D.C.I.T Cir - 4,kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Rasoi Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 1010/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99672 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUCHETA CHATTOPADHYAY
• Assessee Lawyers: P R KOTHARI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 260A; 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI B. P. JAIN, AM ] I.T.A NO. 1989 /KOL/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 & I.T.A NO. 1010/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, VS. M/S. RASOI LTD. CIRCLE - 4, KOLKATA. (PAN:AABCR4050P) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 2 6 .0 6 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 . 0 8 . 2015 FOR THE APPELLANT: SMT. SUCHETA CHATTOPADHYAY, JCIT FOR THE RESPONDENT: S HRI P. R. KOTHARI, FCA ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: BOTH THESE APPEAL S BY REVENUE ARE ARISING OUT OF SEPARATE ORDER S OF CIT(A) - I V , KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO S . 14 / CIT(A) - I V/ 2010 - 11 AND 193/CIT(A) - IV/2011 - 12 DATED 0 4 . 0 1 .20 1 3 . ASSESSMENT S W ERE FRAMED BY ITO, WARD - 4(1), KOLKATA AND JCIT (OSD), CIR - 4, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 AND 2009 - 10 VIDE THEIR SEPARATE ORDER S DATED 1 7 . 05 .20 1 0 AND 12.12.2011 RESPECTIVELY . 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 10 TO SECTION 43(1) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICALLY WORD ED GROUNDS IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. AY 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 . THE RELEVANT GROUND AS RAISED IN ITA NO.1989/KOL/2013 READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6294085/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATIONS WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AO CORRECTLY MADE THE SAID DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING EXPLANATION 10 TO SECTION 43(1). THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE YEARS AND WE WILL DECIDE BOTH THIS ISSUE BY THIS CON SOLIDATED ORDER. 3 . BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CAPITAL SUBSIDY OF RS.5,04,92,043/ - FROM GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL BY REMISSION OF SALES TAX. THE ASSESSEE 2 ITA NO. 1989 - 1010 /K/201 3 RASOI LTD. AY 200 8 - 0 9 & 09 - 10 CLAIMED THAT THIS SUBSIDY WAS RECEIVED FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIES IN THIS STA TE BY SETTING UP NEW INDUSTRIES AND EVEN MAXIMUM QUANTUM OF SUCH SUBSIDY WAS RESTRICTED TO A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS VALUE OF FIXED CAPITAL ASSET OF THE NEW PROJECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE ASSETS INCLUDING THE CAPITAL SUBSIDY OF THE ASSETS. BUT THE AO REDUCED THE CASE OF SUBSIDY FROM THE ASSETS AND THEREBY DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.62,94,085/ - BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4 AS UNDER: 4. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE ABOVE RECEIPTS AS CAPITAL SUBSIDY, FULL DEPRECIATION WAS CHARGED AND AVAILED ON ALL ASSETS INCLUDING ON THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS WHICH HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SALES TAX REMISSION. IN OTHER WORDS, T HE COST OF ASSETS TO THE EXTENT OF CAPITAL SUBSIDY RECEIVED BECOMES NIL AND AS SUCH NO DEPRECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE ON SUCH ASSETS. THEREFORE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON VALUE OF ASSETS OF RS.5,04,92,043/ - , BEING THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL SUBSIDY REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEPRECIATION ON ABOVE SUBSIDY CAPITALIZED IS WORKED OUT FOR DISALLOWANCE AS UNDER: .. .. FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, THE DEPRECIATION RELATABLE TO ASSETS COVERED UNDER CAPITAL SUBSIDY COMES TO RS.62,94,085/ - . HENCE THE SAID AMOUNT IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AS INADMISSIBLE DEPRECIATION AND THE SAME IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE DERIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.6,31,807/ - WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S. 10(34) OF THE I. T. ACT, AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SHEET, ONLY 1% OF SAID EXEMPT INCOME BEING RS.6,318/ - HAS BEEN T5REATED AS EXPENSE & OFFERED FOR TAXATION. AS THE SAID EXPENSE IS WORKED OUT WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTA BLE. SINCE SUCH EXPENSE IS NOT DETERMINABLE, I GO ON TO WORK OUT THE EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME BY INVOKING SECTION 14A OF THE I. T. ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I. T. RULES. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 4.3 AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED OBSERVATIONS BY AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT1961 FOR AY 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05, THE SUBSIDY RECEIVE D IN THOSE YEARS WAS ACCEPTED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT BY THE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT REDUCTION OF SAID SUBSIDY AMOUNT FROM THE ACTUAL COST/W.D.V. OF ANY FIXED ASSETS FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION IN VIEW OF THE APPELLANT S PLEA THAT SUBJECT SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN BY GOVERNME NT OF WES BENGAL TO REALIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF INDUSTRIAL RESURGENCE OF THE SATE AND THE SAME WAS NOT GIVEN TO MEET DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THE COST OF ANY ASSET TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT MY PREDECESSOR HAS ALSO NOT UPHELD THE REDUCTION OF SU BSIDY AMOUNT FORM THE ACTUAL COST/W.D.V OF THE FIXED ASSETS FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION U/S. 32 FOR AY 2007 - 08 IN APPELLANT S CASE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29.03.2011 IN APPEAL NO. 195/CIT(A) - IV/2009 - 10 ACCEPTING THE APPELLANT S PLEA THAT SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM W EST BENGAL GOVERNMENT WAS GIVEN AS AN ENCOURAGEMENT FOR SETTING UP OF INDUSTRIES FOR REALIZATION OF POSSIBILITY OF INDUSTRIAL RESURGENCE OF THE STATE. UPON PERUSAL OF WEST BENGAL INCENTIVE SCHEME, 1999 UNDER WHICH THE SUBSIDY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLAN T, IT IS NOTICED THAT APPELLANT WAS GIVEN A REMISSION OF SALES TAX ON SALE OF FINISHED GOODS FOR 11 YEARS (9+2 YEARS) SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM CE I LING OF 125% (100% + 25%) OF GROSS VALUE OF CERTAIN FIXED CAPITAL ASSETS AND ALSO SUBJECT TO AN OVERALL AGGREGATE MONETARY CEIL ING OF RS.75 CRORES. T H E RE IS NOTHING IN THE SAID SCHEME TO SUGGEST THA T THE WEST BENGAL GOVERNMENT INTENDED TO GRANT THE SUBSIDY TO MEET DIREC T LY OR INDIRECTLY THE COST OF A NY FIXED ASSETS. MERE FIXATION OF CEILING WITH REFERENCE TO INV E STMENT IN CERTAIN FIXED ASSE T S BEING MEASUREMENT OF CEILING CANNOT LEAD TO INFERENCE OF SUBSIDY S PUR P OSE AND 3 ITA NO. 1989 - 1010 /K/201 3 RASOI LTD. AY 200 8 - 0 9 & 09 - 10 FIXATION OF SUCH CEILING TO THE EXTENT OF 125% IN APPELLANT S CASE ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE SUBJECT SUBSIDY WA S NOT MEANT FOR MEETING AN COST OF ASSE S DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY AND WA S ONLY TO E NCOURAGE ENTREPRENEURS TO SET UP IND U STRIES IN THE STATE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE POSITION AND CONSIDERING THAT IN AY 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05, NO SUCH PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION WAS MADE BY REDUCTION OF SUBSIDY F ROM ACTUAL COST/W.D.V OF FIXED ASSETS ALONG WITH THE ACT THAT IN LAST YEAR, SUCH PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION WAS DELETED BY MY PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE APPELLANT, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REDUCING THE SU BSIDY FROM THE COST/W.D.V OF ASSETS FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION U/S. 32 IS HELD TO BE NOT TENABLE AND ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. AS THE MAIN GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ALLOWED, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE ABOUT ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS TO GROUND NO.1. AGGRIEVED, NOW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 . AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN IDENTICAL SCHEME OF SUBSIDY THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY ALLOWED IN AY 2007 - 08 IN ITA NO. 1398/KOL/2011 DATED 02.04.2014, WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN GA NO.2684 OF 2014, ITAT NO. 138 OF 2014 DATED 05.09.2014, WHEREBY ONLY QUESTION ADMITTED WAS REGARDING COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES QUA EXEM PT INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I. T. RULES, 1962 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE RULES ). