DCIT, CHENNAI V. GI Games Private Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 1157/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6167 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S NATARAJA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1157/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -2(1), CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. GI GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED, C-9, THIRU-VI-KA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 032. [PAN: AACCG 6098B] ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. NATARAJA, JCIT )*% & / RESPONDENT BY : NONE & /DATE OF HEARING : 03.07.2017 & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.09.2017 /O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 64/CIT(A)- 9/2010-11 DATED 11.01.2017. :-2-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 2. M/S. GI GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED, THE ASSESSEE, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPOR T SERVICES AND BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES. WHILE ASSESSING THE INCOME FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ON EXAMINATION OF THE LIST OF ADDITIONS MADE TO FIX ED ASSETS DURING THE YEAR, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED UPS FOR RS. 72,30,974/- AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 80% ON THEM UNDER THE HEAD ENERGY SAVING EQUIPMENTS. THE TOTAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON UPS IS RS. 47,31,384/-. HE HELD THAT UPS IS AN ELECTRONIC ITEM AND ITS ONLY FU NCTION IS TO ENSURE UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLY TO COMPUTERS AND ELECTRO NIC ITEMS. IT IS NOT LIKE A PRINTER. PRINTER CANNOT BE USED WITHOUT A COMPUTER WHEREAS UPS CAN BE USED WITH ALMOST ALL THE ELECTRONIC ITEMS. SUCH BEING T HE CASE, UPS CANNOT BE PART AND PARCEL OF COMPUTER. MOREOVER, IT CANNOT, IN AN Y WAY, SAVE ENERGY. IT CAN AT THE MOST, SAVE COMPUTER FROM DAMAGE ON ACCOUNT O F POWER FLUCTUATION. FURTHER, UPS IS NOT LISTED UNDER THE BLOCK OF ASSET S, ENERGY SAVING EQUIPMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE INCOME TAX RULES. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION @ 80% ON UPS BUT ALLOWED @ 15% AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE AMOUNT. FURTHER, TH E AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HUGE AMOUNT RS. 2,29,85,000/- AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONGO AND ABROAD AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN THE NATURE OF THIS EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 16.11. 2010 FURNISHED THE BREAK- UP OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONGO AND ABROAD AND STATED THAT THE CONGO PROJECT DID NOT GO THROUGH AND HAD TO BE DROP PED. NO REVENUE WAS :-3-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 EARNED ON THIS PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED AN EX PERT OF ONLINE GAINING/LOTTERY TECHNOLOGY FROM THAILAND FOR THE PU RPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN TRADES IN MANY COUNTRIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTICI PATED IN THE TENDERS IN MALAYSIA, AUSTRALIA, SAMOA, MALAWI, SOUTH AFRICA, U GANDA, NIGERIA, LIBERIA AND SENEGAL. OUT OF THESE TENDERS, THE ASSESSEE GOT CO NTACT IN SAMOA AND MALAWI. HOWEVER, BOTH THE CONTRACTS COULD NOT STAR T DUE TO FAILURE OF THE CUSTOMER TO GET NECESSARY CLEARANCES FROM THEIR GOV ERNMENT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ASSESSEES CURRENT BUSINESS AND WAS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE DID NO T HAVE ANY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPENDITURE PRESCRIBED IN SE CTIONS 30 TO 36 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY INCOME DURING THE YEAR FROM THE ABOVE FOREIGN VENTURES. HENCE THE AO DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES C LAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,29,85,000/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE ON DEPRE CIATION PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE O N MARKETING EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS. 2,29,85,000/-, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO OBTAIN THE DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINE THE NATURE OF EXISTIN G BUSINESS. IF THE AO FINDS THAT INVESTMENT IN CONGO AND OTHER FOREIGN CO UNTRIES ARE NOT NEW A FRESH VENTURES, HE MUST ALLOW THE EXPENSES AND IF H E FINDS THAT THESE :-4-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 VENTURES ARE NEW, ALTOGETHER, A FRESH VENTURE THEN THE DISALLOWANCE WILL STAND CONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE FILED THIS APPEA L, INTER ALIA, WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2.1 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED OF RS. 30,75,400/- ON UPS AND THEREBY ERRED IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 80% AS AGAINST 15% ALLOWED BY THE AO. 2.2 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT UPS CANNOT BE PART AND PARCEL OF COMPUTER AND HAS NOT BEEN LISTED UNDER THE BLOCK OF ASSETS ENERGY SAVING EQUIPMENT SPECIFIED IN THE I T RULES AND HENCE THE AO HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE CLAIM ON DEPRECIATION ON UPS TO 15%. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IF THE AO FIND S THAT INVESTMENT IN CONGO ARE NOT NEW OR FRESH VENTURE, H E MUST ALLOW THE CLAIM OF MARKETING EXPENSES OF RS. 2,29,85,000/- IN CURRED IN CONGO WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF CLAIMED THAT THE CONGO PRO JECT DID NOT GO THROUGH AND HAD TO BE DROPPED. 