ACIT, Jamshepur V. M/s. Metaldyne Indutries Ltd., Jamshepur

ITA 121/RAN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0036 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHOUDHURY ORAON
• Assessee Lawyers: R R MITTAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 10B

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 121/RAN/2012, AY 2006-07 METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI [BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M. BALAGAN ESH, AM] I.T.A NO. 121/RAN/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. M/S. META LDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. CIRCLE-2, JAMSHEDPUR 7 TH PHASE, NEAR OMNI AUTO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, GAMHARIA, JAMSHEDPUR (PAN: AADCS0431P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & C.O. NO. 01/RAN/2013 IN I.T.A NO. 121/RAN/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ASSTT. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2, JAMSHEDPUR (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING: 07.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.09.2016 FOR THE REVENUE: SHRI CHOUDHURY ORAON, DR FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI R. R. MITTAL, CA ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSES SEE ARE ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMSHEDPUR VIDE APPEAL NO. 227/JSR /2009-10 DATED 31.08.2012. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAMSHEDPUR U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR AY 2006-07 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2009. 2. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR COMPUTATIO N OF BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT IN GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 AND COMPUTATION OF PRO FIT U/S. 10B UNDER NORMAL COMPUTATION OF THE ACT IN GROUND NO. 5. 2.1. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER OF AUTO ANCILLARY, INCORPORATED IN 1991 FOR PRECISION MACHINING OF COM PONENTS. LATER ON, IT ENTERED 2 ITA NO. 121/RAN/2012, AY 2006-07 METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. INTO A JOINT VENTURE WITH METALDYNE INC. USA WHICH HOLDS 51% OF THE TOTAL EQUITY BASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PRODUCT OF THE COMPANY I S BEING SOLD IN INDIA AS WELL AS OUTSIDE INDIA. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESS UNITS. (A) INDIAN BUSINESS UNIT (IBU) WHICH IS SITUATED AT 21A PHASE VI INDUSTRIAL AREA, GAMHARIA, JAMSHEDPUR AND REGISTERED WITH THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES VIDE REGISTRATION NO. AADCS0431PXM001. (B) EXPORT BUSINESS UNIT (EBU) WHICH IS SITUATED AT B 12 (PART) 13 & 14 PHASE VII INDUSTRIAL AREA, GAMHARIA, JAMSHEDPUR AND REGIS TERED WITH THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES VIDE REGISTRATION NO. AADCS0431PXM002. 2.2. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR DECLARED NIL INCO ME UNDER THE NORMAL COMPUTATION AND HAD DECLARED RS.31,77,675/- U/S. 11 5JB OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENT TO THE BOOK PROFIT DETERMINED THE SAME AT RS.2,47,94,779/-. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE ARE INTER-CONNECTED WITH THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT R. W.S. 115JB OF THE ACT AS WELL AS UNDER NORMAL COMPUTATION. HENCE, THEY ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2.2.1. THE LD. AO ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF OTHE R INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.2,00,85,600/- OF THE EBU UNIT FOUND THAT INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.72,70,685/- OUT OF THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS RECEIPT FRO M EBU. FURTHER, THE LD. AO DID NOT CONSIDER AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,37,24,814/- BEING EX PORT PROCEEDS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2006 AND NOT RECEIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND REDUCED THE SAME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 10B(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO RECALCULATED THE BOOK PROFIT AFTER MAKING THE AB OVE ADJUSTMENTS. THE LD. AO DETERMINED THE EXPORT TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OMPUTATION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AS UNDER: EXPORT INCOME AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE RS.25,62,96,278/- LESS 1. SALE OF SCRAP RS.52,49,709/- 3 ITA NO. 121/RAN/2012, AY 2006-07 METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. 