Olympus Elevator Private Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 149/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4287 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR SHRI SA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Wholly owned subsidiary; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 37(1); 32

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B, CHENNAI , ! ' #! ' $ . %& , ' () * BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA NOS.148 & 149/MDS/2015 ' + !,+ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200-10 OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT. LTD., BY L/R KONE ELEVATOR INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.50-55, VANAGARAM ROAD, CHENNAI 600 095. [PAN: AAACO 7123P] VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE RANGE-V(1), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) -. 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE 23-. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANATH KUMAR RAHA, JT. CIT ' ! 0 4 / DATE OF HEARING : 15.05.2017 5, 0 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.06.2017 /ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS IS A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARISI NG OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 21.10.2014 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-V, CHENNAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT), DISMISSING THE ASSESS EES APPEALS CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENTS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10 DATED 30.12.2011. ITA NO.148/MDS/2015 2 ITA NOS.148 & 149/MDS/2015 (AY 2009-10) OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT. L TD. V. ASST. CIT 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL I S THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THE SUM OF . 32,52,541/- IN RESPECT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT WRITTEN OFF. THE REASON FOR ITS DISALLOWANCE BY TH E REVENUE IS THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN FORFEITED BY THE CUSTOMERS DUE TO BREACH/S OF THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, SO THAT IT IS PENAL IN NATURE, ATTRACTING EXPLANATION TO S. 37(1). 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE MATTER THAT NEEDS TO BE CL ARIFIED IS IF THE CLAIM IS U/S. 36(1)(VII) OR U/S. 37(1). THIS IS IN VIEW OF THE C ONTRARY CLAIMS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT AND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WHILE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IT CONTENDED THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN DED UCTED BY THE CUSTOMERS FROM THE AMOUNTS DUE TO IT, SO THAT THE IMPUGNED SU MS, SUBSEQUENTLY WRITTEN OFF, STAND CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT (INCOME STATEMENT) OF THE RELEVANT YEAR, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, PER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE IMPUGNED SUMS ALSO INCLUDE AMOUNTS WHICH STAND PAID UPFRONT TO THE CONCERNED CUSTOMERS AT THE TIME OF APPLYING FOR THE CONTRACT OR AT THE TIME OF ITS AWARD, TO SECURE PERFORMANCE THEREOF. THE DIFFERENC E ASSUMES SIGNIFICANCE AS IT IS ONLY IN THE CASE OF THE LATTER, I.E., DEDUCTION U/S. 37(1), THAT EXPLANATION THERETO CAN APPLY. TWO, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT IS ONLY IN CASE OF A CLAIM U/S. 36(1)(VII), I.E., QUA A BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE, THAT THE C LAIM SHALL ARISE IN THE YEAR OF ITS WRITE OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. A CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE OR BUSINESS LOSS (FALLING U/S. 28(I )) SHALL FALL IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LOSS ARISES, I.E., IN THE YEAR THERE IS/WAS A B REACH OF CONTRACT BY THE ASSESSEE, LEADING TO THE (PROPORTIONATE) AMOUNT BEING NOT REF UNDABLE, RESULTING IN A LOSS TO THAT EXTENT. THE ASSESSEE IN FACT CLAIMS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO BREACH OF CONTRACT BY IT, AND THE AMOUNT STANDS WRITTEN OFF AS THE REC OVERY OF THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT/S, DESPITE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT AND DUE PE RFORMANCE BY IT, WOULD ENTAIL AN EXPENDITURE HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT/S TO B E RECOVERED, NECESSITATING A BUSINESS DECISION IN WRITING OFF THE SAME. THIS IS BIZARRE, YET, IF TRUE, THE 3 ITA NOS.148 & 149/MDS/2015 (AY 2009-10) OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT. L TD. V. ASST. CIT ASSESSEE, AS A BUSINESS ENTITY, IS ENTITLED TO ITS CLAIM OF THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF AS BUSINESS LOSS. LOSS BECOMES ALLOWABLE IF IT SPRINGS DIRECTLY FROM AND IS INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ( CIT V. ABDULLABHAI ABDULKADAR [1961] 41 ITR 545 (SC)). THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PE NALTY OR THE DEBILITY OF EXPLANATION TO S. 37(1) BEING ATTRACTED. WHILE THE REVENUE ALL EGES BREACH OF CONTRACT BY THE ASSESSEE AND, IN ANY CASE, FORFEITU RE OF THE AMOUNT/S BY ITS CUSTOMERS, IN WHICH EITHER CASE THE YEAR/S OF DEDUC TION BECOMES RELEVANT, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS IT AS NOT SO. THERE IS THUS INCON SISTENCY NOT ONLY IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CLAIMS, BUT ALSO CONTRARY CLAIMS BY THE PARTIES, SO THAT THE CORRECT FACTS WOULD NEED TO BE ASCERTAINED AND BROUGHT ON R ECORD. THIS IS IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS, WITH CONCOMITANT IMPLICATIONS, THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY. THE MATTER IS FACTUALLY INDETERMINATE, AND WOULD RE QUIRE BEING PROVED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, WHICH IS CONSPICUOUS B Y ITS ABSENCE. THERE IS THEN THE ISSUE OF THE DEBT BEING DUE FROM GOVERNMENT/GOV ERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS, MAKING THE CLAIM OF A DEBT BEING NOT REALIZABLE OR EVEN OF ENTAILING EXPENDITURE THAT MUCH IMPROPER, I.E., ASSUMING, AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO BREACH OF CONTRACT (REFER: SOUTH INDIA SURGICAL V. ASST. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 62 (MAD)). THE MATTER, WHICH IS PRINCIPALLY FACTUAL, IS, ACCOR DINGLY, SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RESTORED THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRE SH DETERMINATION. HERE IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT A DEBT WRITTEN OFF U/S . 36(1)(VII) HAS TO BE, NEVERTHELESS, A GENUINE CLAIM ( DIT(IT) V. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK SAOG [2009] 313 ITR 128 (BOM)). 4. THE SECOND ISSUE ARISING IN THE ASSESSEES APPEA L IS QUA THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF A LIABILITY/S WRITTEN BACK IN ACCOUNTS ( TO THE INCOME ACCOUNT), BEING NO LONGER REQUIRED, I.E., AS NOT REPRESENTING A LIA BILITY OR ANTICIPATED EXPENDITURE. THE BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT. LTD., ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ELEVATORS AND SUPPL Y OF ELEVATOR COMPONENTS, 4 ITA NOS.148 & 149/MDS/2015 (AY 2009-10) OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT. L TD. V. ASST. CIT ACQUIRED THE DIVISION MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLYING E LEVATORS (UNDER THE BRAND NAME OLYMPUS) OF THE M/S. BHARAT BIJLEE LTD. (BBL ), ALONG WITH BRAND OLYMPUS, AND WHERE-AFTER ITS NAME WAS CHANGED FROM TIGER ELEVATORS LTD. TO ITS PRESENT NAME, UNDER THE SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT U /S. 391 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, EFFECTIVE 01.04.2004, THE APPOINTED DATE UNDER THE ARRANGEMENT. WHILE CALCULATING THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION, BY VA LUING ASSETS AND LIABILITIES BEING TAKEN OVER (AS ON 31.03.2004), PROVISIONS FOR EXPENDITURE FOR COMPLETING WORK AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (AT . 694.01 LACS) WERE MADE I.E., ON ESTIMATED BASIS, DEDUCTING THE SAME FROM THE PURCHASE CONSIDE RATION (VALUATION REPORT AT PB PGS. 12-13). THE EXPENDITURE SUBSEQUENTLY INCUR RED TOWARD THE SAME BEING ONLY . 285.33 LACS, THE OUTSTANDING IN THE PROVISION ACC OUNTS AS ON 31.03.2009, I.E., . 408.67 LACS, WAS THEREFORE DEEMED SURPLUS, NECESS ITATING ITS WRITE BACK IN ACCOUNTS, WHICH WAS TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS AMOUNT WAS NEITHER INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115 JB NOR AS INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE VIEW OF THE AO , EXPLANATION 1(I) TO S. 115JB(2), READING AS UNDER, STOOD ATTRACTED: SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF TAX BY CERTAIN CO MPANIES. 115JB. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHERE IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE, BEING A COM PANY,. (2) EVERY ASSESSEE,- (A) - (B) EXPLANATION 1 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, BOOK PROFIT MEA NS THE NET PROFIT AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR PREPARED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), AS INCREASED B Y ( A ) - ( B ).. ( C ) THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS SET ASIDE TO PROVISIONS MAD E FOR MEETING LIABILITIES, OTHER THAN ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES; OR ( D ) - ( I ).. IF ANY AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES (A) TO ( I ) IS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AND AS REDUCED BY, (I) THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM ANY RESERVE OR PROVISION (EXCLUDING A RESERVE CREATED BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997 OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF A DEBIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT), IF ANY SUCH AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT; PROVIDED THAT WHERE THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSE E IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM RESERVES CREATED OR PROVISIONS MADE IN A PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMME NCING ON OR AFTER THE 5 ITA NOS.148 & 149/MDS/2015 (AY 2009-10) OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT. L TD. V. ASST. CIT 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997 SHALL NOT BE REDUCED FROM TH E BOOK PROFIT UNLESS THE BOOK PROFIT OF SUCH YEAR HAS BEEN INCREASED BY THOS E RESERVES OR PROVISIONS (OUT OF WHICH THE SAID AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN) UNDER THIS EXPLANATION OR EXPLANATION BELOW THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 115JA, AS THE C ASE MAY BE; OR ( II ) TO ( VIII ).. HE, ACCORDINGLY, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ADDIN G THIS AMOUNT TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF . 660.47 LACS, ASSESSING THE BUSINESS INCOME AT . 1101.67 LACS. IN APPEAL, THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED FOR THE S AME REASON/S, WITH THE ASSESSEE BEING, DESPITE THE MATTER BEING REMANDED T O THE AO, UNABLE TO IMPROVE ITS CASE IN ANY MANNER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. WE ARE COMPLETELY AT LOSS TO UNDERSTAND THE REVENU ES CASE. TO BEGIN WITH, WHILE THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED BY THE AO U/S. 115JB, I.E., UNDER WHICH SECTION THE ADJUSTMENT IS PROPOSED TO BE MADE , THE ADDITION IS MADE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. FURTHER STILL, TH E PROVISION OF S. 41(1) HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN-AS-MUCH AS NO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISION/S, SINCE WRITTEN BACK, STANDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE. IN FACT, IN-AS-MUCH AS THE RELEVANT PROVISION/S HAS NO T BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR ANY YEAR, ITS REVERSAL, TO TH E EXTENT MADE, SHALL NOT ATTRACT EXPLANATION 1(I) TO S. 115JB (2), WHICH HAS A DIRECT REFERENCE TO EXPLANATION 1(C) (SUPRA). THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS THEREFORE WITHOU T ANY BASIS, BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS, AND IS HEREBY DIRECTED FOR DELETION. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE LD. AR WAS QUESTION ED BY THE BENCH AS TO WHY, THE PROVISION BEING ON ACCOUNT OF THE LIABILIT IES IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS TAKEN OVER, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO REPRESEN TING THE ACQUISITION COST OF THE LATTER, WAS THE PROVISION/S, ON BEING FOUND TO BE IN EXCESS, NOT WRITTEN BACK TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE RELEVANT ASSETS, BEING IMPLI EDLY OVERSTATED (OVER-VALUED) TO THAT EXTENT. THE REASON IS SIMPLE. THE ASSETS, I RRESPECTIVE OF THEIR FAIR MARKET VALUES - AT WHICH THEY WERE OSTENSIBLY TAKEN OVER, HAVE COSTED THE ASSESSEE THAT 6 ITA NOS.148 & 149/MDS/2015 (AY 2009-10) OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT. L TD. V. ASST. CIT MUCH LESS. IN FACT, THE CONFUSION IN THE PRESENT CA SE HAS ARISEN PRINCIPALLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE PASSING A WRONG JOURNAL ENT RY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON REVERSAL OF THE PROVISION, I.E., CREDITING THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF THE ASSET/S ACCOUNT/S INASMUCH AS IT SHALL GO TO REDUCE THE COST OF THE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON THE TAKEOVER OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ELEVATOR DIV ISION OF BBL. THE LD. AR COULD NOT FURNISH ANY ANSWER, MUCH LESS SATISFACTOR Y. THE ASSETS TAKEN OVER THUS OUTSTAND IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS AT AMOUNTS HIGH ER THAN THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED IN ACQUIRING THE SAME, RESULTING IN ADDITI ONAL CHARGE OF DEPRECIATION. THIS IS AGAINST ALL PRINCIPLES/NORMS OF ACCOUNTANCY , TO WHICH THE LAW GIVES DUE CREDENCE (REFER, INTER ALIA , CHALLAPALLI SUGARS LTD. V. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167); ACCOUNTING STANDARD (AS) 10 ISSUED BY ICAI (WHICH A LSO HAS PRIMACY U/S. 211 OF THE COMPANIES ACT), AS WELL AS THE CLEAR PROVISI ONS OF S. 32 AND S. 43(1) OF THE ACT. THE REVERSAL OF THE PROVISION HAS TO BE AC CORDINGLY ADJUSTED PROPORTIONATELY AGAINST THE COST OF THE RELEVANT AS SETS. THE CONCOMITANT WOULD BE A REVISION IN THE CHARGE OF DEPRECIATION THEREON . WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. LEST WE MAY BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING TRAVELLED OUTSIDE TH E PURVIEW OF THIS APPEAL, REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE DECISIONS, INTER ALIA , IN HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD V. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); CIT V. ASSAM TRAVELS SHIPPING SERVICE [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); CIT V. C.C.C. HOLDINGS [2003] 260 ITR 433 (MAD); CIT VS. RAMNATH GOENKA (DECD.) & OTHRS .[2001] 252 ITR 653, 654 (MAD); THANTHI TRUST V. ASST. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 117 (MAD); CIT VS. RAYALA CORPORATION (P.) LTD . [1995] 215 ITR 883 (MAD); CIT V. INDIAN EXPRESS (MADURAI) PVT. LTD. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (MAD); AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. V. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (BOM-FB); CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY V. R.BRAHADEESWARAN [1987] 163 ITR 680 (MAD); CIT V. CELLULOSE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD . [1985] 151 ITR 499 (GUJ-FB), CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN ITS DIFFERENT AS PECTS. THAT RULES 11 & 27 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE OF THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL STANDS CLARIFIED AS FAR BACK AS IN HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEES GROUND IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED ON T HE AFORESAID TERMS. 7 ITA NOS.148 & 149/MDS/2015 (AY 2009-10) OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT. L TD. V. ASST. CIT 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL (IN ITA NO. 148/MDS/2015) IS ALLOWED ON THE TERMS AFORE-STATED. ITA NO.149/MDS/2015 7. THE ASSESSEES SECOND APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF TH E ADJUSTMENT TO BOOK PROFIT CARRIED OUT ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXCESS LIABILITY WRIT TEN OFF TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS BY THE AO U PON DISCOVERING THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION HAD IN FACT NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT BY HIM WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED (REFER PARA 5) THAT THE WRITE BACK OF THE PROVISION/S TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, WHICH I S, BY DEFINITION, THE OPERATING STATEMENT OF AN ENTERPRISE, IS, ON FACTS, A WRONG E NTRY; THE LIABILITY BEING ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT, SO THAT THE SAME IMPACTS ONLY THE VALUE/S AT WHICH THE CORRESPONDING ASSET/S ACQUIRED ON THE TAKEOVER OF B USINESS STAND TO BE CARRIED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE VALUE OF THE L IABILITY, WHICH IS WHAT ITS REVERSAL IN EFFECT IMPINGES ON, WOULD THUS IMPACT O NLY THE VALUATION OF THE CORRESPONDING ASSETS, I.E., THE VALUE AT WHICH THEY ARE RECORDED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS. A WRONG ENTRY IS VOID AB INITIO , AND NO LAW CAN BE APPLIED ON ITS BASIS / EDIFICE. RATHER, ANY CONTRARY VIEW, PRESUMING SO, W OULD STAND OUSTED ON THE PREMISE OF BEING DEBATABLE, PRECLUDING SECTION 154, WHICH IS CONFINED TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN FACT, IT IS TH E NON-ADJUSTMENT OF THE PROVISION WRITTEN BACK AGAINST THE VALUE OF THE COR RESPONDING ASSET/S THAT CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE, INASMUCH AS THE PROVISION DI RECTLY IMPACTED THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION THEREOF, AND WHICH WE HAVE DIRECTED I N THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST REGULAR ASSESSMENT (IN ITA NO.148 OF 2015). WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL (IN ITA NO. 149/MDS/2015) IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON JUNE 15, 2017 AT CHENNAI . 8 ITA NOS.148 & 149/MDS/2015 (AY 2009-10) OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT. L TD. V. ASST. CIT SD/- SD/- ( ' #! ' $ . %& ) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (SANJAY ARORA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, JUNE 15, 2017 EDN 7 0 2'489 :9,4 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. 23-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' ;4 ( )/CIT(A) 4. ' ;4 /CIT 5. 9!<= 2'4' /DR 6. =&+ > /GF