Meghmani Organics Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DY.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 1201/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8853 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K R MEGHWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Set aside
• Section: 80HHC; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI D. C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1201/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 DATE OF HEARING:4.3.10 DRAFTED:5.3.10 M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. 183/14, PHASE-II, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.ABCM0644E V/S . ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR & SHRI TUSHAR P HEMANI, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI K.R.MEGHWAL, CIT-DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VII, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. C IT(A)VII/CIR.4/40/ 2005-06 DATED 27-11-2006. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAME D BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30-11-2005 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT ON INTEREST-INCOME. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STAT ED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI RAM HUNDA POWER EQUIP (2007) 289 ITR 475 (DEL) AND HE FAIRLY STATED ONLY NETTING OF THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST IS TO BE ALLOWED. ON THE OTHER HAND, L D. CIT-DR SHRI K.R. MEGHWAL ITA NO.1201/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-4, ABD PAGE 2 STATED THAT ONLY NETTING IS TO BE ALLOWED IN CASE T HE INCOME IS FROM BUSINESS AND IN CASE INCOME IS VERY OTHER SOURCES THEN NO NETTING I S TO BE ALLOWED. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LALSONS ENTERPRISE V. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 1048 (DEL) (SB), AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING WHETHER THIS INTEREST INCOME IS BUSINESS IN COME OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE MATTER IS BEING REMANDED BACK TO THE F ILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION THAT, IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDS THE INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES NO DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT WILL BE ALLOWED OR NETTING WIL L NOT BE ALLOWED. IN CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDS THAT THIS INTEREST IS BUSIN ESS INCOME THEN THE NETTING WILL BE ALLOWED AND THEREAFTER 90% IS TO BE EXCLUDED. ACCO RDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER WILL DECIDE IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM HUNDA POWER EQUIP ((SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LALSONS ENTERPRISE (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS INDICATED ABOVE. THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC ON DEPB LICENCES. 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT ON DEPB LI CENCES ARE COVERED BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 W.R.E.F. 1-4-19 98 BY INSERTING THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (IIID) IN SECTION 28 OF THE ACT AND ALSO INSERTING THE 3 RD AND 4 TH PROVISOS TO SECTION 80HHC(3) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS AMEND MENT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE INCOMES ARE IN THE NATUR E OF BUSINESS INCOME AND DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC IS TO BE ALLOWED AND ALSO TO CO NSIDER THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS V. ITO (2009) 318 ITR (AT) 87 (MUM) (SB). WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE MUM BAI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS V. ITO (2009) 318 ITR (AT) 87 (MUM) (SB), WHEREIN IT IS H ELD THAT ONLY THE NET PROFIT OF DEPB SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT. HE REFERRED TO THE CASE LAW IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA) AND STATED THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE REVERT BA CK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING ITA NO.1201/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-4, ABD PAGE 3 OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA). THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE REDUCTION OF LOSS OF TRADING, WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT. 8. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIR LY STATED THAT LOSS OF TRADING EXPORT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AND THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORY LTD. V. DCIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC), WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD IN P.529:- WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF MR. DAST UR. UNDOUBTEDLY SECTION 80HHC HAS BEEN INCORPORATED WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDIN G INCENTIVE TO EXPORT HOUSES. EVEN THOUGH A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE GIVEN TO SUCH A PROVISION THE INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE AS PER THE W ORDING OF THIS SECTION. IF THE WORDINGS OF THE SECTION ARE CLEAR THEN BENEFITS, WH ICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNDER THE SECTION, CANNOT BE CONFERRED BY IGNORING OR MIS INTERPRETING WORDS IN THE SECTION. IN THIS CASE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE WO RDINGS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80HHC. AS NOTED EARLIER SUB-SECTION (3)( A) DEALS WITH CASE WHERE THE EXPORT S ONLY OF SELF MANUFACTURED GOODS. SUBSE CTION 3(B) DEALS WITH THE CASE WHERE THE EXPORT IS ONLY OF TRADING GOODS. THU S WHEN THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO TAKE EXPORTS FROM SELF MANUFACTURED GOODS OR TRADING GOODS SEPARATELY, IT HAS ALREADY SO PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTI ONS (3)(A) AND (3)(B). IN ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE OF POSITIVE PROFIT, BOTH THE PROFITS AND THE LOSSES WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. IF THE NET FIGURE IS A POSITIVE P ROFIT THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION. IF THE NET FIGURE IS A LO SS THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION. SUB-SECTION (3)(C) DEALS W ITH CASES WHERE THE EXPORT IS OF BOTH SELF MANUFACTURED GOODS AS WELL AS TRADI NG GOODS. THE OPENING PART OF SUB-SECTION (3)(C) STATES PROFITS DERIVED FROM SUCH EXPORT SHALL. THEN FOLLOW (I) AND (II). BETWEEN (I) AND (II) THE WORD AND APPEARS. A PLAIN READING OF SUB-SECTION (3)(C) SHOWS THAT PROFITS FROM SUCH EXPORTS HAS TO BE PROFITS OF EXPORTS OF SELF MANUFACTURED GOODS PLUS PROFITS OF EXPORTS OF TRADING GOODS. THE PROFIT IS TO BE CALCULATED IN THE MANNER LAID D OWN IN SUB-SECTIONS (3)(C)(I) AND (II). THE OPENING WORDS PROFIT DERIVED FROM S UCH EXPORTS TOGETHER WITH THE WORD AND CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE PROFITS HA VE TO BE CALCULATED BY COUNTING BOTH THE EXPORTS. IT IS CLEAR FROM A READI NG OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 80HHC(3) THAT A DEDUCTION CAN BE PERMITTED ONLY IF THERE IS A POSITIVE PROFIT IN THE EXPORTS OF BOTH SELF MANUFACTURED GOO DS AS WELL AS TRADING GOODS. IF THERE IS A LOSS IN EITHER OF THE TWO THEN THAT L OSS HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING PROFITS. UNDER SECTION 80HHC(1), THE DEDUCTION IS TO BE GIVE N IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH PROFITS AS WELL AS LOSSES WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN INT O CONSIDERATION. SECTION 80AB IS RELEVANT. IT READS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.1201/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-4, ABD PAGE 4 80AB. WHERE ANY DEDUCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE O R ALLOWED UNDER ANY SECTION INCLUDED IN THIS CHAPTER UNDER THE HEAD ING C, - DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOMES IN RESPECT OF ANY IN COME OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN THAT SECTION WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAI NED IN THAT SECTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER TH AT SECTION, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME OF THAT NATURE AS COMPUTED IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT (BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER) SHALL ALONE BE DEEMED TO BE THE AMOUNT OF INCOME OF THAT NATURE WHICH IS DERIVED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH IS INCLUDED IN HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME. SECTION 80B(5) IS ALSO RELEVANT. SECTION 80B(5) PRO VIDES THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME MEANS THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. SECTION 80AB IS ALSO IN CHAPTER VI-A. IT STARTS WIT H THE WORDS WHERE ANY DEDUCTION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE OR ALLOWED UNDER A NY SECTION OF THIS CHAPTER. THIS WOULD INCLUDE SECTION 80HHC. SECTIO N 80AB FURTHER PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THAT SE CTION. THUS SECTION 80AB HAS BEEN GIVEN AN OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER ALL OTHER SECTIONS IN CHAPTER VI-A. SECTION 80HC DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT ITS PROVISIONS A RE TO PREVAIL OVER SECTION 80AB OR OVER ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE ACT, SECTIO N 80HHC WOULD THUS BE GOVERNED BY SECTION 80AB. THE DECISIONS OF THE BOM BAY HIGH COURT AND THE KERALA HIGH COURT TO THE CONTRARY CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE CORRECT LAW. SECTION 80AB MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IF THE INCOME HAS T O BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THEN NOT ONLY PROFI TS BUT ALSO LOSSES HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE HONBLE APEX COURTS DE CISION, WE DISMISSED THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT ON UNITE-WISE PROFIT. 10. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT FOR VATVA UNIT-II, A GRO DIVISION, PANOLI UNIT AND BOMBAY UNIT. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING SEPARATE A CCOUNTS AND THE ACCOUNTS ARE SEPARATELY AUDITED. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON VERIFICATION OF RETURN, IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED VARIOUS AUDIT REPORTS OF THOSE DIVISIONS, WHERE EXPORT PROFIT WAS EARNED AND SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FOR DOMESTIC SALES UNITE-WISE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT BY CLUBBING THE EXPO RT UNIT AND DOMESTIC UNITS AND ITA NO.1201/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-4, ABD PAGE 5 COMPUTED THE U/S.80HHC BY TAKING EXPORT BUSINESS AS A WHOLE INCLUDING DOMESTIC TURNOVER AND NOT SEPARATE UNITE-WISE. THE AO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN EARLIER YEARS, I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001 -02 AND 2002-03. WE FIND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1347/AHD/2004, 535-536/AHD/2005 & 249/AHD/2005 DATED 12-06-2009, RELYING ON THE CASE OF CIT V. PARRY AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. (2002) 257 ITR 41 (MAD) AND CIT V. RATHORE BROTHERS (2002) 254 ITR 656 (MAD) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA-5 & 6 AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.1165 & 1166/AHD/2001 (BY REVENUE) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND 1997-98 AN D ITA NOS. 3351 & 3352/AHD/2002 (BY ASSESSEE) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 & 1998- 99 DATED 17/11/2006. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE D ECIDING THE ISSUE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 8. REGARDING GROUND NO.-3, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY TRIBUNAL DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BY ORDER DATED 20/1 0/2006 IN ITA NO.1774/AHD/2003 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 BY HOLDING AS U NDER:- 5.2. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC IS NOT AVAILABLE ON DIVISION/UNITEWISE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AND THE SAME IS AVAILABLE ON THE ENTIRE BUSINESS PROFIT WITHOUT DIF FERENTIATING BETWEEN UNITS ENGAGED IN EXPORT AND UNITS ENGAGED I N DOMESTIC SALES. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISS UE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, IN THE CASE OF MADHUSUDAN IND. (SUPRA). FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON (I) EASTERN LEATHER PRODUCTS P.LTD., 68 ITD 358 (DE L); (II) J.H. SONI VS. ITO, 105 TAXMAN 197 (AHD); (III) CIT VS. PARRY AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. 257 ITR 45 (MAD); (IV) CIT VS. RATHORE BROTHERS, 254 ITR 656 (MAD); (V) DCIT VS. MADHUSUDAN INDS. LTD. (VI) ITA NO.2136/AHD/1997 DATED 06/07/2005 (PG 13-1 5-PARA 5). 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED RECO RD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC IS TO BE ALLOWED ON UNITE-WISE BASIS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E PRECEDENT, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1201/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-4, ABD PAGE 6 THE FACTS BEING EXACTLY IDENTICAL IN THIS YEAR ALSO AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS A LLOWED. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S AGAINST THE EXCLUSION OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM EXPORT TURNOVER HOLDING THE SA ME TO HAVE NOT RECEIVED IN INDIA IN FOREIGN COUNTRY TILL FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 12. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS RE- VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE AO HAS NOT GONE INTO THE FACT THAT TO WHICH YEAR THIS AMOUNT PERTAINS AND IN THE YEAR IT IS RECEIVED, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. CIT-D R STRONGLY OBJECTED TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCE EVEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND EVEN NOW BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, HE OBJECTED TO SETTING ASIDE OF THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO. 13. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GOING T HROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE AUDITORS HAVE REPORTED IN THE AUDIT REPORT THAT CER TAIN AMOUNT OF EXPORT PROCEEDS HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-L IMIT BUT THERE IS NO FINDING AS TO WHICH YEAR THE EXPORT PROCEEDS PERTAINS. ACCORDINGL Y, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO FIND OUT TO WHICH YEAR THIS AMOUNT PERTAINS AND IN THE YEAR IT IS RECEIVED, IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED ON STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05/03/2010 SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGRAWAL) (MAHAVI R SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED :05/03/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.1201/AHD/2007 A.Y. 2003-04 M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. V. ACIT, CIR-4, ABD PAGE 7 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-VII, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD