Ita Nos.444/2005Commissioner Of Income Tax Del v. M/S Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd

$~R91, 92*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos.444/2005COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, SeniorStandingCounselwithMr.SanjayKumarMishra,JuniorStandingCounsel for Revenue. Versus M/S BHUSHAN STEELS & STRIPS LTD. ..... RespondentThrough:Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Roopali Gupta,Advocates. WITH ITA Nos.458/2005COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL ..... AppellantThrough:Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, SeniorStandingCounselwithMr.SanjayKumarMishra,JuniorStandingCounsel for Revenue. Versus M/S BHUSHAN STEELS & STRIPS LTD...... RespondentThrough:Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Roopali Gupta,Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S.MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH O R D E R04.08.2017 % 1. These appeals by the Revenue are against the common order dated 5[th]January, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) inITA Nos. 3501 & 2981/Del/2003 for Assessment Years (‘AY’s) 2000-2001and ITA Nos. 3502 & 2982/Del/2003 for AY’s 2001-02. 2. By the order dated 25[th]May, 2006, this Court framed the followingquestion of law in these appeals: “(i) Whether the ITAT was correct in law inholding that the respondent-assessee is entitled todepreciation under Section 32 of the Income TaxAct even when the assessee was not the owner ofthe property in question and was in possessionthereofasalesseeduringtheyearunderconsideration? (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in law inholding that the amount received by the assesseeby way of exemption of sales tax payments was nota trading receipt but was a capital receipt, hencenot liable to tax? (ill) Whether the ITAT was correct in law and onthe facts and circumstances of the case in holdingthat the income from captive power plant is to bereduced from the calculation of taxable profits u/s115JA'?" 3. As far as Question (i) is concerned, it is covered in favour of the Assesseeand against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v. BhushanSteels & Strips Limited (2017) SCC OnLine Del 9061. 4. As far as Question (ii) is concerned, it is covered in favour of the Revenueand against the Assessee by the same decision of this Court in CIT v.Bhushan Steels & Strips Limited (supra). 5. As far as Question (iii)3 is concerned, it stands covered in favour of theAssessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CIT v.DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. (2009) 322 ITR 486 (Del) which wasfurther affirmed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. DCM ShriramConsolidated Ltd. (2014) 368 ITR 720 (SC). 6. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. S.MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST 04, 2017j PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J