expenditure per se was incurred for obtaining the tax free bonds?" TCA.No.389 of 2019:- "(i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'other income' is to be excluded from the calculation of total income for the purpose of availing deduction under Section 80IA? (ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in estimating the quantum of profit element embedded in the 'other income' without adducing any basis to support the same? (iii) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in denying the benefit of additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia)?" 2. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / assessee submitted that during the pendency of these tax case appeals, the assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 and filed necessary declarations, which were accepted and Form 5 / order for full and final settlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income tax department, Page 7/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 on 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2021. The learned counsel has also filed Form 5 dated 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2021 to that effect. 3. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents/ Revenue. 4. In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that nothing survives for adjudication in these appeals. Recording the submission so made by the learned counsel on either side, these Tax Case Appeals stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 01.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av Page 8/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai - 600 034. 4. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai - 600 034. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit - II, Chennai - 600 034. Page 9/10 TCA.Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av Tax Case Appeal Nos.684 to 688 of 2017 and 62 to 65 of 2018 and 389 of 2019

01.08.2022 Page 10/10