ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1469/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6217 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Capital expenditure; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 143(1); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE, SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1006/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/S KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD., A-60, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI-110 048 PANAAAAK 0203G VS. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1469/DEL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S KRISHAK BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD., A-60, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI-110 048 PANAAAAK 0203G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. K.V.S.R KRISHNA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. VIPUL KASHYAP, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 16.06.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13.09.2021 2 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: ITA NO.1006/DEL/2017 IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER DATED 28.12.2016 PASSED BY THE THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, NEW DELHI {CIT(A)} FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREAS ITA NO.1469/DEL/2017 IS THE DEPARTMENTS CROSS APPEAL FOR THE SAME YEAR. 2.0 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND IT COMES UNDER THE ADMINISTRA TIVE CONTROL OF DEPARTMENT OF FERTILIZERS, UNDER GOVERNMENT OF INDI A. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF VARIOUS TYPES OF FERTILIZERS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED RETURNING AN INCOME OF RS.2,46,76,43,880/-. THE CASE WAS INITIALLY PROCESSE D U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE A CT) AND WAS LATER SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.23,09,967/- HAD BEEN CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF AMORT IZATION OF LEASE HOLD LAND. SINCE, DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT HAD BEEN MADE 3 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 ALSO ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THIS AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED IN T HE CURRENT YEAR ALSO. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO M ADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,36,46,815/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT INCOME OF RS.25,53,60,06 0/-. 2.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO RS.50,53,792/- THEREBY GIVING THE RELIEF OF RS.7,85 ,93,023/- OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,36,46,815/-. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD TH E ADDITION OF RS.23,09,967/- WITH RESPECT TO THE LEASE HOLD PAYMEN TS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. 2.2 NOW, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMEN T HAVE APPROACHED THIS TRIBUNAL AND HAVE RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 4 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1006/DEL/2017 (ASSESSEE S APPEAL) 1. THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,09,967/- BEING AMORTIZATION O F LEASE PAYMENT. THESE ARE ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE F OR DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 2. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT AMORTIZATION OF THESE EXPENSES OVER THE PERIOD OF THE LEASE IS REVENUE EX PENDITURE AND IS IN THE NATURE OF RENT PAID FOR THE USE OF LA ND. IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS THE ASSESSEE D OES NOT GET ANY LEGAL TITLE OR ANY RIGHT OVER THE LAND. 3. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,53,792/- U/S 14A R.W.R. 8 D OF THE INCOME TAX RULE 1962. THE DISALLOWANCE IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE A O HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW NEXUS BETWEE N EXPENDITURE AND EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. NO DISALL OWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D CAN BE MADE. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT RULE 8D C AN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE A.O. FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SOME EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCUR RED FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. RULE 8D HAS BEEN MECHANICA LLY INVOKED BY A.O. WITHOUT ESTABLISHING SUCH NEXUS. CO NSEQUENTLY, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D OF RS.50,53,792/ - SHOULD BE DELETED. 6. THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJU DICE TO ONE AND ANOTHER. 5 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1469/DEL/2017 (DEPARTME NTS APPEAL) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,36,46,815/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A TO RS.50,53 ,792/- THEREBY GIVING RELIEF OF RS.7,85,93,023/- BY OBSERV ING THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A, IF INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT YIELD ANY T AX FREE INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF IN AS MUCH AS ON ON E HAND HE SAYS THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A IF TH E INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT YIELD ANY T AX FREE INCOME IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND HE SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAX FREE INCOME IN THE F ORM OF DIVIDEND OF RS.2,43,75,000/-, WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIME D AS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE IT ACT. DESPITE THE ABOVE CONTRADICTION THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,36,46,815/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A TO RS.50 ,53,792/- ONLY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER RULE 8D(2) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NO T FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE 1 ST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, SHOULD BE TAKEN WHILE COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE. 6 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN EXCLUDING THE INVESTMENTS IN NA GARJUNA FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KRIBHCO SHYAM FERTIL IZERS CO. LTD., URAVARAK VIDESH LIMITED, WHICH DID NOT YIELD INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, FOR ARRIVING AT AVERAGE V ALUE OF INVESTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 5. THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RAISE ANY FUR THER AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE ITEM OF HEARING ORAL ARGUMENTS INCLUDING RELIANCE ON ADDITIONAL CASE LAW S. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-10, NEW DELHI BEING CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE SETTLED POS ITION OF LAW, BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED. 3.0 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (A R) SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RUL E-8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WAS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD INCORRECTLY COMPUTED THE RELIEF TO BE ALLOWED TO TH E ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE LIST OF INVESTM ENTS HELD/MADE BY THE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AS REPRODUCED IN PAGES, 16,17 & 18 OF THE FIRST APPELL ATE ORDER. OUR 7 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO INVESTMENT BEARING SERIAL NO.4 IN THE TABLE REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS AFORES AID AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS PERTAINED TO EQUITY INVESTMENT IN GUJRAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,43,75, 000/- HAD BEEN RECEIVED AS DIVIDEND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY INVESTMENT WHICH HAD YIELDED DIVIDEND WHICH WAS TAX FREE AND, THEREFORE, ONLY THIS INVESTMENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACB INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT AND CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT AND NUMEROUS OTHER JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND ARGUED THAT THE INVESTMENT WHICH DO NOT YIELD T AX FREE INCOME ARE NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DISALL OWANCE AND CONSEQUENTLY NO INVESTMENT WHICH COULD NOT YIELD ANY TAX FREE INCOME SHOULD FORM PART OF THE RULE-8D COMPUTATION. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN IN PARA 4.2.9, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THIS PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CAN BE MADE U/S 14A WHERE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D ALSO THAT 8 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE-8D WILL HAVE TO BE MADE IN R ESPECT OF INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX FREE INCOME ONLY DURING TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE L D. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN PRINCIPLE AND HAD ALLOWED RELIEF IN THIS REGARD BUT HE HAD, WHILE RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.30,37,500/- IN PAGE 40 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER HA D ERRED IN RECORDING THE FINDING AS RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWAN CE TO RS.50,53,792/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS A MIS TAKE WHICH WAS VERY MUCH APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ITSELF. THE LD. AR ALSO FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD INCLUDED THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE ALSO ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST FREE RESERVES AVAILABLE WITH I T TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT IN THE EQUITY OF THE GUJRAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE L D. CIT(A) WAS ERRONEOUS ON THIS COUNT ALSO. 3.1 WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSEES OTHER GRIEVANCE REGARDING AMORTIZATION OF LEASE PAYMENT, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIM ED AMORTIZATION 9 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT OF LEASE RENT AMOUNTING TO RS.23,09,967/- AND SINCE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005- 06, 2006- 07, 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO DIS ALLOW THE SAME IN THIS YEAR ALSO. THE LD. AR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD ALSO DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE ISSUE. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT ALTHOUGH THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT HAD HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITT ED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSID ERED BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HAD BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF MARKET RATE WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE PAID, HAD IT NOT BEEN ACQUIRING THE LAND ON LEASE A ND USED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF OFFICE BUILDING. THE LD. AR PRAY ED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PU RPOSE OF DE NOVO EXAMINATION AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL I NFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 4.0 PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. DR, ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT RELIED ON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND ON THE 10 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT ISSUE OF AMORTIZATION OF LEASE RENT, THE LD. SR. DR HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 5.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF DISA LLOWANCE U/S 14A IS CONCERNED, WE NOTE THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE PR EFERRED CROSS APPEALS ON THE ISSUE. WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE D EPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY AND WE NOTE THAT IN PAGE 40 OF HIS ORDER, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS B EEN COMPUTED AT RS.30,37,500/- BUT WHILE RECORDING A FINDING OF THE SAME, HE HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.50,53,792/-. THIS IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE AND THE SAME NEEDS RECTIFICATION. THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO OBJECTED TO THE INCLUSION OF THE INTEREST PORTION WH ILE COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FREE RESERVES TO MAKE INVESTMENTS IN THE EQUITY OF THE G UJRAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE WOULD NECESSARILY REQUIRE VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS F AR AS THE 11 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT DEPARTMENTS CHALLENGE TO THE DELETION OF DISALLOWA NCE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S GIVEN A VERY CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT IT WAS ONLY THE ASSESSEES INVESTMENT IN GUJRAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. WHICH HAD YIELDE D TAX FREE DIVIDEND AND WHICH, THEREFORE, WAS LIABLE TO BE INCL UDED IN COMPUTATION FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONING FOR INCLUDING ONLY THE INVESTMEN T IN GUJRAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATI ON OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE HAS RELIED ON JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ALSO. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO REASON TO DIFFER FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ONLY THE I NVESTMENT IN GUJRAT STATE ENERGY GENERATION LTD. HAS TO BE CONSI DERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.RU LE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THEREFORE, GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. 5.1 AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION REGA RDING NON INCLUSION OF THE INTEREST COMPONENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUT ATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX R ULES, 1962 IS 12 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT CONCERNED, IT WILL BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS, IF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINES THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FREE RESERVES FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS AND, THEREFORE, NO INTER EST COMPONENT SHOULD BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS ON THE ISSUE ARE ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5.2 AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF AMORTIZATION OF LE ASE PAYMENT IS CONCERNED, SINCE IT IS THE ASSESSEE PLEA THAT ADDIT IONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND T HE ISSUE BE RE- EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SINCE THE LD. SR. DR HAS ALSO AGREED THAT THE ISSUE BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE-EXAMINING THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEING PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER GI VING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE. TH US THIS GROUND ALSO STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13 ITA NOS.1006 & 1469/DEL/2017 KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. ACIT 6.0 IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE D EPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. \ ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13/09/2021 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DEHRADUN