IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT, JJ.
Hindustan Zinc Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Commission of Income Tax - Respondent
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 1/2012, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 13/2012, D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 88/2014
Decided on : 20-12-2024
(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 80-IA - Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings - The court held that profits derived from captive consumption of electricity generated by the assessee's own power plant are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA, rejecting the Revenue's contention that only profits from sales to outsiders qualify. (Paras 10, 15)
(B) The interpretation of 'derived' in Section 80-IA was clarified, establishing that profits can be derived from both external sales and internal consumption, thus affirming the Tribunal's decision. (Paras 11, 11.2)
Facts of the case:
The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing zinc and lead, claimed deductions under Section 80-IA for profits from its captive power plant, which the Revenue contested, arguing there was no real income from the plant.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's ruling that profits from captive consumption qualify for deductions, emphasizing the interpretation of 'derived' in Section 80-IA.
Issues: The main issue was whether profits from captive power generation are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that profits from captive consumption are eligible for deductions under Section 80-IA, clarifying the interpretation of 'derived' in the context of the Act.
Result: Appeal No.1/2012 allowed; Appeals No.13/2012 & 88/2014 dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant Income Tax Appeals have been preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’), claiming the following reliefs:
Income Tax Appeal No.1/2012 by Appellant (Assessee):
(ii) Decide the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant and against the revenue.
(iii) Reframe suitable questions of law, if it is considered necessary, to do justice to the appellant.
Any other appropriate relief, as may be considered just and proper, including awarding of the costs may be granted in favour of the appellant.”
Income Tax Appeal No.13/2012 by Appellant (Revenue):
“It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate order or direction the impugned order dated 19.08.20 passed by the learned tribunal and order of learned CIT passed under revisional jurisdiction may kindly be held to be sustained.
Any other order which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant. Cost of the appeal be awarded in favour of the appellant.”
Income Tax Appeal No.88/2014 by Appellant (Revenue):
“It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate order or direction the impugned order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal may kindly be set aside and the order of AO may kindly be restored and upheld.
Any other order which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant. Cost of the appeal be awarded in favour of the appellant.”
2. The present appeals were admitted on the following substantial question(s) of law:
Appeal No.1/2012 (Assessee), vide order dated 13.01.2012:
Appeal No.13/2012 (Revenue), vide order dated 14.01.2013:
Appeal No.88/2014 (Revenue), vide order dated 22.01.2015:
3. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and pleadings, looking into the relevance for the present adjudication, are being taken from the above-numbered D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.88/2014 (CIT, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.), while treating the same as a lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present judgment, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company derives income from manufacturing of zinc, lead and its by-products. The original return was filed on 29.10.2004 declaring total income of Rs. 7,04,09,07,690/- which was subsequently revised to Rs.6,92,16,28,570/-. The assessment was completed on 22.12.2006 under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 on total income of Rs. 7,33,72,00,910/- wh
The court established that profits from captive consumption of electricity generated by an assessee's own power plant are eligible for deductions under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Depreciation claims cannot be imposed on an assessee if not claimed, and deductions under sections 80HHC and 80IA cannot exceed the profits of the eligible business.
The Supreme Court's decision mandates that market value for tax deductions must reflect rates charged to consumers, not sale prices to supply boards.
(1) Recomputation of deduction – State Electricity Board’s rate when it supplies power to consumers have to be taken as the market value for computing deduction under Section 80-IA of Income Tax Act.....
Scope of sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA of Income Tax Act is limited to determination of quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) of Section 80-IA of Act by treating eligible business as only sou....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.