2. LIABILITIES NO LONGER REQUIRED WRITTEN BACK RS. 3,13,456/- 3. INTEREST RECEIVED FROM EFFECTIVE MARKETING RS. 54,803/- 4. INTEREST RECEIVED FROM FD WITH UTI BANK RS. 32,930/- 5. INTEREST RECEIVED FROM FD WITH SBI BANK RS. 5,090/- 6. INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED RS. 5,91,976/- 7. MISC. INCOME RS.10,22,721/- RS.72,70,685/- BALAN CE RS.24,90,25,593/- LESS: EXPORT PROCEEDS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2006 NOT RECEIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. HENCE, REDUCE AS PER S. 10B(3) OF THE ACT. RS.1,37,24,814/- ADJUSTED EXPORT TURNOVER RS.23,53,00,779/- 2.3. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AFORESAID ITEMS OF RS.72,70,685/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN EITHER TREATED AS EXPORT INCOME OR REDUCED FRO M EXPORT EXPENDITURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED BACK IN THE NORMAL COMPUTATION A SUM OF RS.1,37,24,814/- WHILE CLAIMIN G EXEMPTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AS THE ABOVEMENTIONED AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN RECEI VED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SU B-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT AND COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. THE LD. AO IN COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT FOR CALCULATION OF TAX U/S. 115JB OF TH E ACT HAS DEDUCTED RS.1,37,24,814/- U/S. 10B(3) OF THE ACT AS THE EXPO RT PROCEEDS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2006 HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT THE LD. AO HAVING REDUCED THE EXPORT TURNOVER BY RS.1,37,24,814/- DID NOT REDUCE THE REL ATED EXPENDITURE TO THE SAID EXPORT PROCEEDS DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE ADDITIO N OF EXPENDITURE U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE ALL OWED RS.1,37,24,814/- AS EXPORT INCOME OR REDUCED THE RELATED EXPENDITURE PR OPORTIONATELY WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE VERSION OF THE AO THAT RS.72,70,685/- REPRESENTS OTHER INCOME NOT CONNECTED WITH EXPORT BUSINESS UNIT AND HENCE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, FOUND FORCE I N THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO EXPORT INCOME SHOULD BE REDUCED WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.72,70,685/- AS NOT EXPORT INCOME OF EB U AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED 4 ITA NO. 121/RAN/2012, AY 2006-07 METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT BUT AT THE SAME T IME HAS ADDED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF EBU AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION (1) OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, WHICH INCL UDES THE EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF INCOME OF RS.72,70,685/-. HE, THEREFORE , HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO WITHOUT REDUCING THE EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EAR NING OF RS.72,70,685/- TO THAT EXTENT WAS NOT CORRECT. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.72,70,685/- SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM EXP ORT EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE SAME WAS LEGALLY NOT TENABLE. TH E LD. AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 20.07.2012 SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INCOME OF RS.72,70,685/- WAS NOT RELATED TO EBU, SO QUESTION OF REDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE ALS O DOES NOT ARISE. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS OF INCOME FO RMING PART OF RS.72,70,685/- COULD NOT BE EARNED IN THIN AIR WITHOUT HAVING RELA TED EXPENDITURE IN EARNING SUCH INCOME. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLIS HED THE DETAILS OF QUANTITATIVE STATEMENT FILED WHEREIN IT WAS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE SCRAP WAS INDEED GENERATED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS WHICH INVOLV ES COST AND SUCH COST WOULD RELATE TO EARNING OF SCRAP INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRECISE SCIENTIFIC FORMULA TO DETERMINE THE RELATED EXPENSES TO SUCH ITEMS OF INCOME, THE EXPENDITURE TO SUCH ITEMS OF INCOME WOULD BE APPORTIONED IN THE PROPORT ION OF INCOME NOT FALLING U/S. 10B OF THE ACT (X) TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF EBU UNIT / I.E. DIVIDED BY TOTAL SALES OF EBU UNIT. 2.4. THE LD. AO HAS DISALLOWED THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO BE NON-EXPORT INCOME AND NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT: (I) SALE OF SCRAP RS.52,49,709/- (II) LIABILITIES NO LONGER REQUIRED WRITTEN BACK RS . 