3.2 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE IS E LIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF REVENUE EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR EVEN THOU GH BUSINESS IN CONGO HAS NOT SET UP. 3.3 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 3 OF THE IT ACT AS PER WHICH PREVIOUS YEAR BEINGS O NLY WITH SET UP OF NEW BUSINESS AND HENCE ALL EXPENDITURE TILL SUCH TIME H AS TO BE CAPITALIZED. HENCE THE AO HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE MARKETING EX PENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONGO WAS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y FOR THE ASSESSEES CURRENT BUSINESS AND WAS NOT REVENUE IN NATURE. 3.4 THE CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE AOS CON TENTION THAT THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THE CHARACTERIS TICS OF THE EXPENDITURE PRESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 30 TO 36 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY INCOME DURING THE YEAR FROM THE ABOVE FO REIGN VENTURES. :-5-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 4. THE DR PRESENTED THE CASE ON THE LINES OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE D R AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF DI SALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CIT(A) ORDER IS EXTRACT ED AS UNDER: 5.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE A PPELLANT'S AR MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: '1. IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT AUTOMATIC VOLTAGE CONTROLLED UPS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DE PRECIATION @80% AS IT IS A POWER SAVING EQUIPMENT AND AS PER N EW APPENDIX I PART A III (8) IX E (C) OF INCOME TAX RU LES THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 80%. THE PETITIONER SUPPORTED HIS SUBMISSION BASED ON TH E JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SURFACE FINISHING EQUIPMENT AS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH IN ITA NO.399 / JP/ 1999. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER THAT IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IT WAS HELD THAT UP S, PRINTER, SCANNER ETC ARE PART OF THE COMPUTER AND A CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 60% IS ALLOWABLE. HOWEV ER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED ONLY A GENERAL RA TE OF 15%. 3. HON'BLE ITAT, CHENNAI 'C' BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT CO. LTD VS. DCIT, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 1774/ MDS/2012 HELD, FOLLOWING T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HAWORTH (I) PVT LTD. V. DCIT IN ITA NO. 5341/DEL/2010 AND DCIT V. DATA CRAFT INDIA LTD IN I TA NO.7462 &754/ MUM/2007 AND MACWBER ENGINEERING SYSTEM (I) P VT LTD V. ACIT [19/ ITR(TRI)/302(MUM)], THAT UPS IS AN INT EGRAL PART :-6-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 OF THE COMPUTER AND IS ENTITLED FOR A DEPRECIATION OF 60% AS APPLICABLE TO COMPUTERS. 4. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD (ITA NO. 1267) AND IN CIT V. ORIENT CERAM ICS AND INDUSTRIES LTD (2013) 358 ITR 0049 HELD THAT UPS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER AND IS ENTITLED FOR 60% DEPREC IATION. 5. THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 60% CONSIDERING UPS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER IF THE PETITIONER'S C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF 80% TREATING UPS AS ENERGY SAVING E QUIPMENT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF HON'BLE ITA T JODHPUR BENCH AS STATED SUPRA.' 5.3 DECISION: 5.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE AO'S OBSERVATION UNDER PARA 5.1 AND THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION UNDER PARA 5.2. AS MENTIONED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER IS COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL LTAT, CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF SUNDARAM ASSET MANAGEMENT CO . LTD., REFERRED SUPRA. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPR ODUCED AS UNDER: 'THE FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELATE S TO THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ON UPS: THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DE PRECIATION ON UPS @ 60% TREATING THE SAME AS PART OF COMPUTER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED TH E UPS AT PAR WITH PLANT & MACHINERY AND RESTRICTED THE DEPRECIAT ION TO 15%. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT DEPRECIATION @ 60% HAS TO BE PROVIDED ON UPS T REATING IT TO BE THE PART OF COMPUTER. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEC IDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HAWORTH. (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 131 ITD 215 (DELHI) AND MACAWBER ENGG. SYSTEMS {INDIA} (P). LTD ., 19 ITR (TRIB.} {MUM) 302 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UPS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN C ONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS OTHER APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AN D THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON UPS.' :-7-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 5.3.2 THE AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORIENT CERAMICS & INDIA LTD., IN ITA NO.65 OF 2011 DATED 20.0L.2011 WHEREIN IT IS HELD IN PARA 13, AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON UPS @ 60 % WHEREAS THE AO HAD ALLOWED IT @ 25% AND ON THIS BAS IS, DISALLOWANCE OF 1,470 WAS MADE. THE ISSUE NOW STAND S COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD. (IN ITA NO. 1267 DECIDED ON 31.0 8.2010) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEPRECIATION @60% ON S UCH ITEMS SHALL BE ALLOWED.' 5.3.3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JURISDICTIO NAL ITAT JUDGEMENT AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT, UPS IS CONSIDER ED AS INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER AND DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED AT 60% AS AGAINST 80% CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CIT(A) ORDER AS E XTRACTED, SUPRA, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW AND WHERE THE IMPUGNED UPS IS/ARE U SED OR UTILISED IN THE ASSESSEES LINE OF BUSINESS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUC H FINDINGS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE UPS IS/ARE AN INTEGRAL PART O F COMPUTER(S) OR ANY OTHER EQUIPMENT(S) ETC. HENCE, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BA CK TO THE AO. THE AO SHALL EXAMINE AS TO WHERE THE UPS IS/ARE INSTALLED, WHICH EQUIPMENT(S) IS/ARE CONNECTED, TO IT/THEM AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TO THIS EXTENT, THE REVENUES GROUNDS ARE TREATED AS A LLOWED. 6. WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF MARK ETING EXPENSES, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: :-8-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 6.3 DECISION: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE AO'S OBSERVATION UNDER PARA 6.1 AND THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION UNDER PARA 6.2. THE JURISDICT IONAL MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CO RPORATION LTD., 2015 (7) TMI 483, HELD THAT: 'THE MAIN PARAMETERS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THE EX PENSE TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS WHERE EXPENSES AR E INCURRED IN AREAS WHICH SUPPLEMENT THE EXISTING BUSINESS AND IS NOT A FRESH OR NEW VENTURE AND AGREEMENT RELATES TO REVEN UE AND THE SAID ACTIVITY IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPROVING THE OPERATIONS OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS, ITS EFFICIENCY AND PROFITABI LITY FROM THE AREA OF DAY-TO-DAY BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT'S ESTA BLISHED ENTERPRISE'S, EXPENSES BE TREATED AS REVENUE AND NO T CAPITAL. IN THE CASE ON HAND, A CAREFUL READING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE FACTS AS NARRATED, IT IS CLEAR THA T THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTION FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO HO LD THAT THERE WAS A NEW LINE OF BUSINESS ON WHICH THERE OCCURRED A LOSS. THE PARAMETERS ENUNCIATED IN THE DECISION IN SUHRID GEI GY LTD. CASE (1995 (12) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) IS SQUARELY ATTRACTED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, JUSTIFYING THE LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE AS A BUSINESS LOSS, AS ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING BULK DRUGS, FORMULATIONS; ETC ., AND ONE OF ITS VENTURES HAS ENDED IN A LOSS AND THAT LOSS I S ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUSINESS AND IT CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE A NEW ENT ERPRISE AND A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THUS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. - DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE.' 6.3.2 IN VIEW OF THE JURISDICTIONAL MADRAS HIGH CO URT DECISION ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT AS LONG AS THE ASSESSEE DID N OT INVEST IN A FRESH OR NEW VENTURE AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE IN THE AR EAS SUPPLEMENTING THE EXISTING BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAI M THE LOSS ARISING OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED. LN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE NATURE OF BUSINESS IS STATED TO BE PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPO RT SERVICES AND BACK :-9-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES. VIDE ASSESSEE'S LETTER DAT ED 16.11.2010 REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT IN CO NGO, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR RUNNING O NLINE GAMING AND IN SAMOA AND MALAWI THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED AN EXPERT IN ONLINE GAMING/LOTTERY TECHNOLOGY FROM THAILAND. IT HAS TO BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER THE BUSINESS VENTURES IN ONLINE GAMING ARE THE NEW VENTURES OR M ERE EXTENSION OR CONTINUATION OF ALREADY EXISTING BUSINESS. THIS FAC T: HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO NOT MADE OUT A CASE TO ESTABLISH THAT IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ONLINE GAMING EXCEPT TAKING POSITIO N IN LAW BY CITING DECISIONS WITHOUT GIVING FACTS. THEREFORE, THE AO I S DIRECTED TO OBTAIN THE DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINE THE NATURE OF EXISTING BUSINESS. IF AO FINDS THAT INVESTMENT IN CONGO AND OTHER FOREIGN COUNTRIES ARE NOT NEW OR FRESH VENTURES, HE MUST ALLOW THE EXPENSES AND I F HE FINDS THAT THESE VENTURES ARE NEW, ALTOGETHER A FRESH VENTURE, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE WILL STAND CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED TO FURN ISH DETAILS OF NATURE OF BUSINESS AND FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT AS AND WHEN THE AO CALLS FOR SUCH DETAILS. FOR TECHNICAL PURPOSES THE GROUND IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED T HE NATURE OF ASSESSEES EXISTING BUSINESS, WHETHER THE BUSINESS VENTURES IN ONLINE GAMING ARE THE NEW VENTURES OR MERE EXTENSION OR CONTINUAT ION OF ALREADY EXISTING BUSINESS ETC. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THI S ISSUE IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE AO FOR THE DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE NATUR E OF EXISTING BUSINESS VIS-A- VIS, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TO THAT EXTENT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. :-10-: I.T.A. N0. 1157/MDS/2017 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED A S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 20 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ! ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 JPV & )12 32 /COPY TO: 1. %/ APPELLANT 2. )*% /RESPONDENT 3. 4 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 ) /DR 6. 7 /GF