ITAT Allowed The Deduction Of Income Tax On Effluent Water Treatment

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case observed and has allowed the income tax deduction on effluent water treatment. The bench comprising of Judicial member, Amit Shukla and the Accountant Member, Gagan Goyal in the case observed that the effluent water treatment can be considered a water treatment plant eligible as stated under the Income Tax Act, 1981.

In the present case, the appellant or assessee being in the business of treating effluent water sold as waste and has received approval and consent from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for the manufacture of 30 MT per month of potassium carbonate wherein by using wastewater from Vinati Organics as raw material. Therefore, the revised return of income was being filed on 19.02.2018. Therefore, in the case the revised return, the assessee in the case has claimed deduction as stated under section 801A(4), which being along with it and has failed an audit report in the form 10CCB electronically in which the auditors have quantified the deduction as stated under section 801A(4).
Therefore, in the case it has been denied that the claim deduction as stated under 80IA(4), wherein holding that the assessee is not doing activities as defined in Section 80IA(4), wherein it included carrying out infrastructure projects such as water treatment projects or effluent treatment plants.

Further, it has also been allowed by the CIT(A) that the claim of deduction after referring to the certificate of the Maharashtra Pollution Board that the assessee is engaged in the business of operating and maintaining effluent treatment plants, which being an eligible business for the purposes of Section 80IA(4).

It has been held by the ITAT that the assesses effluent water treatment plan categorically falls within the ambit and scope of as stated under Section 80IA(4), as misinterpreted by the Assessing Officer, thus, so as to deny the claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4).
The counsel, Siddharth Kothari appeared for the Appellant. The counsel, Vranda U Matkari represented the Respondent.