3,13,456/- (III)INTEREST RECEIVED FROM EFFECTIVE MARKETING RS. 54,803/- (IV)INTEREST RECEIVED FROM FD WITH UTI BANK RS. 32,930/- (V) INTEREST RECEIVED FROM FD WITH SBI BANK RS. 5,090/- (VI) MISC. INCOME RS.10,22,721/- (VII) INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED RS. 5,91,976 RS.72,70,685/- 5 ITA NO. 121/RAN/2012, AY 2006-07 METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. 2.5. IN RESPECT OF THE ITEMS AT (I) I.E., SALE OF S CRAP AMOUNTING TO RS.52,49,709/- EXPENDITURE RELATING TO EARNING OF SUCH INCOME WOUL D BE ELIGIBLE FOR REDUCTION FROM THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE RELATING TO EBU AS THE SAME I S GENERATED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. HOWEVER, AS PER DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS SEEN THAT GROSS VALUE OF SALE OF SCRAP INCOME WAS RS.45,13,162/- AN D THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS EXCISE DUTY (RS.7,22,105/-) AND EDUCATION CESS OF R S.14,442/-. IN THE EBU UNIT, NO EXCISE DUTY WAS PAYABLE, AND, THEREFORE, NO EXCISE COST/EXPENDITURE WAS INVOLVED. THEREFORE, THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP A MOUNTING TO RS.45,13,162/- WOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED FOR TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TH E EXPENDITURE RELATING TO EARNING OF RS.45,13,162/- AND NOT RS.52,49,709/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF THE ITEM AT SL. NO. (II) I.E. LIABILITIES NO LONGER WRITTEN BACK AMOUNTING TO RS.3,13,456/- BY ITS VERY NATURE THE EXPENSES RELAT ING TO EARNING OF THE INCOME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. DUR ING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR AND, THEREFORE, EXPENSES RELATING TO EARNING OF RS. 3,13,456/- WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR REDUCTION. IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EARNED AT SL . NOS. (III), (IV) AND (V) THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR RELATED TO EARNING OF SUCH INCOME AND, THEREFORE, EXPENDITURE RELATING TO EARNING OF SUCH INCOME WOULD ALSO NOT BE ENTITLED FOR REDUCTION. IN RESPECT OF ITEM NO. (VI), AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE FIGURE OF MISCELLANEOUS INCOME WAS CLAIM ED RELATING TO EBU ON SALES RATIO. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF MISCE LLANEOUS INCOME AGGREGATING THE INCOME RELATING TO IBU AND EBU UNITS DURING THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 0 8.12.2011 WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO REMAND TO THE AO, THAT CASH DISCOUNT FROM ARUSH METAL CASTING LTD., AMOUNTING TO RS.12,92,010/- RELATED TO COST OF RAW MATERIALS PURCHASED IN EBU UNIT AND, THEREFORE, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT ALSO EXPEN DITURE WOULD BE REDUCED. IN RESPECT OF ITEM AT SL. NO. (VII) I.E. INSURANCE CLA IM RECEIVED AMOUNTING TO RS.5,91,976/- EXPENDITURE RELATING TO EARNING OF SU CH INCOME WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR REDUCTION AS THE CLAIM HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF ITEM MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN RESPECT OF EBU UNIT. THEREFORE, IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS OF THE INCOME, EXPENDITURE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF 6 ITA NO. 121/RAN/2012, AY 2006-07 METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. RS.25,52,29,458/- ADDED BY THE AO AS EXPENDITURE UN DER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. (I) SALE OF SCRAP RS. 45,13,162/- (II) INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED RS. 5,91,976/ - (III) MISC. INCOME (CASH DISCOUNT FROM ARUSH RS. 1 2,92,010/- METAL CASTING LTD. IN EBU DIVISION) RS. 63,97,148 /- 2.6. WITH REGARD TO REDUCTION OF RELATABLE EXPENSES TO EXPORT INCOME NOT REALIZED WITHIN SIX MONTHS (RS.1,37,24,814/-), THE LD. CIT(A ) OBSERVED THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE EXPORT FROM ITS EBU UNIT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,37,24,814/- AND SUCH INCOME CANNOT BE EARNED WITHOUT RELATED EX PENSES BEING INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE R ELATED EXPENSES WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION (1) OF SECTION 115JB(2) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FO RMULA GIVEN IN THE ACT, THE RELATED EXPENSES WILL BE REDUCED IN THE PROPORTION OF EXPOR T INCOME DISALLOWED U/S. 10B(3) OF THE ACT (X) TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF EBU UNIT / TOTAL SALES OF EBU UNIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE BOO K PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT OF RS.47,56,574/- AS AGAINST RS.2,47,94,779/- COMPU TED BY THE LD. AO. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND ALLOW PROPORT IONATE EXPENDITURE ON CERTAIN INCOME EARNED FROM EXPORT BUSINESS WHERE NO EXPEND ITURE WAS INVOLVED TO EARN SUCH INCOME. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT RECEIPT FROM SALE OF SCRAP IN INDIAN MARKET IS NEITHER REIMBURSEMENT NOR ANY E XPENDITURE CAN BE CORRELATED WITH TURNOVER IN FORM OF SALE OF SCRAP. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO APPRECIATE THE PROVISIONS MENTIONED IN THE CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SUB-SECTION 2 OF 115JB. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS FOR DETERMINING THE ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT AND IT REQUIRES TO BE RESTORED . 2.7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROU GH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GIVEN A VERY ELABORATE FINDING IN ITS 7 ITA NO. 121/RAN/2012, AY 2006-07 METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. APPELLATE ORDER AFTER ANALYZING EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF DISPUTE RELATABLE TO NON- EXPORT INCOME ACCORDING TO LD. AO AND HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT AT A MUCH LESSER FIGURE AS STATED SUPRA. WE FIND THAT FACTUALLY NONE OF THE FINDINGS AND THE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER WERE CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US BY PRODUCING CONTRARY EVIDENCE. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 3. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF BOTH IBU AND EBU INSTEAD OF TAKING THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF EBU ALONE WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTI ON U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 5: 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO WRONGLY INTERPRETE D THE PROVISION OF CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S. 10B. HE HAS CONSIDERED TOTAL TURNOV ER OF THE EXPORT BUSINESS UNIT (EBU), HOWEVER ACTS PROVIDE TO TAKE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS (I.E. TURNOVER OF IBU + EBU). 3.1. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROU GH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOI NG INTO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B(1)/10B(4) OF THE ACT OBSERVED THAT THE SAID SECTION PROVIDES THAT PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE EXPORT UNDERTAKING AS WELL AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE EXPORT UNDERTAKING HAS TO B E CONSIDERED WHILE DETERMINING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT AND NOT OF THE EN TIRE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT BOTH IBU A ND EBU UNDERTAKING. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ARE VERY CATEG ORICAL AND THE EXPRESSION USED THEREIN IS EXPORT UNDERTAKING AND THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT IS UNDERTAKING SPECIFIC AND NOT ASSESSEE SPECIFIC. BASED ON THIS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO MODIFY THE DEDUCTION AND ALLOW RS.1,16,44,875/- INSTEAD OF RS.1,02,18,138/- ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AFTER DETAILED VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNTS AND WORKINGS OF DEDUCT ION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. NONE OF THESE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS WERE CONTROVERTED B Y THE REVENUE BEFORE US. WE DO 8 ITA NO. 121/RAN/2012, AY 2006-07 METALDYNE INDUSTRIES LTD. NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 5 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND HENCE, THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AN D THE CO OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.09.2016 SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED :9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A), 4. 5. CIT DR, ITAT, RANCHI / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .