- (1.) Both the appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 23rd October, 2009 passed by the Income Tax appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench Kolkata by which ITA Nos. 785 and 752/Kol/2008 pertaining to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 together with cross objections nos.61 and 62/Kol/2008 preferred by the assessee were disposed of by dismissing the appeals preferred by the revenue. Consequently, the cross objections were also disposed of. The revenue has come up in appeal.
(2.) Two separate appeals have been preferred, namely, ITA No. 103 of 2011 and ITA No.107 of 2011. Mr. Saraf appeared in ITA 103 of 2011 and Mrs. Chatterjee appeared in ITA No. 107 of 2011. In both the appeals common question was formulated which reads as follows:- "Whether the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in holding that the claim of deduction under section 80IA on profit from capital power unit was allowable notwithstanding the fact that such profit arose from consumption of power generated by the other units of the assessee itself and as such there is no sale to outside party and, therefore, there was no real profit and, as such, claim of deduction was not allowable in law."
(3.) On behalf of the revenue, it was contended that the question is now covered in favour of the revenue by a judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Income Tax Commissioner Ltd. reported in (2016) 236 Taxman 612 (Calcutta), wherein the following views were taken. "We are, as such, unable to hold that the benefit under Section 80IA is not available to the assessee because the power generated was consumed at home or by other business of the assessee. It is now well-settled that a statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally so as to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it.";