DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Control & Switchgear Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1551/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0444 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK MALIK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Fair market value; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 1133(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR CO. DEPU TY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME LTD., 222, OKHLA INDL. ESTATE, VS. T AX, CIRCLE 3(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. ITA NO. 1551(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME M/S CONTR OLS & SWITCHGEAR CO. TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), NEW DELHI. VS. LTD., 222, OKHLA INDL. ESTATE, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MS. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK MALIK, C.A. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN ON 30.11.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,90,86,545/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCES SED ON 6.3.2008. IT APPEARS THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD BEEN ISSUED ON 10.10.2007 FOR SCRUTINIZING THE CASE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF MANUFACTURING HIGH- TECH PRODUCTS USED IN GENERATION, DISTRIBUTION AND CONTROL OF POWER AND ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 2 TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW COLLABORATION WITH OTHERS AS JOINT VENTURES. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO ENHANCED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY, DISALLOWED A PART OF INTEREST, TREATED A SUM OF RS. 1,67,96,6 46/- AS DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E), REDUCED THE CLAIM U/S 80IC BY AN AMOU NT OF RS. 69,67,762/-, ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AT NO RMAL RATE, DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 16,67,053/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 14A, AND DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.3,17,566/- FRO M DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS)-VI, NEW DELHI, WHO PASSED THE ORDER ON 8.1.2010 IN A PPEAL NO. 280/08-09, IN WHICH THE APPEAL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER. ITA NO. 1551(DEL)/2010- APPEAL OF THE REVENUE 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST DELETING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,67,96,646/- FROM THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH WAS TAXED BY THE AO AS DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF CON TROLS & SWITCHGEARS CONTRACTORS LTD., IN WHICH THE DIRECT OF THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 3 SECTION 2(22)(E) IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE A SSESSEE IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDER IN THE AFORESAID COMPANY SINCE IT IS HOLDING ONLY 3.85% OF THE SHARES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, THIS P ROVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE OTHERWISE ALSO. THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI, IN THE CASE OF BHAUMIC COLOURS PVT. LTD., 27 SOT 270, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DIVIDEND UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION CAN BE ASSESSED ON LY IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON WHO IS SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDER AND NOT I N THE HANDS OF ANY OTHER PERSON. THE AO HAD INVOKED THE PROVISION AS SH RI RAVINDER NATH KHANNA AND SHRI ASHOK KHANNA WERE COMMON SHAREHO LDERS, HAVING SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDINGS AND THE REQUISITE VOTI NG POWER. HOWEVER, SUCH IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THERE FORE, THE ADDITION BY WAY OF DIVIDEND WAS DELETED. BEFORE US, IT WAS TH E COMMON CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DE CISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED ABOVE. FOR US, THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IS A BINDING PRECEDENT. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) RIGHTLY DELETED THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSMENT. ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 4 3. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON COMPUTER PERIPHERALS AND ACCESSORIES ALSO. THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE ENHANCED RATE OF 60% IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO COMPUTE RS AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND NOT TO PERIPHERALS AND ACCESSORIES SUCH AS PRINTERS, SCANNERS ETC. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GRANTED RELIEF BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IT O VS. SAMIRAN MAJUMDAR, 98 ITD 119. SINCE ONE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL HAS ALREADY TAKEN A DECISION IN THE MATTER, JUDICIAL DISCIP LINE DEMANDS THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE FOLLOWED UNLESS ANY SUBSTANTIAL ERRO R OR LAW IS FOUND THEREIN, IN WHICH CASE THE MATTER HAS TO BE REFERRED TO T HE PRESIDENT FOR CONSTITUTING SPECIAL BENCH. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH ERROR SO AS TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE PRESIDENT FOR CONSTITUTING SPECIAL BENCH. THEREFOR E, IT IS HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 60%. ITA NO. 1133(DEL)/2010- APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERR ED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 16,67,053/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISION C ONTAINED IN SECTION 14A. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS UPHELD BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF SPECIAL ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 5 BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD., 119 TTJ 289, IN WHICH IT W AS HELD THAT SECTION 14A IS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF DIRECT AND INDIR ECT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING ANY INCOME, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE T OTAL INCOME. THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT NO SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCUR RED IS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE RETROACTIVE OPERATION OF RULE 8D WAS ALSO A PPROVED. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY BOTH TH E PARTIES THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION STANDS MODIFIED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACT URING CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT, (2010) 194 TAXMAN 203, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D ARE NOT ULT RA-VIRES. HOWEVER, RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE PROSPECTIVELY FROM ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09. PRIOR TO THAT, THE AO COULD EXAMINE ALL THE FACTS AND MAK E REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF CONCLUSION ARRIVED A T FROM THE FACTS. IT IS ALSO THE COMMON GROUND THAT THE ISSUE IS PENDING B EFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THA T THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO WORK OUT THE DI SALLOWANCE, IF ANY, ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT . HOWEVER, IF THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS RECEIVE D TILL PASSING THE FOLLOW UP ORDER, THE AO SHALL TAKE SUCH DECISION ALS O INTO ACCOUNT. IT IS ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 6 ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO HE AR THE MATTER AGAIN FOR CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND COMPUTE THE AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER LAW. THUS, THIS GROUND IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 69 ,67,762/- U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS MENTIONED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF RS. 4,42, 62,395/- IN RESPECT OF UTTRANCHAL UNIT. TWO QUESTIONS CAME UP FOR DISCU SSION-(I) TRANSFER OF GOODS FROM OTHER UNITS TO UTTRANCHAL UNIT; AND ( II) ALLOCATION OF COMMON EXPENSES TO THE UTTRANCHAL UNIT. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WERE KEPT FOR EACH UNIT AND AUDITED. THE EMPLO YEES OF KASNA UNIT WERE ALSO LOOKING AFTER THE INTEREST OF UTTRANCHAL UNIT. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES OF KASNA UNIT WERE TRANSFERRED TO UTTRANCHAL U NIT IN THE RATIO OF TURNOVER. THE CORPORATE OFFICE OR ANY OTHER UNIT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY COMMON EXPENSES. THEREFORE, NO OTHER EXPENSE, OTHER THAN THE EXPENSES ALREADY ALLOCATED BY THE ASSESSEE, COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO UTTRANCHAL UNIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEDUCTION. COMING TO THE ISSUE O F STOCK, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS DONE AT COST FOR THE REASON THAT ONE CANNOT MAKE PROFIT FROM ONESELF. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUE STION OF COMPARING THE VALUE OF THE TRANSFERRED STOCK WITH THE VALUE AT WHICH IT WAS TRANSFERRED ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 7 TO OUTSIDE CUSTOMER. THE AO CONSIDERED THE PROV ISION CONTAINED IN SUB- SECTION (7) OF SECTION 80IC AND MENTIONED THAT TH E PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (5) AND SUB-SECTIONS (7) TO (12) OF SECTION 80IA HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO SECTION 80IC. THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB- SECTIONS (5), (8) AND (10) OF SECTION 80IA HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED ON PAGE NOS. 9 AND 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON THE B ASIS OF THESE PROVISIONS, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC, THE UTTRANCHAL UNIT HAS T O BE TAKEN AS A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT UNIT. THEREFORE, HE REDUCED T HE PROFITS BY TWO AMOUNTS (I) RS. 6,62,900/- BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS TRANSFERRED TO UTTRANCHAL UNIT BY OTHER UNI TS; AND (II) RS. 63,02,863/-, BEING COMMON EXPENSES ALLOCATED TO THIS UNIT. T HUS, THE DEDUCTION WAS REDUCED BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 69,67,762/-. 5.1 VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), WHO CONSIDERED THEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY PR OVISIONS. HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT REDUCTION OF PROFIT BY A SUM OF RS. 6,62,990/- HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE BY COMPUTING ARMS LENGTH PROFIT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 80IC(7) READ WI TH SUB-SECTIONS (5), (8) AND (10) OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. COMING TO A LLOCATION OF COMMON ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 8 EXPENSES, HE GAVE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF EXPENSES PERTAINING TO UTTRANCHAL UNIT AND OTH ER UNITS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED ONLY A CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT. FOR LACK OF FULL DETAILS, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A O WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOCATING COMMON EXPENSES TO THE ELIGIBLE UNIT , WHICH INCLUDED FINANCIAL EXPENSES ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THESE INCLUD E INTEREST PAID TO BANK, INTEREST TO DIRECTORS, INTEREST TO OTHERS ETC. HOWEVER, HE DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT CLAIMED, WHICH PERTAINED TO EARLIER PER IOD OR WHICH HAVE BEEN RECOVERED FROM ELIGIBLE UNITS. IN THIS CONNECT ION, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IT WAS CLAIMED BEFORE HIM THAT PROPOSED DI VIDEND TAX, PROPOSED DIVIDEND, COURT FEE EXPENSES FOR OLD CASES, FI NANCIAL EXPENSES OF RS. 4,63,401/- RECOVERED FROM OTHER UNITS AND RECO VERY OF RS. 12,26,065/- FROM THE HARDWAR UNIT WERE NOT DEDUCTED FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES BY THE AO. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THA T THE ELIGIBLE UNIT WAS SET UP ON 23.10.2005 WHILE THE AO CONSIDERED THE DAT E TO BE 1.10.2005. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER THIS MATTER ALSO FOR MAKING NECESSARY ADJUSTMENT. ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 9 5.2 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TOWARDS ANNUAL ACCOUNTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ON PAGE NO S. 39 TO 46. THESE ARE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS. FURTHER , HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH SHOWS THA T A SUM OF RS. 14,01,312/- WAS TRANSFERRED FROM KASNA UNIT TO THE ELIGIBLE UNIT IN RESPECT OF SALARIES AND TRAVELING EXPENSES. OU R ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TOWARDS PARAGRAPH NO. 6.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, IN WHICH THE COMPUTATION OF ALLOCATION EXPENSES HAS BEEN FU RNISHED AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE GOODS TRAN SFERRED FROM OTHER UNITS TO THE ELIGIBLE UNITS, THE PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 69,67,762/-. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80-IA MAND ATES THE COMPUTATION OF PROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS IF THIS B USINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE TO SECTION 80IC. SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTION 80IA PROVIDES THAT IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF GOODS AND SERVICES TO AND FROM ELIG IBLE UNITS TO FROM AND TO ANY OTHER UNIT, THE TRANSFER VALUE SHALL BE TAK EN TO BE THE MARKET VALUE OF ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 10 SUCH GOODS OR SERVICES ON THE DATE OF TRANSFE R. FURTHER, SUB-SECTION (10) PROVIDES THAT IN CASE OF CLOSE CONNECTION BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE CARRYING ON THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND ANY OTHER PERSON, IF THE AFFAIRS HAVE BEEN ARRANGED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT MORE THAN ORDIN ARY PROFIT ARISES TO THE ELIGIBLE UNIT, THE AO SHALL COMPUTE THE PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT AS MAY BE REASONABLY DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED THEREFROM. 5.4 IN SO FAR AS TRANSFER OF GOODS FROM OTHER UNITS TO THE UTTRANCHAL UNIT IS CONCERNED, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CAUGHT SQUARELY WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF SUB-SECTION (8). IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE TRANSFER VALUE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT THAT ONE CANNOT MAKE PROFITS FROM ONESELF DOE S NOT HOLD GOOD BY DINT OF THIS PROVISION. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON THIS GROUND. 5.5 COMING TO ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COMMON EXPENSES, WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (5), WHICH MANDATES THAT THE SAME HAVE TO BE COMPUTED AS I F ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WAS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SEEN IN THIS CONTEXT, IF CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED BY HEAD OFFICE LEAD TO ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 11 BENEFIT TO THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS ALSO, THE EXPE NSES WILL HAVE TO BE APPORTIONED TO IT. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THER EFORE, SUCH AN APPORTIONMENT WAS NECESSARY TO WORK OUT ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED UNIT-WISE DETAIL S WITH NARRATION TO FIND OUT WHICH EXPENSES COULD BE ALLOCATED TO ELIGIB LE BUSINESS FROM THE HEAD OFFICE. IN ABSENCE THEREOF, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CORRECTLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT COMMON EXPENSES HAVE TO BE ALLOCA TED TO THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IN THE RATIO OF TURNOVER OF THE ELIGIBL E BUSINESS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER. HE HAS ALSO ADEQUATELY JUSTIFIED TH E REASONS FOR CALCULATING FINANCIAL EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOCATION . THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DETAILS OF SOME EXPENSES, WHICH COUL D NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR ALLOCATION FOR THE REASON THAT THOSE CONTAINED P ROPOSED DIVIDEND, PROPOSED DIVIDEND TAX, COURT FEE FOR OLD CASES AND EXPENSES RECOVERED FROM THE RESPECTIVE UNITS, BEING RS. 4,53,401/- F ROM OTHER UNITS AND RS. 12,26,065/- FROM ELIGIBLE UNIT. WE DO NOT FIND T HE NECESSITY OF MAKING ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THESE FINDINGS AS THESE A RE BASED ON SOUND LOGIC. HE HAS ALSO GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO CALCULATE THE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE PERIOD 23.10.2005 TO 31.3.2006 AS THE ELIGIBLE UNIT WAS SET UP ON 23.10.2005 AND NOT ON 1.10.2005. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO SCOPE FOR ANY FURTHER RELIEF IN THIS MATTER ALSO. ACCORDINGLY , IT IS HELD THAT THE LD. ITA NOS. 1133 & 1551(DEL)/2010 12 CIT(APPEALS) WAS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING RS. 69,67, 762/- FROM THE DEDUCTION SUBJECT TO SOME ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE BY AO ON V ERIFICATION. THUS, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 8 FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER:18TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- M/S CONTROLS AND SWITCHGEAR CO. LTD., NEW DELHI. DCIT, 3(1), NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.