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE MEMO OF APPEAL U/S. 260A OF THE ACT BEFORE HON BLE HI GH COURT WHEREBY THE QUESTION REGARDING DEPRECIATION ON CAPITA L SUBSIDY IS RAISED BY GROUND 2(A) , WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2(A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH KOLKATA ERRED IN LA W IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P. J. CHEMICAL LTD. REPORTED IN 210 ITR 830 AND HOLDING THAT CAPITAL SUBSIDY WOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE (WDV) OF THE FIXED ASSETS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT T HAT THE CAPITAL SUBSIDY IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN GIVEN SPECIFICALLY FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASS E TS? BUT HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS NOT ADMITTED THIS GROUND BUT ADMITTED ANOTHER GROUND VIDE ORDER SHEET IN GA NO. 2684 OF 2014 ITAT NO. 138 OF 2014 DATED 05.09.2014, WHICH READS AS UNDER: LET THE APPEAL BE ADMITTED AND BE HEARD ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH KOLKATA ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT FOR COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 EFFECTIVE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE GROUND REGARDING DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ADMITTED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 4 ITA NO. 1989 - 1010 /K/201 3 RASOI LTD. AY 200 8 - 0 9 & 09 - 10 5 . WHEN THIS WAS CONFRONTED TO LD. SR. DR HE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT YES HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS NOT ADMITTED THE QUESTION REGARDING DEPRECIATION ON CAP ITAL SUBSIDY AND THE ISSUE IS FINALLY SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE CAPITAL SUBSIDY SCHEME IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL AS WAS IN AY 2007 - 08 AND HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS NOT ADMITTED THE QUESTION REFERRED TO BY REVENUE U/S. 260A OF THE ACT REGARDI NG DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL SUBSIDY. ONCE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS DECLINED TO ADMIT THE QUESTION, ORDER OF TRIBUNAL HAS BECOME FINAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE FINDING OF CI T(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6 . EXACTLY IDENTICAL ISSUE IS ALSO RAISED BY REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1010/KOL/2013 FOR AY 2009 - 10 ALSO. THE SAME IS ALSO COVERED. HENCE, THE ISSUE OF REVENUE S APPEAL REGARDING DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL SUBSIDY IS DISMISSED. 7 . THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF REVENUE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES QUA INTEREST AGAINST EXEMPT INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUND IN BOTH THE YEARS AND THE GROUND AS RAISED IN AY 2008 - 09 READS AS UNDER: 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A AT 0.5% OF THE EXEMPTED INCOME SINCE THE DECISIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS WITHO UT ANY BASIS AND IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF G ODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. L LTD. VS. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM) WHICH LD. CIT(A) HIGHLIGHTED IN HIS ORDER. 8 . BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DISALLOWED INTEREST PAID BY ASSESSEE ON LOANS INVESTED IN THE ASSETS EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AT RS.5,85,519/ - . THE AO DISALLOWED BY INVOKING RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5) DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE DERIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.6,31,807/ - WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S. 10(34) OF THE I.T. ACT. AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SHEET, ONLY 1% OF SAID EXEMPT INCOME BEING RS.6,3118/ - HAS BEEN TREATE D AS EXPENSE & OFFERED FOR TAXATION. AS THE SAID EXPENSE IS WORKED OUT WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. SINCE SUCH EXPENSE IS NOT DETERMINABLE. I GO ON TO WORK OUT THE EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME BY INVOKING SECTION 14A OF THE I.T. ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES. THE EXPENSES IS ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT AS UNDER: - EXPENSES DISALLOWABLE U/R 8D(2)(II) (A) INTEREST PAID RS.1.46,37,967/ - (B) AVERAGE INVESTMENT RS. 3,64,69,118/ - (C) AVERAGE ASSETS RS.83,89,75,676/ - 5 ITA NO. 1989 - 1010 /K/201 3 RASOI LTD. AY 200 8 - 0 9 & 09 - 10 (A) X (B) DIVIDED BY (C) RS. 5,85,519/ - EXPENSES DISALLOWABLE U/R8D(2)(II): AVERAGE INVESTMENT RS. 3,64,69,118/ - % OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT RS. 1,8 2,346/ - THE AGGREGATE OF EXPENSES RELATABLE TO INCOMES WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME COMES TO RS.7,67,865/ - AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) , WHO DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUND AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES GIVING EXEMPT INCOME. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS OWN FUNDS AT ABOUT RS.2429 LACS AND TOTAL AVERAGE INVES TMENT AS ON 31.03.2008 AT RS.365 LACS ONLY AND WHICH IS ALSO FROM COMMON FUNDS. ACCORDING TO CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS OWN SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO MEET THE COST OF INVESTMENT AND IN VIEW OF THIS, HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING IN PARA 5.2 AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVA T IONS OF AO MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PORTION UNDER SECTION 14A IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO FI NDING THAT THERE IS / WAS ANY DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS IN SHARES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT NONE OF THE INVESTMENTS HELD AS ON 31.03.2008 WERE MADE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT APPELLANT S OPE N ING OWN FUNDS WERE ABOUT RS.2429 LAKHS WHEREAS AVERAGE TOTAL INVESTMENTS AS ON 31.03.2008 WERE ABOUT S.365 LAKHS ONLY AND IN THAT VIEW OF MATTER WHERE COMMON POOL OF FUNDS ARE INVOLVED FOR INVESTMENTS AND OW N FUNDS ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE COST OF WHOLE INVESTM ENTS, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION OF UTILIZATION OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF INVESTMENT AS WAS HELD IN BUNGE AGRIBUSINESS (INDIA) P. LTD. VS. DCIT (2011) 64 DTR (MUMBAI) ( TRIB.) 01. APA R T FROM THAT, MOST OF BORROWINGS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ARE MAINLY SECURED LOANS FROM BANKS, ETC. GRANTED FOR USE IN OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THOSE LEANS ARE N O T ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES/UNITS ETC. IN VIEW OF THE AB O VE, DISALLOWANCE U/S/ 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(II) AMOUNTING TO RS.5,85, 51 9/ - IS DELETED. 9 . IN RESPECT TO AY 2009 - 10 IN ITA NO. 1010/K/2013, THE AO DISALLOWED AND CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING THAT NO NEW INVESTMENT HAVE BEEN MADE IN SHARES GIVING EXEMPT INCOME AND HE ALSO DISALLOWED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTERES T. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 1 0 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT NOW THE REVENUE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN SHARES GIVING EXEMPTED INCOME IS O UT OF BORROWED FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST IS PAID BY ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO NEXUS WHATSOEVER. ON SPECIFIC QUERY LD. SR. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE IN INVESTMENT IN SHARES GIVING EXEMPT INCOME OUT OF OWN FUNDS WHICH IS AT ABOUT 2429 LA CS AND INVESTMENT IS AT RS.365 LACS ONLY. ONCE 6 ITA NO. 1989 - 1010 /K/201 3 RASOI LTD. AY 200 8 - 0 9 & 09 - 10 THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED AND CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED QUA THE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUN DS FOR INVESTING THE SAME IN INTEREST FREE FUNDS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS COMMON ISSUE. BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 1 2 . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 4 . 0 8 . 2 0 1 5 S D / - 1 4 . 0 8 . 2 0 1 5 S D / - (B. P. JAIN) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 4 T H A U G U S T , 201 5 JD. SR. P.S COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . A PPELLANT DCIT, CIR - 4, KOLKATA . 2 RESPONDENT M/S. RASOI LTD., 20, SIR, R. N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700 001 3 . THE CIT (A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .