Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
12122514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-05-2015
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
30-04-2015
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
04-02-2013
Judgement Text
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 143/H/13 2008-09 VBC INDUSTRIES LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AAACV7352F DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3(3), HYD. 2 144/H/13 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 3 61/H/14 2010-11 -DO- -DO- 4 120/H/13 2008-09 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 3(3), HYD. VBC INDUSTRIES LTD., HYDERABAD. PAN AAACV7352F 5 121/H/13 2009-10 -DO- -DO- 6 18/H/14 2010-11 -DO- -DO- ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. SIVA KUMAR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAMAKRISHNA BANDI DATE OF HEARING 30-04-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08-05-2015 O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE CROSS APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD FOR AYS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. AS ISSUES RAISED IN T HESE APPEALS ARE MORE OR LESS COMMON AND FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THEY H AVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISPOSE D OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA NO. 143/H/13 AND OTHERS VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEALS WHICH ALSO CORRESPONDS TO THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN THE DEPAR TMENTAL APPEALS RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF TH E ACT. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS, AS TAKEN FROM THE APPEAL FOLD ER RELATING TO AY 2008-09 ARE, ASSESSEE A COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF FERRO SILICON. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR AY UNDER DISPUTE ON 20/09/2008 DECLARING LOSS OF RS . 4,62,38,541. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, AO ON VERIFYING TH E BALANCE SHEET NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BORROWED FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,10,79,634. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INV ESTED IN SHARES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 65,41,51,83 4. BEING OF THE VIEW THAT BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR INV ESTMENTS IN SHARES AND INCOME TO BE GENERATED BY WAY OF DIVIDEND FROM SUCH SHARES IS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. AO OPINED TH AT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE ATTRACTED. ACCORDINGLY, AO APPLYING THE SAID PROVISIONS READ WITH RULE 8D(2) WORKED OUT THE EXPE NDITURE TO BE DISALLOWED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AT RS. 1,41,69 ,526. SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE ALSO MADE IN AYS 2009-10 AND 201 0-11. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE DISALLOWANCE, SO MADE, ASSESSEE PR EFERRED APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR S. 4. LD. CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF APPEALS IN A COMMO N ORDER PASSED FOR AYS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 OBSERVED THAT IN AN ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN CASE OF M/S BHARAT AL LOYS AND ENERGY LTD FOR AY 2005-06, LD. CIT HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS DIVERTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,84,16,719 OUT OF INTEREST BEARING F UNDS FOR INVESTING IN THE SHARES. THUS, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DIVERTED FROM INTEREST BEARING FUNDS TOWARDS INVEST MENT IN SHARES, WHICH WOULD GIVE RAISE TO EXEMPT INCOME, DISALLOWAN CE U/S 14A HAS TO BE CONFINED TO SUM OF RS. 3.84 CRORES. AS FAR A S THE REST OF THE INVESTMENTS ARE CONCERNED, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SIN CE THOSE INVESTMENTS WERE OUT OF THE SURPLUS FUND AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE AND HAVE NO NEXUS WITH INTEREST BEARING LOANS, NO DISAL LOWANCE U/S 14A 3 ITA NO. 143/H/13 AND OTHERS VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. COULD BE MADE FURTHER, LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD DIS ALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES @ 0.5% OF TOTAL INVESTMENT. SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A) FOR AY 2010-11. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE APPEAL ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), BOTH ASSESSEE A ND REVENUE ARE BEFORE US. 5. WHILE THE DEPARTMENT HAS OBJECTED TO THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF HEARING REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISING THE ISSUE THAT NO DISALLO WANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED/CLAIMED ANY EXEM PT INCOME IN THE RELEVANT AY. 6. LD. AR ARGUING ON THE ISSUE RAISED IN ADDITIONAL GROUND SUBMITTED BEFORE US, IN NONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAS EARNED/CLAIMED ANY EXEMP T INCOME, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WIL L NOT APPLY. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, ASSESSEE RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CORRT ECH ENGERGY PVT. LTD., 45 TAXMAN.COM 116 (GUJ) AND A DECISION OF THE ITAT BANGALORE C BENCH IN CASE OF QUALITY ENGINEERING AND SOFTWA RE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. VS. DCIT, 52 TAXMAN.COM 515. 7. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED BEFORE US, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3.84 CRORES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF INTERE ST BEARING FUNDS. LD. DR REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A O F THE ACT SUBMITTED BEFORE US, LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN THE SAID PROVISION NEITHER GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT THE SAID PROVISION WILL NOT APPLY I F NO EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED DURING THE YEAR NOR THERE IS ANY RESTRICT ION IN THE SAID SECTION TO INDICATE THAT IT WILL APPLY ONLY TO INVE STMENT MADE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO N, LD. DR RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH IN CAS E OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT, 121 ITD 318. 