DCIT CIRCLE 1, SALEM vs. GTP WIND ENERGY PVT. LTD., SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 902/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 July 2019AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench decision in a similar case. The CIT(A) had followed this decision, and the Revenue failed to present any contrary ruling.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IA for a wind mill. The AO had disallowed the claim because the assessee acquired the wind mill as a going concern, and the transferor company had only transferred the machinery.

What were the issues?

Whether the acquisition of a wind mill undertaking as a going concern qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA, even if only the machinery was transferred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80IA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 08.07.2019

Department by : Mr.Marudha Pandian, JCIT Assessee by : Mr.G.Baskar, Adv. : सुनवाई क. तार�ख/Date of Hearing 08.07.2019 : 08.07.2019 घोषणा क. तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem-7, in dated 18.01.2019 for the AY 2015-16.

2.

Mr. Marudha Pandian, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr. G.Baskar, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the only issue in the Revenue’s appeal was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act, which had been disallowed by the AO in respect of wind mill. It was a submission that the assessee company had taken the wind mill undertaking as a going concern. The AO had disallowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IA on the ground that the transferor company had transferred the machinery, alone, being the wind mill and consequently, the assessee had not complied with the conditions specified in clause-(i) to Sec.80IA(3) of the Act and the assessee had acquired used plant and machinery being the wind mill, which had been used by the transferor company and WDV has come down to nearly ‘zero’.

4.

In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that the issue in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kailash Wind Farms, Tirupur vs. The ITO, in dated 09.08.2018, wherein, the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal had held that the assessee’s claim was that the wind mill was purchased by the assessee as a going concern and does not form a new undertaking, consequently, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in respect of the remaining period. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) had followed the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kailash Wind Farms, Tirupur vs. The ITO. He vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions.

6.

As it is noticed that the issues in this appeal are squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kailash Wind Farms, Tirupur vs. The ITO and as the Revenue has not been able to point out with any decision contrary to the said decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, referred to supra, and as the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the judicial discipline in following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kailash Wind Farms, Tirupur vs. The ITO, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 80IA

All 1,796 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80IA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →