HERCULES HOISTS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

CO 82/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4323 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M A GOHEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYANARAYANA RAJU
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Unabsorbed depreciation; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 80IA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' H ' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7 3 1 2 /MUM/201 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) D C I T - 15(2)(1) ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 VS. M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. BAJAJ BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR JAMNALAL BAJAJ MARG 226, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400021 PAN - AAACH2706D APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO NO. 82 /MUM/201 6 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. BAJAJ BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR JAMNALAL BAJAJ MARG 226, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400021 VS. D C I T - 15(2)(1) ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AAACH2706D CROSS OBJECTOR APPELLANT IN APPEAL APPELLANT BY: SHRI S ATYANARAYANA RAJU RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.A. GOHEL DATE OF HEARING: 07.07 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03 .0 8 .2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M . THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 22 , MUMBAI DATED 16 . 09 .201 4 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED CROSS OBJECTIONS (CO) AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 22, MUMBAI. IT A 7312 /M /2014 & CO NO. 82/M/2016 M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. 2 2 . THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT AND GENERATION OF POWER, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 ON 11.10.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 20,47,91,860/ - . THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND T HE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2012, WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT ` 22,30,84,630/ - IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES: - (I) DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A ` 2,39,342/ - (II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INTEREST INCOME ` 13,631/ - (III) INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ` 13,00,681/ - (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA ` 1,67,39,116/ - 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 DATED 02.12.2012, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)22, MUMBAI WHO DISPOSED OFF THE SAME VIDE ORDER DATED 16.09.2014 ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE PARTIAL RELIEF. 3 . REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 731 2/MUM/2014 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 3.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 22, MUMBAI DATED 16.09.2014 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11, REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80 - IA. 2 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS THAT UN - ABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT NEED NOT BE NECESSARILY SET OFF FROM THE PROFITS OF THE SAME UNITS, BUT COULD BE SET - OFF FROM OTHER NON - ELIGIBLE UNIT AS WELL. 3 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND; VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TI ME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 4 . THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED.' IT A 7312 /M /2014 & CO NO. 82/M/2016 M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. 3 3.2 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE (SUPRA) CHALLENGE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED D.R. WAS HEARD IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED AND PRAYED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) BE RESTORED. 3.3. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WAS IN ORDER. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN HOLDING SO, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 2342/MUM/2012 DATED 13.09.2012. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT SINCE THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA), REVENUES APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3.4.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS ISSUE BEFORE US, I.E. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 2342/MUM/2012 DATED 13.09.2012 WHEREIN AT PARA 2.4 THEREOF IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: - 2.4 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ITAT IN ITA NOS. 7944, 7946, 225 5 & 7943/MUM/2011 FOR THE AYS. 2005 - 06 TO 2008 - 09 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHILE DECIDING AN ISSUE, I.E., SECTION 80 - IA (5) BEING APPLICABLE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, WHETHER THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF LOSS/ALLOWANCE U/S 32(2) 70 AND 71 IS AGAINST OTHER INCOME, ADMITTEDLY FROM A NOT ELIGIBLE BUSINESS SOURCE, SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, HAS HELD THE SAME IN AFFIRMATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW IN DENYING THE SET OFF OF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE/LOSS OF THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBLE UNITS AGAINST IT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN TERMS OF U/S 32(2) 70 & 71 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF M/S PRASHANT CATERERS IN ITA NO. 4093/MUM/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, THE I TAT WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: IT A 7312 /M /2014 & CO NO. 82/M/2016 M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. 4 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 6.2.2013, COPY OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 28 TO 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2013, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 32 TO 44 PAPER BOOK (SUPRA). WE OBSERVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT THE ABOVE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 - IA IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FROM WINDMILL INSTALLED BY IT AND THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION SET O FF IN EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL STATED THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO FIND OUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOSSES WERE ALREADY ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFITS OF INELIGIBLE UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND DIRECTED THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH ACCORDINGLY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE LD.CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES. HENCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SE. IN VIEW THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS OF THE ITAT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE JUST AND FAIR THAT THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO FIND OUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOSSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFITS OF INELIGIBLE UNITS OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS WITH A DIRECTION TO THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES. WE ORDER AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 3.4.2 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE AO TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER THE LOSSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF NON - ELIGIBLE UNIT IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND IN CASE THE LOSSES WERE ALREADY SET OFF THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE NOTIONALLY CARRIED FORWARD FOR SETTING OFF AGAINST FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUNDS AT S.NO. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 4 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y . 2010 - 11 IS DISMISSED. 5 . ASSESSEES CO NO. 82/MUM/2016 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 5.1 IN THIS CO THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS: - IT A 7312 /M /2014 & CO NO. 82/M/2016 M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. 5 I. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT RS. 2,39,3421 - : 1.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962 AT RS. 2,39,342/ - . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT COMPUTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE AND UNWARRANTED. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ASSESSMENT MAY KINDLY HE DELETED. II . INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY RS. 13,00,681: 2.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.13,00,681, MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, RESULTING INTO AN ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT IN RESPECT THEREOF. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY AND BASED ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES AND HENCE BAD IN LAW. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DELETED OR ALTERNATIVELY BE RESTRICTED TO THE MUNICIPAL RATABLE VALUE THEREOF. 6 . OBJECTION NO. 1(1.1) - DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A: ` 2,39,342/ - 6.1 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` 34,18,289/ - WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. THE ASSESSEE MADE A SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF ` 3,31,749/ - AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE SAID EXEMPT IN COME. THE AO, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE WORKING OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME THAT INVESTMENTS IN SHARES HAVE BEEN MADE PARTLY FROM OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND INTERNAL ACCRUALS AN D PARTLY FROM BORROWINGS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE AO, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM) AND OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF DAGA CA PITAL MANAGEMENT (P) LTD. (2009) 117 INCOME TAX OFFICER 169 (MUM) (SB) WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D AT ` 5,71,091/ - AND PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW AN AMOUNT OF ` 2,39,342/ - (I.E. ` 5,71,091/ - LESS ` 3,31,749/ - DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSE E SUO MOTO ) . IT A 7312 /M /2014 & CO NO. 82/M/2016 M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. 6 6.2 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PROVED THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF BAJAJ AUTO LTD. OR MUTUAL F UNDS NOR THAT THE SAME WERE PURCHASED ONLY WITH OWN FUNDS AND INTERNAL ACCRUALS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2,39,342/ - MADE BY THE AO. 6.3 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED A.R. REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2,39,342/ - UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D, SINCE IT WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON TERM LOANS TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF WINDMILLS. 6.4 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. 6.5.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF ` 39,20,79 7/ - , AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF ` 2,39,342/ - IS MADE BY THE AO , PERTAINS TO TERM LOAN AVAILED FOR ACQUIRING WINDMILL PLANTS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS REFLECTED IN SCHEDULE 18 TO THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE AFORESAID INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHICH RELATED TO TERM LOAN FOR ACQUISITION OF WINDMILLS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D AS SUCH TERM LOAN AND RELATED INTEREST EXPENDITURE DO NOT HAVE ANY NEXUS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT WITH THE EARNING OF EXEMP T DIVIDEND INCOME BUT PERTAIN TO BUSINESS INCOME WHICH IS TAXABLE. WE FIND THAT THESE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), AS RE FLECTED AT PARA 3.2 OF HIS ORDER, HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED OR ADDRESSED BY HIM IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. 6.5.2 IN THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX PLACED BEFORE US WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD REVEAL THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 39,20,797/ - INCURRED TOWARDS TERM LOANS TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF WINDMILLS BY THE IT A 7312 /M /2014 & CO NO. 82/M/2016 M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. 7 ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS H AS NO DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2,39,342/ - MADE BY THE A UTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ACCOUNT. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEES CO GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. 7 . CROSS OBJECTION II (2.1) - INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY - ` 13,00,681/ - 7.1 IN THIS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING AND CONFIRMING THE COMPUTATION OF NOTIONAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY MADE BY THE AO AT ` 13,00,681/ - , WHICH WAS LY ING VACANT. IT WAS FAIRLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARN ED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2255/MUM/2011 FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND IN ITA NOS. 79 44, 7946, 2255 AND 7943/MUM/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2998 - 09 WHICH UPHELD THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` 13,00,681/ - . FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 (SUPRA) AND ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2008 - 09 (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN COMPUTING THE ASSESSEES INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` 13,00,681/ - . CONSEQUENTLY, OBJECTION NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES C O IS DISMISSED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 9 . TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 IS DISMISSED AND THE ASSESSEES CO IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST , 2016. SD/ - SD/ - ( JOGINDER SINGH ) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 3 RD AUGUST , 2016 IT A 7312 /M /2014 & CO NO. 82/M/2016 M/S. HERCULES HOISTS LTD. 8 COPY TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A) - 22 , MUMBAI 4 . THE CIT - 10 , MUMBAI 5 . THE DR, H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.