Tidel Park Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1404/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7949 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS.1403, 1404 & 1405/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07, 2006-07 & 2009-10 M/S TIDEL PARK LTD NO.4 RAJIV GANDHI SALAI TARAMANI, CHENNAI 600113 VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE III(2) CHENNAI [PAN AABCT 0666 R ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NOS.1554, 1555 & 1556/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07, 2006-07 & 2009-10 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE III(2) CHENNAI VS. M/S TIDEL PARK LTD NO.4 RAJIV GANDHI SALAI TARAMANI, CHENNAI 600113 ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. VI JAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 01 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 - 0 2 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, CHENNAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-0 7 AND 2009-10. ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 2 -: SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY T HIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN I .T.A.NO. 1404/MDS/2014, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISALL OWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSI TS MADE WITH BANKS. THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE FROM THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FR OM THE TENANTS FOR OCCUPYING THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE LD. COUNSE L FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN THE EAR LIER ASSESSMENT YEAR IN I.T.A.NO.750/MDS/2007, DATED 8.8.2008 AND IN I.T .A.NO.2104/ MDS/2011 DATED 27.9.2013 AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM BANK DEPOSITS. 3. WE HEARD SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. 4. DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE PROFIT DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING OR O PERATING AND MAINTAINING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES. IN THIS CAS E, ADMITTEDLY, THE INTEREST INCOME WAS NOT DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BUT FROM THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BA NKS. THEREFORE, ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 3 -: THE INTEREST INCOME HAS TO BE NECESSARILY CLASSIFIE D AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE I S NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME OTHER THAN INTEREST INCO ME. 6. SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY SAME ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED B Y THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO. 2123/MDS/2011 DATED 2.4.2013. THIS TRIBU NAL FOUND THAT THE LEASE RENT, RENT FROM AUDITORIUM ETC. ARE DERIVED F ROM INFRASTRUCTURE CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR E XEMPTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LEASE RENTAL AND RENT FROM AUDITORIUM ARE RENTAL INCOME AND IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS REC EIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CREATED AN INF RASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME FROM SUCH FACILITY. THE REFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT OTHER THAN THE IN TEREST FROM FIXED ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 4 -: DEPOSITS AND FROM OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THE RENTAL INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. IN FA CT, THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A.NO. 2123/MDS/2011 DATE D 2.4.2013 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 8 0IA IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME. BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET A SIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT EXEMPTION U /S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND TO EXCLUDE THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIAT ION IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF DEDUCTION U /S 80IA OF THE ACT. 10. WE HEARD SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE AND SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, LD. DR ALSO. 11. FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME FROM BANK, THE ASSESSE E IS NOT EXPECTED TO INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME F ROM FIXED DEPOSITS. IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME OTHER THAN THE INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80IA, THEREFORE, THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SURVIVE IN RESPECT O F THE INCOME FROM ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 5 -: OTHER SOURCES OTHER THAN THE INTEREST INCOME. THER EFORE, THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. 12. NOW, COMING TO I.T.A.NO.1403/MDS/2014 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07, CONSEQUENT TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESS MENT, THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS REOPENING OF ASSE SSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 13. SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 8.12.2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSE SSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 29.3.2011. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE REASON FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS DISALLOWA NCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. REFERRING TO THIRD PROVISO TO SEC. 147, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEA L BEFORE THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. EVEN OTHERWISE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT DUE TO CHANGE OF OPINION. THE LD. C OUNSEL HAS PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD, 320 ITR 561. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT CALLED FOR SPEC IFIC DETAILS WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. THE ASSESS EE HAS FURNISHED ALL ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 6 -: THE ITEMS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A FTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, RENT RECEIVED FROM THE PREMISES HAS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE RENT R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 8 0IA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING N OTICE U/S 148 AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION EVEN THOUGH THE REOPEN ING WAS WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN W HICH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. 15. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, LD. DR SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INCOME FROM AUDITOR IUM, REVENUE SHARING INCOME, INTEREST INCOME, OTHER INCOME, AND OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CHARGES. THE TOTAL RECEIPT WAS ` 15,56,96,944/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT CONSI DERED THE RECEIPT OF RENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 55,14,17,471/- AS INCOME DERIVED FROM INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT AND ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 8 0IA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSM ENT SUBSEQUENTLY BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 29.3.2011. SINCE THE INCOME WAS WRONGLY CLASSIFIED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM I NFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS RIGHTLY ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 7 -: REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY WITH REGARD TO REN TAL INCOME, IT WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THEREF ORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT IN RESPECT OF THE RENTAL INCOME AN APPEAL WAS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE DATE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VENUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION VS ACIT, 2 36 ITR 742, AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN EXPORT CRE DIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS ADDL. CIT, 350 ITR 407, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT. 16. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD T O CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME. 17. WE HEARD SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL AND SH RI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, LD. DR. 18. IT IS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND THE LD . DR THAT THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM FIXED DEPOSITS IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE DECIS ION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO.2104/MDS/2011 DATED 27.9.2013. IN RESP ECT OF OTHER ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 8 -: INCOME, AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, OTHER THAN TH E RENTAL INCOME, THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A.NO.21 23/MDS/2011, DATED 2.4.2013 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR E XEMPTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO. 2123/MDS/2011, IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME OTHER TH AN THE INTEREST INCOME, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/ S 80IA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE INTEREST INCOME IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF O PINION. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. ON MERIT, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T. A.NO. 2123/MDS/2011, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA I N RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME OTHER THAN INTEREST AND OTHER INCOME. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. 20. NOW, COMING TO I.T.A.NO.1405/MDS/2014 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH RE GARD TO INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 21. WE HEAD SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE. 22. ADMITTEDLY, THE INTEREST INCOME WAS CLASSIFIED AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO. 2 104/MDS/2011 DATED ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 9 -: 27.9.3013 IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO, THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME. 23. NOW COMING TO OTHER INCOME OTHER THAN INTEREST INCO ME, THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A.NO.2123/M DS/2011 DATED 2.4.2013 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR D EDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME, OTHER THAN OTH ER INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBU NAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME OTHER THAN I NTEREST AND OTHER INCOME. 24. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLO WANCE U/S 43B OF THE ACT. 25. SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 43B BY RAISING A SPECIFIC G ROUND AS GROUND NO.29 BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 10 -: 26. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTED LY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED DISALLOWANCE OF ` 6,58,782/- U/S 43B OF THE ACT AS GROUND NO.29 BEFORE THE CIT(A). THIS GROUND WAS NO T DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE MATTER NEEDS OF BE REMIT TED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR CONSIDERATION. 27. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED DISALLOWANCE OF ` 6,58,782/- U/S 43B OF THE ACT BEING PROVISION OF 80% OF CENVAT CREDIT AMOUNT RELATING T O SERVICE TAX. ADMITTEDLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS GROUND NO.29 WAS NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS TO DISPOSE O F THIS SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS GROUND NO.29. AC CORDINGLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DISAL LOWANCE OF ` 6,58,782/- U/S 43B IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SHALL CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 28. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ALTERNATIVE GROUND WITH REGARD TO EXCLUSION OF EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIATION WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 11 -: 29. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION ON MERIT, THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND DOES NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 30. NOW COMING TO REVENUES APPEALS I.T.A.NOS.1554, 155 5 & 1556/MDS/2014, THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS COMPUTATION OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IN RESPE CT OF LEASE RENT RECEIVED FOR OFFICE SPACE AND INFRASTRUCTURE FACILI TY, REVENUE SHARING INCOME, RENT FROM AUDITORIUM AND RENT FROM MODULES LESSEES. 31. WE HEARD SHRI PATHLAVATH PEERYA, LD. DR AND SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 32. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR IS THAT THE CIT(A ) FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO. 2104/MDS/20 11 DATED 27.9.2013 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS T RIBUNAL. 33. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THIS TRIBUNAL EXAM INED THIS ISSUE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR IN I.T.A.NO.2104/MDS/20 11 DATED 27.9.2013 AND FOUND THAT THE LEASE RENT RECEIVED FO R OFFICE SPACE, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, RENT FROM LESSEES, RENT FR OM AUDITORIUM ETC. ARE ITA NO.1403/14 ETC :- 12 -: ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION US 80IA OF THE ACT. THE ONL Y CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED AN APPEAL B EFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEF ORE THE HIGH COURT CANNOT BE A REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A.NO. 2104/MDS/2011 DATED 27.9.2013, WE FIND THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. 34. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. NOS.1403, 1404 & 1405/MDS/2014 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE REVENU ES APPEALS 1554, 1555 AND 1556/MDS/2014 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 RD !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 4. ) / CIT 2. #*'( / RESPONDENT 5. %+, # - / DR 3. ) () / CIT(A) 6. ,/ 0 / GF