GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member

ITA No. 406/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year 2015-16

Gujarat Urja Vikas The DCIT, Nigam Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Sardar Patel Vidyut Vs Vadodara Bhavan, (Respondent) Race Course Circle, Vadodara-390007 PAN: AACCG2861L (Appellant)

Appellant by : Shri M.J. Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 19-09-2022 Date of pronouncement : 14 -12-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara, as against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16.

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

3.1. Regarding the second issue namely guarantee fees of Rs. 80,34,000/-, the Ld. CIT(A) directed to allow the same as revenue expenditure, subject to verification by the A.O. of the certificate filed during the appellate proceedings that the loans on which guarantee fees was paid were utilized for construction of power

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

plants at that time and there was no capital work-in-progress in respect of such loans during the Financial Year 2014-15.

3.2. The assessing officer has made an addition in the book profit by adding the amount of disallowance made u/s. 14A while calculating the taxable profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Gujarat State Energy Generation Ltd. in ITA No. 1777/Ahd/2009 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 has given relief to the assessee by holding that disallowance made u/s. 14A is not required to add back to the book profit. However the Ld. CIT(A) issued a direction to the Assessing Officer to include the dividend income while computing book profit.

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 4 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has held that no deduction be allowed on account of Dividend Income, being an exempt income, while computing the Book Profit under section 115JB of the I T Act. 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has dismissed the ground relating to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c) of the I T Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.1. Regarding grounds no. 1.0 to 1.2 namely disallowance u/s. 14A. Both the parties submitted that this issue is squarely covered in assessee’s own case by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 11 & 37/Ahd/2013 dated 22.10.2020 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication by directing as follows: 10. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion, there is no ambiguity that the Learned CIT (A) has decided the issue on hand after relying on the order of his predecessor for the Assessment Year 2008-09 which was subsequently set aside by the ITAT for fresh adjudication. The relevant finding of the ITAT reads as under: “8. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In these grounds raised by the assessee and the Revenue challenge the action of ld. CIT(A). We observe that an addition of Rs.152.46 crores was sustained, made by ld. Assessing Officer which was sustained to Rs.61.46 crores by ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, assessee has raised the ground against the sustained addition of Rs.61.46 crores whereas Revenue has challenged the deletion of Rs.91 crores out of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 10. In ITA No.1874/Ahd/2010 vide its order dated 20.6.2014 the Tribunal adjudicated the issue relating to disallowance u/s 14A and held as under :- 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has earned tax free dividend income of Rs 1283.95 lakhs and that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs 18,325.41 lakhs. The assessee has not attributed any

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 5 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

expenditure towards earning of exempt dividend income. Therefore, by invoking the section 14A read with Rule 8D he made disallowance of Rs 197.80 crores. We find that a similar issue had come up before this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding Assessment Year 2006-07 wherein the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh by observing as under: “2. At the outset, our attention has been drawn on an additional ground of appeal raised by the Revenue Department reads as under: "1(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ofRs.187.97 crores u/s 14A of the Act on account of interest attributable to investment in shares without appreciating the fact that in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was up to the assessee company to adduce evidence that all the borrowings were used for the purposes of business and its is assessee' s own surplus fund that were invested in the shares and deposits earning exempted income, and, even in case of mixed funds, the disallowance of interest could be made." 1(b) As an alternate plea, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not upholding the addition u/s. 14A on account of interest attributable to investment in shares to the extent in view of provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D. " 3. Learned DR has pleaded that an addition of Rs. 187.97 crores which was made u/s 14A was deleted by learned CIT(A), however, it was not adjudicated as per the grounds of appeal. Learned DR has also argued that the assessee was required to adduce evidence that all the borrowings were used for the purpose of the business and the assessee's own surplus funds were invested in the shares. Learned DR has also informed that in A.Y. 2007-08, the addition of similar nature was upheld by learned CIT(A). He has thus pleaded that the issue being legal in nature which has emerged from the facts already on record, therefore, the additional ground deserves to be admitted for adjudication. 4. After hearing both the sides, the additional ground of the Revenue Department is hereby admitted for adjudication. At the outset, it is worth to mention that the impugned addition of Rs.18796.82 lacs was made by the AO without having any discussion in respect of the applicability of Section 14A of the IT Act. Likewise, learned CIT(A) has also not discussed the applicability of the provisions of Section 14A of IT Act, however, after considering the merits of the case, deleted the addition. With this clarification, we have examined the facts and the issue as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 26.12.2008. It was noted by the AO that the assessee had claimed a huge amount of interest expenditure of Rs. 19360.59 lacs, as per the following bifurcation.

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 6 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

(Rs. in lacs) Particulars Amount Interest on Term Loans 8981.35 Working Capital 8184.50 Others 677.63 Bank Charges & Guarantee Fees 591.65 19435.13 Less: Interest Capitalized 74.54 19360.59 4.1 At the same time, it was also found by the AO that the assessee had made the investment of Rs.5,47,709.74 lacs on which dividend earned was at Rs.508.18 lacs. The AO's objection was that on one hand the assessee has diverted the huge funds towards such investment having exempted income and on the other hand borrowed huge funds of Rs.3,46,272.51 lacs on which claimed interest of Rs. 19360.59 lacs. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the assessee had diverted the borrowed funds for earning exempted income. The assessee's contention was that the investment during the year was only Rs.102.32 lacs and rest of the investment was made in the earlier years. According to the AO, if the assessee had not made such investment either in the year under consideration or in earlier years then the assessee would not have been required to borrow interest bearing loans. The AO has placed reliance upon the case of H.R Sugar Factory, 187 ITR 366 (Aid) for the legal proposition that the assessee could have otherwise avoided its liability of interest by not giving interest free funds to its group concerns. The addition in the question was thus made by the AO in the following conclusion. "In view of the above discussion and provision of law, the interest attributable to the investment is not allowable expenditure. The assessee was required to give the rates of interest paid to various sources. The assessee vide its reply did not furnish the rates of interest paid. It simply submitted that loans from various banks with varying interest rates were obtained. During the year under consideration, the market rate of interest was 12%. Therefore, interest at the rate of 12% works out to Rs.65725.17 lacs on investments of Rs.547709.74 lacs. However, the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.19360.59 lacs and has shown interest income of Rs.55.59 lacs and dividend income of Rs.508.18 lacs. Hence, against the interest expenditure of Rs.19360.59 lacs assessee has grown interest and dividend income of Rs.563.77 lacs. Thus, net disallowance is made of Rs.18796.82 lacs." 5. Being aggrieved the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority who has decided the issue in assessee's favour in the following manner:

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 7 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

"Thus, the only test to be applied is that of "commercial expediency". In the instant case, it is seen that no investment was made by the assessee company by using borrowed funds.The entire investment, except minor investment of Rs.11.25 lacs was inherited in the demerger exercise. The investment in shares was due to the restructuring carried out at the behest of GOG. The investments were in the form of shares of subsidiary companies as pan of the financial restructuring plan approved by the Government of Gujarat which was integral to the demerger. This was clearly commercially expedient for the appellant company. The business itself was viable only under the plan of restructuring, which required the company to have cross- holdings in the unbundled companies of GEB. In fact, the appellant became the holding company of the generating and transmission companies. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there was no diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 18796.82 lacs is directed to be deleted." 6. With this factual background, we have heard both the sides. Learned DR has primarily placed reliance on a decision of respected Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO V/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITD 169 (Mum) (SB). Learned DR has also pleaded that in one of the assessment year, i.e., in A.Y. 2007-08 learned CIT(A) had sustained the same nature of addition. From the facts of the case, we have noted that there was re-structuring according to which erstwhile GEB was demerged into seven different companies. Post restructuring; the assessment year under consideration is the first year of operation of the assessee company. On one hand, those were the facts which were relied upon by the learned CIT(A). However, on the other hand, the AO has reproduced some of the replies of the assessee through which it was claimed that the said investment was not made by the assessee company out of the borrowed funds but from the consumers, contribution and subsidiaries. There was a reference of the annual accounts of the year 2005-06. The assessee has also informed that during the year under consideration the assessee company had invested only a sum of Rs.11.25 lacs. Rest of the investments were the share capital of the subsidiary companies as per the terms of the Financial Restructuring Plan approved by the Government of Gujarat. We have noted that the learned CIT(A) has granted relief only on the ground that the assessee company had become the holding company and the investments were in the form of shares of subsidiary companies which was an integral part of the demerger arrangement. Therefore, it was nothing but commercial decision. 6.2 According to us, the issue has been mixed up by the Revenue Department. The first step should be to examine the scheme of demerger and thereafter the issue could have been streamlined. As per the definition of "demerger" prescribed u/s.2(19AA) means; the transfer

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 8 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

pursuant to a scheme of arrangement by a demerged company of its one or more undertakings to any resulting company in such a manner that all the property of the undertaking/unit being transferred by the demerged company immediately before the demerger, which becomes the property of the resulting company by virtue of the demerger. Therefore, it was necessary for the AO to examine the balance sheet of the demerged company and the position of the accounts of the undertaking which is demerged with the resulting company. The AO has to examine the liabilities related to the said undertaking whether being transferred under the scheme of arrangement which were in existence immediately before the demerger. The AO has to examine the value of the property in the books of accounts immediately before the demerger which was transferred. The AO has also to examine the financial position of the "resulting company", as defined u/s.2(41A) of IT Act. In general, an undertaking of the demerged company is transferred in a demerger scheme and as a result a resulting company comes into existence. The resulting company in consideration of such transfer of an undertaking ofthe demergerd company issues shares to the share holders of the demerged company. Therefore, the responsibility of the "resulting company" was also required to be ascertained by the AO. This is the first aspect, which was not examined by the AO and the order of the Revenue Authorities are silent on this subject. 6.3 Next question is about the huge amount of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO is required to examine first the correctness of the claim. Whether the interest on term loans, bank charges and guarantee fees were in respect of the business of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO is also required to give a clear finding about the borrowings made by the assessee on which the said interest was paid. The next step is that the AO has to examine the sources of the funds which were invested for earning the dividend income. If the source of such investment is out of the interest bearing borrowings, then only the question of disallowance of interest would arise, otherwise not. On the other hand, the claim of the assessee is that there were sufficient non interest bearing reserves or surplus available. The AO is required to investigate the correctness of the claim that whether the assessee had sufficient non interest bearing fund available and in what form those were utilized by the assessee. If the assessee is in a position to demonstrate that the non-interest bearing funds have actually been invested to earn exempted income then the assessee's claim is legally correct. Thereafter, the question of the invocation of Section 14A comes into play. As far as the applicability of the decision of Special Bench is concerned the same now stood covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court pronounced in the case of Godrej and Boyce, 328 ITR 81 (Bom). For the sake of completeness herein below reproduced a portion of an ITAT order viz., Aditya Midcals as follows: "5. With this brief background, we have examined the facts of the case as also the law pronounced in this regard.

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 9 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 10 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

pointed out the importance of Rule 8D of the I.T.Rules, 1962. It was made clear that sub-section (1) to section 14A was inserted with retrospective effect from 01/04/1962, however, sub-sections (2) & (3) were made applicable with effect from 01/04/2007. The proviso was inserted with retrospective effect from 11/05/2001 , however Rule 8D was inserted by the Income Tax (Fifth Amendment), Rules, 2008 by publication in the Gazette dated 24/03/2008; reproduced below:- "a) The ITAT had recorded a finding in the earlier assessments that the investments in shares and mutual funds have been made out of own funds and not out of borrowed funds and that there is no nexus between the investments and the borrowings. However, in none of those decisions was the disallow ability of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income earned out of investments made out of own funds considered. Moreover, under Section 14A, expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income can be disallowed only if the assessing officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the expenditure claimed by the assessee. In the present case, no such exercise has been carried out and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter. b) Section 14A was introduced by the Finance Act 2001 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962. However, in view of the proviso to that Section, the disallowance thereunder could be effectively made from assessment year 2001-2002 onwards. The fact that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicability of Section 14A in its proper perspective, for assessment year 2001 -2002 would not bar the Tribunal from considering disallowance under Section 14A in assessment year 2002- 2003. c) The decisions reported in Sridev Enterprises (supra), Munjal Sales Corporation (supra) and Radhasoami Satsang (supra) holding that there must be consistency and definiteness in the approach of the revenue would not apply to the facts of the present case, because of the material change introduced by Section 14A by way of statutory disallowance in certain cases. There, the decisions of the Tribunal in the earlier years would have no relevance in considering disallowance in assessment year 2002-2003 in the light of Section 14A of the Act. 73. For the reasons which we have indicated, we have come to the conclusion that under Section 14A(1) it is for the Assessing Officer to determine as to whether the assessee had incurred any expenditure in relation to the earning of income which does not form pan of the total income under the Act and if so to quantify the extent of the disallowance. The Assessing Officer would have to arrive at his determination after furnishing an opportunity to the assessee to produce its accounts and to place on the record all relevant material in support of the circumstances which are considered to be relevant and germane. For this purpose and in light of our observations made earlier in this section of the judgment,

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 11 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

we deem it appropriate and proper to remand the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. Conclusion: 74. Our conclusions in this judgment are as follows; i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year 2002-03 is not includible in computing the total income of the assessee. Consequently, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14A(1); ii) The payment by a domestic company under Section 115O(1) of additional income tax on profits declared, distributed or paid is a charge on a component of the profits of the company. The company is chargeable to tax on its profits as a distinct taxable entity and it pays tax in discharge of its own liability and not on behalf of or as an agent for its shareholders. In the hands of the shareholder as the recipient of dividend, income by way of dividend does not form part of the total income by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(33). Income from mutual funds stands on the same basis; iii) The provisions of sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 are constitutionally valid; iv) The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules as inserted by the Income Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008 are not ultra vires the provisions of Section 14A, more particularly sub section (2) and do not offend Article 14 of the Constitution;; v) The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules which have been notified with effect from 24th March, 2008 shall apply with effect from Assessment Year 2008-09; (vi) Even prior to Assessment Year 2008-09, when Rule 8D was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 14A. For that purpose, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income under the Act. The Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record; vii) The proceedings for Assessment year 2002-03 shall stand remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall determine as to

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 12 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure (direct or indirect) in relation to dividend income / income from mutual funds which does not form part of the total income as contemplated under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer can adopt a reasonable basis for effecting the apportionment. While making that determination, the Assessing Officer shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of producing its accounts and relevant or germane material having a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case." 6.4 Due to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it is legally correct to refer this issue back to the stage of the AO to be decided de novo as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Court. The outcome of the above discussion is that the "Additional Ground" raised by the Revenue may be treated as allowed but only for statistical purpose.” 8. In the absence of any distinguishing features pointed out by the Departmental Representative, facts being identical, respectfully following the precedent we restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh with the same directions as given by the Tribunal in the Assessment Year 2006- 07 in the above quoted order. Needless to mention that he shall allow reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the issue. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. We further observe that Rule-8D of the IT Rules came into effect from Asst. Year 2008-09 with respect to provisions of section 14A of the Act which reads as follows :- Sec. 14A. Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income.—(1)For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.’

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 13 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

2.1 In exercise of the powers given in S. 14A(2) C.B.D.T. has issued a Notification No. S.O. 547(E) on 24-3-2008 (299 ITR (ST) 88). This notification amends the Income-tax Rules by insertion of a new Rule 8D providing for a "Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income". Reading this Rule it is evident that the Rule provides for disallowance of not only direct expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income but also for disallowance of proportionate indirect expenditure. This is clearly contrary to the main objective with which S. 14A was enacted. 2.2 Broadly stated, the new Rule 8D provides as under : (i) The method prescribed in the Rule is to be applied only if the AO is not satisfied with : (a) The correctness of the claim of expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income made by the assessee or (b) The claim made by the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred for earning exempt income. (ii) The method prescribed in the Rule states that the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of the following amounts : (a) The amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income. (b) In the case of interest on borrowed funds which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, the amount computed in accordance with this following formula : A x B C A = Amount of interest, other than the amount of interest which is directly attributable to the exempt income stated in (a) above. B = The average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the relevant accounting year. C = The average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the relevant accounting year. The term ‘Total Assets’ means total assets as appearing in the balance sheet excluding the increase on account of revaluation of assets but including the decrease on account of revaluation of assets. (c) An amount equal to ½ % of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the relevant accounting year.

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 14 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

interest paid during the year at Rs.131.22 crores and exempt income of Rs.249 crores. Going through these figures ld. Assessing Officer felt appropriate to applying the method of Rule 8D but did not look into the following facts :- (i) As on 1.7.205 when the company was given a balance sheet duly notified by the State Govt., the company had total investment of Rs.5580.20 crores considering all investment in subsidiary companies at Rs.5336.43 crores, investment in other companies at Rs.243.69 crores and balance in petty investment. (ii) Opening balance of investment as on 1.4.2007 stood at Rs.5477.16 crores. (iii) Few investments were made during Financial Year 2005-06 to 2007-08 and in subsidiary companies and funds for the same were partly received from State Government as equity and remaining from net profit earned. (iv) Interest expenditure of Rs.131.32 crores represents mostly the interest paid on bill discounting of IPPs and working capital loan from banks which are specifically meant for the business purpose; and (v) Total exempt income earned by assessee during the year stood at Rs.249 crores. 13. We observe that ld. Assessing Officer has made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act without examining the facts referred above which were very crucial to reach at the final disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. There are series of judgments of the co-ordinate benches that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act should not exceed the exempt income earned during the year and also decisions wherein the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on account of interest expenditure are held to be incorrect if the assessee has sufficient equity and general reserve to cover the investments. 14. We are, therefore, of the view that applying the decision of the co- ordinate bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No.1874 & 1821/Ahd/2010 for Asst. Year 2007-08 is dated 20.6.2014 the matter is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the facts and figures of the case in the light of our observations made above in order to arrive at a final conclusion as to whether disallowance u/s 14A is to be made and if so, then the amount thereof which in no case should exceed the exempted income earned by assessee during the year under appeal. It is needless to mention that ld. Assessing Officer shall allow reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the same. These grounds of assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Now we take ground no.3 of assessee’s appeal which reads as below :- 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the enhancement of Book Profit computed under

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 15 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Rs.61,45,72,000/- on account of disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. At the outset ld. AR submitted that this ground relates to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act due to which book profit u/s 115JB was enhanced by ld. Assessing Officer and the fate of this ground depends on the decision to be taken for ground no.1 raised by them.”

10.1 As the facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed above which has been set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law by the ITAT as discussed above. Respectfully following the order of this Coordinate Bench in the own case of the assessee, we set aside the issue on hand to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in terms of the finding of the ITAT in its own case for the Assessment Year 2008-09 (Supra) as well as in accordance to the provisions of law. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for the statistical purposes.

4.2. Respectfully following the above decision of our Co-ordinate Bench, for this assessment year 2015-16, we set aside the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication by examining the facts and figures and calculate the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act.

4.3. Regarding ground no. 2 namely guarantee fees paid to Govt. of Gujarat related to capital work-in-progress which needs to be capitalized. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the certificate of utilization was already furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) stating that the loans on which guarantee fees was paid were utilized for construction of power plant and there was no capital work-in-progress in respect of such loans borrowed during the Financial Year 2015-16. Similar issue was being considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 11 & 37/Ahd/2013 dated 22.10.2020, which held as follows:

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 16 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 17 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

guaranteed by the Government of Gujarat. Hence, quite apart from the other sound reasons for treating the expenditure as revenue, it would be unrealistic to say that the appellant company could derive any undue advantage or collateral benefit by making such payment to the GOG. In view of the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the AO was not justified in treating the payment of guarantee commission (Rs.8,39,04,550/-) as capital in nature. The addition is directed to be deleted. 6.2. I have considered the submissions of the ld.AR and the facts of the case. The jurisdictional Bench of ITAT has held in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT, 92 TTJ 568, that in determining the nature of expenditure incurred for obtaining loan, it is irrelevant to consider the purpose of loan. The amount spent on stamp duty, lawyer fees, etc. for obtaining loan secured by charge on its fixed assets is a revenue expenditure, because the transactions were entered into directly to facilitate the business of the company and payment of consultancy charges was made on ground of commercial expediency.In India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT, 60 ITR 52, the Supreme Court had also held that the expenditure incurred for securing the use of money for a certain period was revenue expenditure. In the instant case, the assessee has secured the loan by creating a charge (hypothecation of its assets). Hence the ratio of the above mentioned two cases would squarely apply. Accordingly, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the disallowance of Rs.45,24,582/-, which is directed to be deleted." 6.1 The ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.738/Ahd/2009 for AY 2006-07 in the case of Himalaya Machinery Pvt.Ltd., dated 5.6.2009 and in the case of Shri Rama Multi Tech vs. ACIT reported at 92 TTJ 568. 6.2. The ld.CIT-DR could not distinguish the facts of the case, therefore we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, these two grounds raised in the Revenue's appeal are rejected." 36. DR could not point out any good reason as to why the above quoted order of the Tribunal should not be followed for the year under consideration. In the absence of distinguishing features being pointed out by the DR, and the facts being identical, respectfully following the above quoted decision of the Tribunal, we confirm the order of the CIT(A), and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 40. We are of the view that the issue raised in this ground is squarely covered by the decision of co-ordinate bench referred above in the case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. (supra) and respectfully following the same, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and uphold the same. This ground of Revenue is dismissed.”

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 18 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of claim of guarantee fees of Rs. 4.76 crores without appreciating that the disallowance was made as the same are enduring nature in the assessee’s business.” 21.1 The above ground of appeal raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 899/AHD/2012 was dismissed by the ITAT vide order dated 22nd June 2016 which has been elaborated in the preceding paragraph. What flows from the conjoint reading of the order of the Learned CIT (A) and the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as discussed above is that there was no enduring benefit accrued to the assessee out of guarantee fees paid by it to the government of Gujarat. As such the finding of the ITAT has to be seen in the context of the ruling of the AO and the Learned CIT (A) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. In fact, the Learned CIT(A) for the assessment Year 2008-09 held that there was no benefit accrued to the assessee which is in the enduring nature but directed the AO to verify whether such guarantee fees relates to the capital work in progress and if that be so, the same needs to be capitalized. 22. However, the assessee did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. In other words, the assessee was not aggrieved by the direction of the Learned CIT (A) to verify the claim of the assessee whether such guarantee fees relates to the capital work in progress for the Assessment Year 2008-09. But the assessee for the year under consideration has challenged the direction of the Learned CIT (A) to verify whether such guarantee fee relates to the capital working progress. As the assessee did not challenge such direction of the Learned CIT(A) for the assessment Year 2008-09 before the ITAT, it implies that such direction has reached to its finality for that assessment year. Therefore, there was no dispute for the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2008-09 for the direction issued by the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, it cannot be inferred that the order of the Learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2008-09 has merged with the order of the Learned ITAT insofar the direction issued by the Learned CIT(A) to verify the claim of the assessee for the guarantee fees whether such fees relates to the capital work in progress. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the issue raised by the assessee is a covered issue by the order of the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09 as contended by the ld. AR for the assessee. In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, the grounds of appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed.

4.4. Though the Ld. CIT(A) directed to verify the certificate filed during the appellate proceedings that the loans on which guarantee fees was paid were utilized for construction of power plants at that time and there was no capital work-in-progress in respect of such loans during the Financial Year 2014-15. Both the assessee

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 19 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

counsel as well as the Ld. D.R. could not place on record what is the giving effect order passed by the A.O. thereafter, pursuant to the direction of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore this ground no. 2 is also set aside to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication.

4.5. The third ground namely that no deduction be allowed on account of dividend income, being an exempt income, while computing the Book Profit under section 115JB of the Act. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has issued a direction to the A.O. to include the dividend income for computing book profit under 115JB. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellate itself while computing the book profit of Rs. 101,85,46,109/- has included the dividend income of Rs. 10,73,11,000/- in the above figure, which can be established on the perusal of the audited financial statement filed before the Tribunal.

4.6. We have considered the above submission of the assessee as this case is already remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification for the earlier two issues under consideration for the Assessment Year 2015-16, this issue is also remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the same and allow the submission of the assessee, if the same is found to be is in order.

I.T.A No. 406/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 20 Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT

which are consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication, hence the same are not adjudicated.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14-12-2022

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 14/12/2022 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद