Admittedly, the facts of the year under consideration and assessment year 2004-05 are identical. In AY 2004-05, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on certain assets while in the year under consideration, he disallowed the depreciation on all the assets. In our opinion, when the facts are identical, the Assessing Officer is not justified in taking a view inconsistent with the view taken by the Department in AY 2004-05.
The agreement between the assessee and GAIL is a contract for sale of gas and not a works contract. VAT which is charged by the seller is on the composite price and not only on the price of the gas. The assessee is required to disclose the price of the gas and transmission charges separately in the same invoice. GAIL is a Government of India undertaking and regularly files its Sales Tax Returns declaring sale of gas inclusive of transmission charges. GAIL is regularly assessed to Income-tax and has been claiming credit for TDS and has also claimed credit for the A.Y. under consideration.
This issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Yokogawa India (cited Supra), wherein it has been held that for computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act, the profit of eligible units have to be deducted at source and do not enter into the computation of income and as a consequence of which, the losses suffered by non eligible units cannot be set off against the profits of eligible units.
After perusing the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), it is evident to us that the assessee had earlier purchased the windmill in question, generated wind energy, sold the windmill to its sister concern and got the same leased back and raised claim of deduction in hand. The moot question before us is as to whether the said course of action adopted by the assessee is hit by section 80IA(3) or not. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the said provision, which reads as under:
It was wrong on the part of the AO to hold that the assessee has merely acted as a contractor. By analyzing the nature of work executed by the assessee, it can be gathered that the assessee had acted as a developer. The assessee has undertaken the responsibility of execution of the work. The assessee has developed its own design and on getting approval applied the technology for completion of infrastructure facility.
Assessee had given Assessing Officer a short description of an allocation of expenses based on which it had preferred a claim under Section 80-IB, but, unless and until assessee could make a meaningful link of the basis adopted by it for such allocation of expenses, with its eventual claim of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act, it could not be considered as a proper and sufficient submission of details enabling a rationale decision to be reached regarding the quantum or allowability of its claim.
On examining section 54 and 54F, we find that the provision contained u/s 54 including the proviso are parimateria with section 54F of the Act. The proviso to section 54 also lays down that if the amount of capital gain is not utilized towards construction of residential house within a period of 3 years from the date of transfer of original asset, then, it will be charged to capital gain u/s 45 of the Act in the year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of the original asset expires.
AO has, as highlighted by the FAA, not produced any evidence that assessee was purchasing and selling plots of land in subsequent and earlier assessment years. AO is entitled to draw inferences and conclusions during assessment proceedings. But, the conclusion which adversely affect the interests of a tax-payer should be based on facts and same should be confronted to the assessee for rebuattal. FAA has given a categorical finding of fact that such a exercise was not undertaken by the AO.
Share application money’, to the extent it is actually so, so that it only represents amount/s paid by way of application for allotment of shares, the same cannot be regarded as an investment in shares, or an asset (or asset class) yielding tax-free income, and neither is it capable of yielding any tax-free income.
In the present case, as we have noted earlier, it is only on account of the manufacturing activity that the activity of commissioning and installation of the equipment arises and pertinently all the aforesaid activities are negotiated and contracted for at one instance.
