Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore V. M/s Bhoruka Park Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 114/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8704 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA JT
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. BHORUKA PARK PVT LTD., NO.48, LAVELLE ROAD, HITANANDA II, BENGALURU 560 001. PAN: AACCB 7080Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO NO.144/B/2015 [IN ITA NO.114/BANG/2015] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. BHORUKA PARK PVT LTD., NO.48, LAVELLE ROAD, HITANANDA II, BENGALURU 560 001. PAN: AACCB 7080Q VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA, JT. CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, CA DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.01.2016 ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 2 OF 13 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 27.08.2014 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, BANGALORE RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13, 67,830/- UNDER SEC 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(II) BEING DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORT IONATE INTEREST PAYABLE ON BORROWINGS WHICH CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO EARNING OF DIVIDENDS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED DIVIDEND OF RS 2,90,9 7/- AND CONTENDED THAT NO EXPENDITURE HA BEEN INCURRED BY HIM FOR EAR NING THIS DIVIDEND. THE AO APPLIED STRAIGHTAWAY APPLIED RULE 8D OF THE IT R ULES AND DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 13,67,830/- BEING PROPORTIONATE INTEREST THAT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO INVESTMENT INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT. THE AO HAD ALSO DISALLOWED RS. 83,958/- BEING 0.5% OF SUCH INVESTMENTS TOWARDS ADM INISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III). THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN AGIT ATED BEFORE US. 4. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) EXAMINED THE BALANC E SHEET AS ON 31.12.2009 AND 31.12.2010 AND NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: - ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 3 OF 13 PARTICULARS 31/03/2010 31/03/2009 SHARE CAPITAL 21,00,00,000 21,00,00,000 RESERVE & SURPLUS 8,35,22,431 5,05,81,295 29,35,22,431 26,05,81,295 TOTAL 29,35,22,431 26,05,81,295 LOAN FUNDS SECURED 66,83,96,760 78,39,92,045 UNSECURED 7,30,71,985 4,38,72,305 TOTAL 74,14,68,745 82,78,64,350 5. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND WHEREAS INVEST MENT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2009 WAS AT RS.3,05,85,628 AND AS ON 31.3.2010 AT RS.29,97,589 AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THERE WERE NO NEW INVESTMENTS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2010-1 1 AND HENCE NO INTEREST IS DISALLOWABLE. 6. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 7. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE RULE 8 D SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND PRORATE INTEREST PAYABLE ON BORROWINGS SHOULD D ISALLOWED, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWNED FUNDS FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V TAIKISHA ENGINEERING INDIA LTD (370 ITR 338 ) HAS HELD THAT UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY WHEN HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO E XEMPT INCOME, CAN HE ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 4 OF 13 DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE WHICH SHOULD BE DISALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS PRESCRIBED, I.E., RU LE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT T HE FIRST INSTANCE, MUST EXAMINE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO EARN T HE EXEMPT INCOME. IF AND ONLY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED ON THIS COUNT AFTER MAKING REFERENCE TO THE ACCOUNTS, IS HE ENTITLED TO ADOPT THE METHOD AS PRESCRIBED, I.E., RULE 8D . THUS, RULE 8D IS NOT ATTRACTED AND APPLICABLE TO ALL ASSESSEES WHO HAVE EXEMPT INCOME AND IT IS NOT COMPULSORY AND NECESSARY THAT AN ASSESSEE MUST VOLUNTARILY COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D. WHERE THE DISALLOWANCE OR NIL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AS SESSEE IS FOUND TO BE UNSATISFACTORY ON EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS ENTITLED AND AUTHORISED TO COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER RULE 8D . THIS PRE-CONDITION AND STIPULATION IS ALSO MANDATED IN SUB-RULE (1) OF RULE 8D. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE UNDER SEC 14A AND SHOULD GIVE A REASONED ORDER WHY THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THEN ONLY PROCEED TO COMPUTE THE DISAL LOWANCE U/S 14A. 9. THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS P LTD V CIT (372 ITR 694) HAS HELD THAT SECTION 14A OR RULE 8D OF THE INCOME -TAX RULES, 1962, CANNOT BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO MEAN TH AT THE ENTIRE EXEMPT INCOME IS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE WINDOW FOR DISALLOW ANCE WAS INDICATED IN SECTION 14A AND WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWI NG EXPENDITURE INCURRED ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 5 OF 13 BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE TAX EXEMPT INCOM E. THIS PROPORTION OR PORTION OF THE EXEMPT INCOME SURELY CANNOT SWALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. 10. THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2009] (319 ITR 204 ) AND THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V CORRTECH ENERGY P. LTD (372 ITR 97) HAVE HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION O F ANY INCOME FROM PAYMENT OF TAX, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE CONJOINT READING OF THESE DECISIONS WOULD SHOW THAT (I) THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D SHOULD BE MADE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED TAX EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM C OMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT. 11. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS FOUND AS A F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN S HARES. THERE IS NO DETAILS AS TO THE SHARES WHICH HAD YIELDED EXEMPT I NCOME FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 14A. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) HAS FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO MAKE THE ENTIRE IN VESTMENTS. THERE WAS NO NEW INVESTMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE TH ERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY BORROWED FUNDS DURING THE YEAR BEING UTILISED F OR MAKING INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED TAX FREE INCOME. THIS FACTUAL MA TRIX HAS NOT BEEN ASSAILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEIR ONLY GRIEVANCE IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYABLE ON B ORROWINGS WHETHER OR ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 6 OF 13 NOT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT BORROWED FUNDS FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS. ONLY THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED W HICH CAN BE RELATED TO INVESTMENTS EVEN IF NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNE D FROM SUCH INVESTMENTS. 12. IN OUR OPINION, FROM A READING OF THE RATIO OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS ON THIS ASPECT ONLY ACTUAL EXPENDITURE WHICH CAN BE AT TRIBUTED TO INVESTMENTS AND THAT TOO ONLY INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH EXEMPT INC OME HAS BEEN EARNED AND EXCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT, HAS TO BE DISALLOWE D U/S 14A. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN UPHOLDING TH E DECISION OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 13,67,830/- MADE U/S 14A BY THE AO. 13. THE REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED . 14. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGA INST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 1,17,112,000/- BEIN G INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OF RS . 7.5 CRORES INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S BHORUKA STEEL &SERVICES LTD (BSSL). 15. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS, THE AO OBSERVE D THAT M/S BHORUKA STEEL & SERVICES LIMITED (BSSL) HAD HELD 7 ACRES 26 GUNTAS OF LAND AT MAHADEVAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE AND IT HAD ENTERED INTO A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. AS PER ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 7 OF 13 THE JDA ENTERED INTO ON 19/09/2006, THE ENTIRE POSS ESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO M/S. BHORUKA PARK PVT. LTD., THROUGH THE REGISTERED DEED. FURTHER AS PER THE JADE, M/S BHORUKA PARK PVT. LTD HAS TO RETAIN 74% OF THE RIGHT OVER THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTED AREA OF THE PRO PERTY. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE JDA THAT THE BSS L HAS TRANSFERRED ITS RIGHT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF 74% FOR CONSTRUCTION / DEVELOPMENT. ONCE THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IS HAN DED OVER TO M/S. BHORUKA PARK PVT. LTD., THE ENTIRE RIGHT HELD IN TH E IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO THEM. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID A SUM OF RS. 7.5 CRORES TO M/S BSSL. 16. FURTHER AS PER THE JDA M/S BSSL WAS REQUIRED TO TRANSFER 74% OF THE LAND AND RECEIVE 26% OF BUILT UP AREA AS CONSID ERATION FOR THE LAND TRANSFERRED. BUT AS PER THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DT. 1.11.2007, 26% OF THE BUILT UP AREA IS RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY AND BSSL RETAINED RS. 7.5 CRORES WHICH WAS GIVEN TO IT AS SE CURITY DEPOSIT. 17. FROM THE ABOVE, THE AO NOTICED THAT RS. 7.50 CR ORES IS RETAINED BY BSSL AND IN LIEU OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RETA INED 26% OF THE BUILT UP AREA IN PHASE-I. BUT FOR THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREE MENT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD HAVE RECEIVED BACK RS. 7.50 CRORES WH ICH IS SHOWN AS ADVANCE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THUS THE COMPANY H AS PARKED ITS HUGE SUM OF RS. 7.50 CRORES WITH ITS SISTER CONCERN, ON WHICH NO INTEREST IS BEING ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 8 OF 13 CHARGED. THE AO HELD THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION IS I N THE NATURE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE INTEREST ON SUCH ADVANCE. 18. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED FROM -T HE BALANCE SHEET THAT ADVANCE GIVEN TO OTHERS AS ON 31/03/2009 AT RS .9.76 CRORES AND AS ON 31/03/2010 AT RS.9.78 CRORES, THE BREAK-UP OF WHICH WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- 19. FROM THE DETAILS GIVEN ABOVE, THE CIT(A) OBSERV ED THAT RS.7.50 CRORES WAS ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S BHORUKA STEEL & SER VICES LIMITED, THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE A O, RS.7.50 CRORES HAS BEEN PARKED WITH M/S BHORUKA STEEL SERVICES PVT. LT D DESPITE OF THE FACT THAT TRANSACTION RELATING TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (LA ND) WAS FINALISED. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESS EE HAD SUFFICIENT NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS, NO INTEREST COULD BE DI SALLOWABLE. ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 9 OF 13 20. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, HELD BOTH CONCERNS ARE CLO SELY RELATED AND THE ASSESSEE PARKED SAID AMOUNT FOR BUSINESS PURPOS E I.E. DEVELOPMENT OF I.T.PARK AND OTHER COMPANIES HAVING CERTAIN PERCENT AGE OF RIGHT AND INTEREST ON 7 ACRES 26 GUNTAS OF LAND AT MAHADEVAPU RA INDUSTRIAL AREA, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE. THE CIT(A) THEREFORE HELD INT EREST ATTRIBUTABLE ON AN AMOUNT OF RS.7.5 CRORES IS NOT DISALLOWABLE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,12,008/-. 21. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ONLY GRIEV ANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE INTEREST FREE ADV ANCE GIVEN TO BSSL LTD WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) HAS FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE OWNED FUNDS WHICH WILL COV ER THE INTEREST FREE LOANS TO BSSL. THIS IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. TH E FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE FINANCIALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THIS CONSTITUTED FRESH MATERIAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE C IT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE IS IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THA T IT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AND IN LIEU OF THIS ADVANCE THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED AN ADDITIONAL 26% OF BUILT UP AREA. THE ADVANCE THEREFORE IS CLEARLY IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND AN ADVANCE FO R OBTAINING ADDITIONAL 26% OF BUILT UP AREA. HENCE, EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THIS ADVANCE WAS GIVEN OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS, NO PART OF THE INTERES T PAYABLE ON SUCH ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 10 OF 13 NOTIONAL AMOUNT OF BORROWINGS CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AS THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE DECISIONS OF THE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 340), WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE OF RS. 7.5 CRORES TO BSSL WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND THE ADVANCE WAS FOR T HE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF JOINT DEV ELOPMENT OF PROPERTY WITH BSSL. HENCE NO PART OF INTEREST PAYABLE ON BOR ROWINGS CAN BE DISALLOWED ON GROUNDS OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCE OF R S. 7.5 CRORES TO BSSL. THE REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. CO NO.144/B/2015 24. THE CO IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND T HAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A SUM OF RS.10,49,952 IS TO BE DISA LLOWED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED THE ABOVE SUM AS EXPENDITURE. 25. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF TH E TOTAL INTEREST PAID DURING THE YEAR, A SUM OF RS. 1,00,49,952/- WAS CAP ITALIZED TO BUILDING NO.2 AND THE BALANCE SUM OF RS. 8,92,01,800 WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT T HE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 8.92 CRORES IS IN RESPECT OF BUILDING WHICH ARE ALREADY COMPLETED AND THEREFORE. ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CON TENTION OF THE ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 11 OF 13 ASSESSEE, BUT HE HELD THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,00,49,952 /- IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED AS IT HAD NOT BEEN REDUCED FROM THE SUM OF RS.9,14,61,789/- BEING THE GROSS INTEREST PAID. 26. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT DURING TH E YEAR IT HAD PAID THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS TOWARDS THE INTEREST AND OTHE R FINANCIAL CHARGES. ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 12 OF 13 27. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE FACT THAT THE SUM OF RS. 1,00,49,952/- HAS NOT BEEN DEBITED TO PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT ALL, HAS DIRECTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ABOVE SUM. 28. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,00,49,952 TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY IF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,49,952 IS CAPITALISED OR NOT AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 30. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED, WHILE THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 14 TH JANUARY, 2016. /D S/ ITA NO.114/BANG/2015 & CO NO.144/BANG/2015 PAGE 13 OF 13 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.