Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S P.i. Industries Ltd

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 82/2017 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur ----Appellant Versus M/s P.i. Industries Ltd. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.K.K.BissaMr.G.S.ChouhanFor Respondent(s): None Present HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA 08/08/2018 Order 1.None appears for the respondent inspite of service. 2.The appeal is admitted. 3.The following 6 questions of law are settled to be answered in the appeal:- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal has been justified in holding that the assesseecompany is eligible for deduction of ₹3,39,56,730/- u/s 80IA ofthe I.T. Act, 1961 despite there being no real income from CaptivePower Plant, Panoli, Dist Bharuch, Gujarat and no profit therefromhaving been included in the gross total income? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the learned ITAT was legally justified in dismissing the appeal ofthe department and confirming the decision of CIT (A) deleting theaddition of ₹37,28,911/- made by the AO after holding that the AOwas not justified in reducing the claim of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act by apportioning the expenses/depreciation of HOand CPP? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the learned ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance₹1,63,09,372/- made by the AO u/s 40(a) (i) of the I.T. Actignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to deduct tax as perprovisions of section 195 of the I.T. Act on payment made forprofessional and technical services to P.I. Japan Co. Ltd., 100%subsidiary of assessee company? 4.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the learned ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal of thedepartment and confirming the decision of CIT(A) in deleting theaddition of ₹2,25,077/- made u/s 80IB (4) on account ofapportionment of depreciation on common assets for Jammu Unit? 5.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the learned ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal of thedepartment and confirming the decision of CIT(A) in deleting thedisallowances of ₹10,24,908/- made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D on accountof expenditure incurred for earning exempt income? 6.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the learned ITAT was justified in deleting the additionof ₹58,70,840/- made on account of gain on outstanding forwardexchange contract? (DINESH MEHTA),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