Ita/111/2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.appolo Tyres Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMASFRIDAY, THE 30 DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943 ITA NO. 111 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN I T(TP)A NO. 4/2013 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXCHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT/S: M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD.,6TH FLOOR, CHERUPUZHPAM BUILDING, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, KOCHI-682031. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A. No.111/2015 S.V.Bhatti, J. J U D G M E N T Heard learned Standing Counsel Mr. Christopher Abraham and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Joseph Markos for parties. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue is the appellant. M/s.Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi/Assessee is therespondent. The subject appeal is at the instance of Revenuefrom the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal'), Cochin Bench in IT(TP)A No.04/Coch/2013 dated05.09.2014. The appeal deals with the Assessment Year 2008-09. The following substantial questions of law are stated forconsideration in this appeal: “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that DGPower Generation Units 1 and II constituted an "undertaking"under Sec. 80 IA of the Income tax Act? 2.Whether DG Power Generation units 1 and II are entitled to the benefit of Sec. 80 1A of the Income tax Act? I.T.A. No.111/2015 3.The questions raised in this appeal are similar to thequestions raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 69/2011 and ITANo.70/2011 for the Assessment Year 2002-03. On 27.02.2019 theappeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. Our attention hasbeen drawn to the reasoning and conclusion recorded by thisCourt on similar questions framed in ITA Nos.69 and 70 of 2011.By following the reasoning and conclusion recorded in ITANos.69 and 70/2011, the substantial questions of law raised areanswered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE I.T.A. No.111/2015 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A ANNEXURE B APPENDIX OF ITA 111/2015 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 17/12/2012 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AY 2008-09. COPY OF THE ITAT'S ORDER IT(TP)A 04/COCH/2013 DATED 05/09/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09.