The CIT (A), Bangalore / The ACIT, Circle-11(5), Bangalore v. Jindal Aluminium Limited
[Citation -2020-LL-0319-23]

Citation 2020-LL-0319-23
Appellant Name The CIT (A), Bangalore / The ACIT, Circle-11(5), Bangalore
Respondent Name Jindal Aluminium Limited
Court HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 19/03/2020
Assessment Year 2005-06
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags generation of energy • eligible business
Bot Summary: Smt.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent. 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 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: 3 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 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the revenue was unable to dispute the aforesaid legal proposition. The substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 PRESENT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA I.T.A. NO.340 OF 2013 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIT(A) C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. 2. 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 ASSESSMENT 2 YEAR 2005-06, PRAYING TO FORMULATE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER PASSED BY ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.798/BANG/2012 DATED 27/2/2013 AND CONFIRMING ORDER OF APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for revenue. Smt.Jinitha Chatterjee, learned counsel for respondent. Appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of learned counsel for parties, same is heard finally. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act , for short) which has been filed by revenue, was admitted by Bench of this Court by order dated 19.08.2013 on following substantial questions of law: 3 1. Whether Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that only profit making power generating unit of assessee should be taken into account and not loss making units in computing total income of assessee for its eligible business to allow deduction u/s 80IA of Act? 2. Whether Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that deduction u/s 80IA windmill wise instead of eligible business wise, contrary to provision of section 80IA(1) and 80IA(5) and without taking in account fact that generation of energy is one undertaking/enterprise and windmills are units of same undertaking/enterprise? 3. When matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondent submitted that issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by order dated 27.05.2011 passed in case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER 4 Vs. SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (2012) 349 ITR 245 (KAR). 4. In view of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for revenue was unable to dispute aforesaid legal proposition. 5. Therefore, substantial questions of law are answered against revenue. In result, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV CIT (A), Bangalore / ACIT, Circle-11(5), Bangalore v. Jindal Aluminium Limited
Report Error