4 ITA NO. 143/H/13 AND OTHERS VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS FAR AS ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT IN THE S TATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), A CO PY OF WHICH IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD, ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED THE ISSUE THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE WHEN ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXEMPT INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. HOWEVER, AS IT APPEARS, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AT ALL G ONE INTO THAT ISSUE. THEREFORE, SINCE THE ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE LD. CI T(A) BY ASSESSEE AND AS STATED BEFORE US INADVERTENTLY COULD NOT BE RAISED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED ALONG WITH MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL AND FURTHER, SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND CAN BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE. 9. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND, T HE SPECIFIC CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS DURING THE RELEVANT AYS A SSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED/EARNED ANY INCOME, WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S 10(3 4), HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE BY INVOKING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIA NCE ON TWO JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. ON CAREFUL READING OF THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CORRTECH ENGERGY PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), IT IS SEEN THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT FOLLOWING A DECISION OF THE HONBLE P&H HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. WINSOME T EXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. 319 ITR 204 HELD THAT SECTION 14A WILL HAVE NO APPLICATION IN A CASE WHERE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXEMPT INCO ME IN THE CONCERNED AY. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND A DECISION OF THE HONBLE AL LAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD. IN ITTA NO. 88 OF 2014 DATED 05/05/2014, ITAT BANGALORE BENCH C IN CASE OF QUALITY ENGINEERING AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 5 ITA NO. 143/H/13 AND OTHERS VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. 5.5.4 THERE ARE MANY OTHER DECISIONS OF OTHER HONB LE HIGH COURTS AS WELL, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCOME EXEMPT U/S 10(38 ) OF THE ACT, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS NOT TENABLE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS (CITED SUPRA), WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEN DITURE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS NOT TENABLE AND THEREFORE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7,34,975 MADE BY THE AO. 10. THOUGH LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON A DECISION OF MUM BAI SPECIAL BENCH IN CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. (SUPRA), BUT, AS H ELD BY ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN THE DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE, THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE SAID TO BE HA VING ANY PRECEDENTIARY VALUE IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS REFERRED TO IN THE SAID ORDER. THEREFORE, TH E PRINCIPLE WHICH EMERGES FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR TS REFERRED TO ABOVE, IF IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MA DE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A SPE CIFIC PLEA THAT IT HAS NOT CLAIMED/EARNED ANY INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT U NDER THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS IT IS NOTICED THAT AO HAS ONLY REFERRED TO INVESTMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE A ND NOT TO ANY EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE WHILE WORKING OUT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. EVEN THOUGH, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SPECIFIC GROUND ON THE ISSUE BEFORE LD. CIT(A), SHE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THIS ISSUE. IN THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT IT HAS N OT EARNED/CLAIMED ANY EXEMPT INCOME IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AND DECIDING THE ISSUE IN TERMS WITH THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AS WELL AS I TAT BANGALORE BENCH REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE REMIT THE MATTERS BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD IN THE MATTER. IN VIEW OF OUR AFORESAID DIRECTION, THE GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT CHALLENGING THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CI T(A) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, H ENCE, THEY ARE DISMISSED. 6 ITA NO. 143/H/13 AND OTHERS VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. 11. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT I N APPEAL FILED FOR AY 2010-11 IS WITH REGARD TO LD. CIT(A) DELETING DI SALLOWANCE MADE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,70,901 ON ACCOUNT OF NON REM ITTANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI WITHIN THE DUE DATE. 12. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, IN COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AO ON VERIFYING THE INFORMATI ON AVAILABLE ON RECORD NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE DELAYED REMIT TANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF &ESI TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,32,941 AND RS. 84,972 RESPECTIVELY. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT A S THE REMITTANCE WAS NOT WITHIN THE DUE DATE, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIME D IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME AS PER SECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT. AO FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY SECT ION 43B OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 13. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD., 319 ITR 366 AND SOME OTHER DE CISIONS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS HELD THAT EVEN WHERE THE EMPL OYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESI AND PF WERE NOT PAID WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS PER SECTION 36(1)(VA), BUT, WERE PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FI LING OF RETURN U/S 139(1), THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE U/S 43 B OF THE ACT. 14. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US, THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS COVERED U/S 43B IS EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AND NOT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION. LD. DR SUBMITTED, AS FAR AS EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION IS CONCERNED, THE EMPLOYER IS MERELY CUSTODIAN, HENCE, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DELAY IN REMITTING THE SAME TO THE APPROPRIA TE ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED, AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 43B WOULD NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION AS SUCH AMENDMENT IS NOT WIT H REFERENCE TO SECTION 36(1)(VA). IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, H E RELIED UPON A 7 ITA NO. 143/H/13 AND OTHERS VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF C IT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 366 ITR 170. 15. OPPOSING THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US, AFTER DELETION OF THE SECOND P ROVISO TO SECTION 43B OF THE ACT, EVEN EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI IF REMITTED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS PROVIDED U/S 139(1) IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 43B OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, LD. AR RELIED UPON DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIMACHAL PRADE SH HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. NIPSO POLYFABRIKS LTD., 350 ITR 327 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SAVARI ENTERPRISES 298 ITR 141. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THA T THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A) BEING IN TERMS WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER S OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS PLACED BEFORE US BY THE PARTIES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS FAR AS THE FACTUAL ASPECTS A RE CONCERNED. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI HAVE NOT BEEN REMITTED TO THE GOVT. ACCOUNT/APPROPRIATE FUND WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA). AT TH E SAME TIME, IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS REMITTED THE EM PLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FIL ING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECI DED WHETHER SUCH DELAYED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 43B. AS CAN BE SEEN, THE HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TR ANSPORT CORPORATION (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST A SSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B. HOWEVER, IT IS WORTH MENTIONING, IN THE VERY SAME DECISION, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS REFERRED TO DECISIONS OF AT LEAST FOUR OTHER HIGH COURTS EXPRES SING THE VIEW THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI IF DEPOSITED WITHIN THE DUE 8 ITA NO. 143/H/13 AND OTHERS VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. DATE OF FILING RETURN U/S 139(1), SAME WOULD BE ALL OWABLE AS DEDUCTION. IN FACT, HONBLE HP HIGH COURT IN CASE O F NIPSO POLYFABRIKS LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING IDENTICAL ISSUE OF DELAYED REMITTANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI HAVE HELD T HAT BOTH EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI S TAND AT PAR AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B WOULD APPLY. THUS, AS CAN BE SEEN, WHILE THERE IS ONLY ONE DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE D EPARTMENT, THERE ARE DECISIONS OF AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, WHEN VIEW EXPRESSED ON A PARTIC ULAR ISSUE BY NON JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS ARE CONFLICTING AND THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE IS NOT AVAIL ABLE, THE PRINCIPLE TO BE FOLLOWED, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD., 88 ITR 192, IS THE VIEW FA VOURABLE TO ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ADOPTED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFO RESAID PROPOSITION OF LAW AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HO NBLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. NIPSO POLYFAB RIKS LTD. (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI RE MITTED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1), WILL BE AL LOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE BY DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 143 & 144/H/13 AND 61/H/14 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, W HEREAS, APPEALS OF REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 120 & 121/HYD/13 AND 18/HYD/14 ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 8 TH MAY, 2015 KV 9 ITA NO. 143/H/13 AND OTHERS VBC INDUSTRIES LTD. COPY TO:- 1) VBC INDUSTRIES LTD., 6-2-913/914, 3 RD FLOOR, PROGRESSIVE TOWERS, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD 500 004 2) DCIT, CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD 3 CIT(A)-IV, , HYDERABAD 4) CIT-III, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD.
