Amee Foster Wheeler India Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1530/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7975 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH IRS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37(1); 32; 37; 10; 11

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.1530/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 M/S. AMEC FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 6 TH FLOOR, ZENITH BUILDING, ASCENDAS IT PARK, CSIR ROAD, TARAMANI, CHENNAI 600 113. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(1) CHENNAI. ./ I.T.A. NO. 1761/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-2009 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1) CHENNAI VS. M/S. AMEC FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 6 TH FLOOR, ZENITH BUILDING, ASCENDAS IT PARK, CSIR ROAD, TARAMANI, CHENNAI 600 113. [PAN AAACF 3204C] ( () / APPELLANT) ( * +() /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SRIRAM SESHADRI, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.V. SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 08-11-2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-11-2016 ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVE NUE RESPECTIVELY DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 09.03. 2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, CHENNAI. 2. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DISPOS AL. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TWO GROUNDS OF WHICH GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDING NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. ITS GROUND NO.2 IS ON DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS IMPROV EMENT OF LEASEHOLD FACILITIES. 3. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE RENDERING ENGINEERI NG AND DESIGN SERVICES HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF B14,56,19,859/ -. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN EX PENDITURE OF B.3,52,69,561/- FOR IMPROVING ITS LEASEHOLD BUILDIN G PREMISES. OUT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, ASSESSEE HAS CAPITALIZED A SU M OF B94,71,490/- AND BALANCE B2,57,98,071/- WAS CLAIMED AS REVENUE OUTGO. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE BREAKUP OF THE LATTER AMOUNT. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED, IT WA S NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: AIR CONDITIONER DUCTING, FALSE CEILING ETC. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER THIS RESULTED IN ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. RELY ING ON THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 32(1) OF THE ACT, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER H ELD THAT, THE SUM OF B2,57,98,071/- CLAIMED AS INCURRED FOR RENOVATION OF LEASEHOLD PREMISES HAD TO BE CAPITALIZED. HE MADE A DISALLOW ANCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT BUT ALLOWED DEPRECATION @10%. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ASSESSEE FURNISHED A BREAK UP OF THE EXPENDITURE OF B2,57,98,071/- BEFORE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH READ AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN INR) COST INCURRED TOWARDS PARTITIONING, FALSE CEILING AND FLOORING 96,70,938 ELECTRICAL WORK REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENT 79,56,512 CABLING & NETWORKING CHARGES 57,92,628 DUCTING AND OTHER AIR CONDITIONER RELATED COSTS 16,76,540 FIRE SPRINKLER WORKS AND FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 2,79,971 STORAGE UNITS 2,43,000 ARC HITECT FEES 1,78,487 TOTAL 2,57,98,076 AS PER THE ASSESSEE, ABOVE EXPENDITURE DID NOT RES ULT IN CREATION OF ANY NEW ASSET NOR GAVE IT ANY ENDURING BENEFIT. REL IANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS AYESHA ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: HOSPITALS P. LTD 292 ITR 266 AND THIRU AROORAN SUGA RS LTD VS. DCIT, 350 ITR 324 . HOWEVER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ABOVE CONTENTION. HE HELD AS U NDER:- 10. RENOVATION PER SE WOULD BE A COMPOSITE ITEM O F ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD BE VIOLATED IN ITS CONCEPT IF THE SAME IS SPLIT UP INTO SMALLER FRAGMENTS. THIS IS SO AS THESE SMALLER IND IVIDUAL ACTIVITIES WOULD NOT MAKE AVAILABLE ANY FACILITY WH ICH COULD BE USED BY THE APPELLANT VOID OF THE OTHER CO-RELATED ACTIVITIES. RENOVATION THEREFORE WOULD ENCOMPASS AND INCLUDE T HE SUM TOTAL OF ALL SUCH ACTIVITIES TO MAKE AVAILABLE A CO MMON FACILITY FOR THE USE OF THE APPELLANT. THE ARCHITECT FEES FOR EX AMPLE CLAIMED SEPARATELY BY THE APPELLANT WOULD BE A INTEGRAL PAR T OF THE RENOVATION ACTIVITY AS ALSO THE FEE PAID TO THE CON TRACTOR EXECUTING THE RENOVATION. SIMPLY PUT, ALL ACTIVITY PUT TOGETHER RESULT IN RESTORING TO GOOD AND USABLE CON DITION AND SUCH AN EXERCISE WOULD INCLUDE REPAIRS AS A INTEGRA L PART THEREOF. 11.THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT RESTS ON THE PLEA THAT IT IS A LEASEHOLD PREMISE LAND HENCE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE TREATED AS BEING TOWARDS CURRENT REPAIRS NOTWITHSTANDING THE P ROVISION IN EXPLANATION 1 TO S.32(1). IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THI S CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC PR OVISION TO DEAL WITH SUCH EXPENDITURE. FURTHER MORE THE RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ADVERSELY IMPAIRED AS THE E XPENDITURE QUALIFIES FOR DEPRECIATION AND IN THE EVENT THAT TH E PREMISES ARE VACATED THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO TERMINAL BENEF ITS WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE / INVESTMENT MADE. 12.FINALLY WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM PREFERRED BY TH E APPELLANT U/S 37 AND NOT U/S 32, THE SAME IS NOT TENABLE ON FACT S AND IN LAW. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.37 ARE APP LICABLE IN RESPECT OF GENERAL EXPENSES, WHERE EXPENDITURE NOT SPECIFIE D IN S.30 TO 5.36 ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. AS ALSO, EXPENDI TURE WHICH IS NOT CAPITAL OR PERSONAL IN NATURE AND WHICH IS WHO LLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT OR EXPENDED FOR THE PURPOSE O F BUSINESS. THESE EXCLUDE EXPENSES FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR PROHIBITED BY LAW ETC. SEC.37(1) THEREFORE BEING A RESIDUAL PROVISION, CANNOT BE TAKEN AID! OF, UNLESS AND UNTI L IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT NONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.30 TO 36 ARE APPLICABLE TO A GIVEN CASE. THIS VIEW FIND SUPP ORT FROM THE RATIO IN. MALWA VANASPATI AND CHEMICAL COMPANY LTD V. CIT 154 ITR 655 (MP) AND KHIMJI VISRAM AND SONS P LTD V CIT 209 ITR 993 (GUJ.). 13.THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT HAVE DRAWN ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 5 -: STRENGTH FROM THE RULING IN CIT V. AYESHA HOSPITALS P LTD 292 ITR 266 (MAD). IT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CO URT WAS 1991-92 IN RESPECT OF AN EXPENDITURE OF 1,85,557 WHICH WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS EXPENDITURES RELAT ING. TO PAINTING, RE-LAYING OF DAMAGED FLOORS, AND PARTITIO NS ETC IN A LEASED PREMISE FOR RUNNING OF A HOSPITAL. THE LEASE DEED DID NOT PROVIDE FOR SUCH EXPENDITURE TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY TH E LESSOR. DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE APEX COURT DECISION IN CIT .V. MADRAS AUTO SERVICE P LTD 233 ITR 468 THE EXPENDITURE WAS HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE AND DEDUCTIBLE AS IT WAS FO R THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS. THE MINOR REPAIRS WERE BUT ESSENTIAL TO USE THE LEASED PREMISES AS A HOSPITAL WHICH REQUIRE THE DAMAGED FLOOR TILES TO BE REPLACED, PAINTING OF WAL LS AND MINOR PARTITIONS TO BE PUT IN PLACE. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ASSESSEE THERE, THESE WOULD CONSTITUTE MINOR REPAIRS NOT RES ULTING IN ADDED OR ENDURING BENEFIT. LIKEWISE TILE AMOUNT EXPENDED AND THE EXTENT OF RENOVATION AND RE PAIRS CARRIED OUT THOUGH NOT DETERMINATIVE WOULD BE FAIRL Y INDICATIVE TOWARDS DECIDING WHETHER THE SAME WOULD CONST I TUTE MINOR REPAIRS. THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS RE GULARLY IN OCCUPATION OF LEASE PREMISES FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS BUSINESS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT AND DIFFERENTLY PLACED. A S ITUATION WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN ON LEASE A PARE BUILDING OR A BARREN PLATE OF FLOOR SPACE WHEREIN C IVIL, ELECTRICAL, MASONARY, PLUMBING AND OTHER RELATED WORKS WERE EXT ENSIVELY CARRIED OUT TO MAKE WORKS STATIONS, CABINS, AND CON GENIAL WOR1K SPACE CANNOT BE EQUATED TO THAT OF A CASE WHERE MIN OR REPAIRS AS IN THE CASE OF AYESHA HOSPITAL (SUPRA) WERE CARR IED OUT. 14.LN THIS CONTEXT IT WILL SERVE USEFUL PURPOSE TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT DATED 18. 8.2015 IN INDUS MOTOR COMPANY P LTD V. DC IT 378 ITR 707. WHI LE EXAMINING A SIMILAR CLAIM THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVE D ' .... AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO SCOPE LEFT OUT AT ALL FOR ANY INTERPRETATION SINCE BY A LEGAL FICTION, THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS THE OWNER OF TH E BUILDING FOR THE PERIOD OF HIS OCCUPATION. THIS MEANS THAT BY RE FURBISHING, DECORATING OR BY DOING INTERIOR WORK IN THE BUILDIN G AND ENDURING BENEFIT WAS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD OF OCCUPATION AND, THEREFORE, IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND NOT RE VENUE EXPENDITURE ..... ' ' ..... ACCORDING TO US, BY ADD ING EXPLANATION 11 TO SECTION 32(1) PARLIAMENT HAS MANIFESTED ITS LEGI SLATIVE INTENTION TO TREAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON LEASEHOLD BUILDING AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND, THER EFORE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 32(1) CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY FURTHER INTERPRETATION. FURTHER THE LANGUAGE OF EXPLANATION 1 IS VERY PLAIN AND CLEAR AND THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR PROVIDING A DIF FERENT MEANING FOR THE WORDS USED AND, HENCE, WE ARE BOUND TO CONS IDER THE ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 6 -: QUESTION BY GIVING THE LITERAL MEANING TO THE EXPRE SSIONS I AND PHRASEOLOGIES BY THE LEGISLATURE APPLIED.' FURTHER APPLYING THE RATIO, AMONGST OT1ERS, OBTAINING IN THE CASE OF MAD RAS AUTO SERVICE P LTD 233 ITR 468 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, T HE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 11.9.2015 IN ITA NO. 700/MDS/2014FOR THE A.Y.2008-09 IN THE CASE OF THE CONTINENTAL ENTERPRISES V. ITO HAS DISMISSE9 THE CLAIM OF 100% DEPRECIATION BY THE ASSESSEE THUS HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT BREAKUP OF EXPENDITURE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER DOU BTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO HIM, A SUM OF B94,71,490 /- WAS SUO MOTU CAPITALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE. RELYING ON THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARMOUR CONSULTANTS P. LTD. 355 ITR 418. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER SEC. 37(1) OF THE ACT. A S PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS NOT CA PITAL IN NATURE. ACCORDING TO HIM, EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 32(1) OF TH E ACT APPLIED ONLY TO CAPITAL ITEMS. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR FALSE CEILING, PARTITIONS ETC WERE HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AYESHA HOSPITAL (P) LTD (SUPRA) TO BE IN THE NATURE OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. FUR THER, ACCORDING TO HIM IN THE CASE OF AYESHA HOSPITAL (P) LTD (SUPRA), THE ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 7 -: JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD ALSO CONSIDERED THE E FFECT OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SEC. 32(1) OF THE ACT. 6. CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT COST OF REPAIRS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT INCL UDE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATIO N TO SEC. 30 OF THE ACT INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 W.E.F. 01.04.2004 . FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HIT BY EXPLANATION (1) TO SEC. 32 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUD GMENT OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE INDUS MOTOR COMPANY P. LTD VS. DCIT 382 ITR 503, THAT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RPG ENTER PRISES VS. DCIT, 386 ITR 401 AND THAT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF BIGJOS INDIA LTD VS. CIT. 293 ITR 170 . FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AYESHA HOSPITAL (P) LTD (SUPRA) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 32 O F THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON EXPLANATION TO SEC.30 OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE AMOUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF THE COST OF REPAIRS REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I), AND THE ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 8 -: AMOUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENT REPAIRS REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (II), OF CLAUSE (A), SHALL NOT INC LUDE ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC . 32(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- WHERE THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CARRIED ON IN A BUILDING NOT OWNED BY HIM BUT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HOLDS A LEASE OR OTHER RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY AND ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY STRUCTURE OR DOING OF ANY WORK, IN OR IN RELATION TO, AND BY WAY OF RENOVATION OR EXTENSION OF, OR IMPROVEMENT TO, THE BUILDING, THEN, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE SHALL APPLY AS IF THE SAID STRUCTURE OR WORK IS A BUILDING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR APPLYING BOTH THESE EXPLANATIONS, THE THRESHOL D REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE THEN IRRESPECTIVE OF THE QUESTION WHETHER IT WAS INCURRED IN A LEASEHOLD PREMISE OR O N OWN PREMISES, IT WILL BE ALLOWABLE. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CL EARLY HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF THIRU AROORAN SUGARS LTD (SUPRA) THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON FALSE CEILING AND OFFICE RENOVATION WERE REVENUE IN NATURE. THE QUESTION THUS IS NOT WHETHER EXPENDITURE IS INCURRE D IN LEASE HOLD PREMISES OR NOT, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER EXPENDITUR E INCURRED CAPITAL IN ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 9 -: NATURE OR NOT. NO DOUBT, ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A BREAK-UP OF THE EXPENDITURE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN OUR OPINION, NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES VERIFIED WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCLUDED ANY CAPITAL OUTGO OR NOT. WE ARE THEREFOR E OF THE OPINION THAT MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE I SSUE REGARDING CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON IMPROVEMENT OF LEASEHOLD ASSET BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. NOW, WE TAKE UP REVENUE APPEAL. SOLE GRIEVANCE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE IS ON THE DIRECTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) T O EXCLUDE EXCHANGE LOSS, TELECOMMUNICATION EXPENDITURE, TRAVEL EXPEND ITURE AND OTHER EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY BOTH FROM EXPORT TURNOVER AND TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.10B OF THE ACT. 9. WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) WHILE GIVING ABOVE DIRECTIONS HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SAK SOFT LTD 313 ITR(AT) 353 . HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TATA ELXSI LTD, 349 ITR 98 HAS HELD THAT ALL THE ITEMS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM EXPORT TURNOVER WAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM TOTAL TURNOVER ALSO WHILE C OMPUTING RELIEF ITA NOS.1530& 1761/MDS/2016 :- 10 -: U/S.10B OF THE ACT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10. TO SUM UP THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THAT OF TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOV EMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED:25TH NOVEMBER, 2016 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF