THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs M/S JINDAL ALUMINUM LIMITED,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

I.T.A. NO.340 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIT(A)

C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE.

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIRCLE-11(5), RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE.

... APPELLANTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.)

AND:

M/S. JINDAL ALUMINIUM LIMITED JINDAL NAGAR TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE-560073. ... RESPONDENT (BY MS. JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR MR. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADV.,) - - -

THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.2.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.798/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT

YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.798/BANG/2012 DATED 27/2/2013 AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE.

THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue. Smt.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent. Appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.

This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) which has been filed by the revenue, was admitted by a Bench of this Court by order dated 19.08.2013 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that only the profit making power generating unit of the assessee should be taken into account and not the loss making units in computing the total income of the assessee for its eligible business to allow deduction u/s 80IA of the Act? 2. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the deduction u/s 80IA windmill wise instead of eligible business wise, contrary to the provision of section 80IA(1) and 80IA(5) and without taking in account the fact that generation of energy is one undertaking/enterprise and the windmills are units of the same undertaking/enterprise?”

When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by an order dated 27.05.2011 passed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

Vs. SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 245 (KAR).

In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the revenue was unable to dispute the aforesaid legal proposition.

Therefore, the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL ALUMINUM LIMITED,