Universal Drinks Private Limited, Nagpur V. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,Range-1, Nagpur

ITA 162/NAG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1701 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Assessee Lawyers: C J THAKAR AW SHRI S C THAKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 32; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 162/NAG./2010 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200607 ) UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. SOMALWADA, WARDHA ROAD NAGPUR 440 015 APPELLANT V/S ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE1, SARAF CHAMBERS SADAR, NAGPUR 440 001 PAN AAACU2519D .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.J. THAKAR A/W SHRI S.C. T HAKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE DATE OF HEARING 19.08.2015 DATE OF ORDER 28.08 .2015 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7 TH MAY 2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-I, NAGPUR, FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 200607, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE FOLL OWING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. 2 INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT ( ` ) 1. DEPRECIATION ON TENANCY RIGHTS ` 88,08,238 2. FACTS IN BRIEF: DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF COMPU TATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED ` 90,12,096, AS DEPRECIATION AS PER I.T. CHART. ON PER USAL OF THE I.T. CHART, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ` 88,08,238 @ 25% ON THE OPENING BALANCE OF TENANCY RIG HTS OF ` 3,53,32,950. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED THE DETAIL S OF TENANCY RIGHTS FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE THREE AG REEMENTS OF TRANSFER OF TENANCY EXECUTED BY OUTGOING TENANT AND M/S. BUBNA TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. (LAND LORD) IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE TENANCY RIGHTS WERE PURCHASED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 200405 AND THE TOTAL CONSID ERATION PAID WAS OF ` 3,53,32,950. 3. UPON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND THE ABOVE SAID AGREEMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AS SESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF ` 88,08,238, BY GIVING THE FOLLOWING REASONS IN PARA 4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. 3 4. PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENTS REVEALED THAT THE SAID PREMISES WERE NOT USED FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS DURING TH E RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. CLAUSE 9 AND CLAUSE 12 OF THE AGREEM ENTS CONFIRM THIS. THEY ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9. THE SAID FLAT SHALL BE USED BY THE INCOMING TENA NTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR RESIDENCE ONLY AND SHALL N OT CHANGE THE USER THEREOF OR COMMIT ANY BREACH OF ANY OF THE LAWS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MAHARASHTRA TO WN PLANNING ACT OR MUNICIPAL LAWS. 12. THE LANDLORD AGREES WITH THE INCOMING TENANT TO SUBLET THE SAID FLAT ONLY TO M/S. NAWAZ MODI SINGHANIAS (WIFE OF MR. GAUTAM SINGHANIA) CONCERN AND, THE LANDLORD SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN RESPECT THEREOF. THE NAME OF THE CONCERN WILL BE GIVEN TO THE LANDLORD A T THE EARLIEST. 5. THE ABOVE CLAUSES MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT WER E INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS REPLY. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A LETTER DATED 04.10.2005 FROM MUNICIPAL C ORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI ADDRESSED TO ASSESSEES ARCHITECT . THIS WAS A RESPONSE TO ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 15.01.2005. ASS ESSEE REQUESTED FOR CONVERSION FROM RESIDENCE TO GYMNASIU M. THE APPROVAL FOR CONVERSION WAS GIVEN ON 04.10.2005. BU T THE FLAT WAS NOT CONVERTED INTO GYMNASIUM. IT INDICATES THAT THE SAID PREMISES WAS NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 200607, THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN SHARE BUSINESS ONLY. THE EXPENSES CLAIMED DO NOT RELATE TO THE USE THE MUMBA I BUILDING. CLAUSE 9 & 12 OF THE AGREEMENTS SPECIFICALLY BAN TH E USE OF THE BUILDING FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN RESIDENCE. ASSESSE E COULD NOT PRODUCE POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE BUILDIN G WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TH E DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IS DISALLOWED. DURING THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 200708, THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT AND INCOME FROM T HE SAME WAS SHOWN AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH CONCL USIVELY PROVES THAT THE BUILDING WAS NOT USED FOR BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, I.E., PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES . 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE ASSESSEES UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. 4 SUBMISSIONS AND ELABORATION THEREUPON, UPHELD THE ASS ESSING OFFICERS ORDER BY CONCLUDING AS UNDER: 5.10 THE SECTION 32 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR DEPRECA TION IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS, MACHINERY PLANT OR FURNITURE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY WHEN THE SAME ASSETS ARE USED FOR THE PURP OSE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE AL LOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IS BASED ON UPON TWO CONDITIONS, NAMEL Y, THAT THE ASSET IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS USED FOR T HE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FU LFILLED THE SECOND CONDITION OF THIS LEGAL PROVISION OF THE ACT . BESIDES, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLI SH THE FACT CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE PAYMENT MADE FOR ACQUIRING TH E TENANCY RIGHTS IS A PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS THE COST OF INTAN GIBLE ASSETS AS PROVIDED IN PARTB OF THE NEW APPENDIXI (W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607 ONWARDS) AS PROVIDED IN THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962). 5.11 THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE CANN OT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THESE ARE DISTINGUISHABL E ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 5.12 IT IS ONE OF THE PRIME CONDITIONS THAT FOR CLA IMING THE DEPRECIATION, AN ASSET MUST BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, BUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH ON FACTS AND O N LEGAL PRINCIPLES, THE APPELLANTASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO BRING ANY SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD ON RECORD. HEN CE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INTERFERENCE IN THE FIND INGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CALLED FOR IN THIS CASE. 5.13 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY POSITI VE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE FLATS, ACQUIRED THROUGH TENANCY RIGH TS, WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGH T OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON LEGAL PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE A.O. W AS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF ` 88,08,238 OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO INTERFERENCE IN THE SAME IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY UPHELD . UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. 5 AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE ISSUE AS TO TREATMENT OF DEPRECIATIO N ON TENANCY RIGHT IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN DABUR INDIA LTD. V/S ACIT, ITA NO. 4679/MUM./2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200910, VIDE ORDER DATED 23 RD AUGUST 2013. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT TENANCY RIGHT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INTANGIBLE ASSET AS IN EXPLANAT ION 3 TO SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED T HE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE EARLI ER YEARS CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6050/MUM/ 2007 ETC. VIDE ORDER DATED 09.04.2010, THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LIMITED (2010) 323 ITR 69 (B OM.). THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OVERRULED THIS JUDGMENT IN TECHNO SHARE AND STOCKS LTD. & ORS. V. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 323 (S C) AND THE EFFECT OF SUCH REVERSAL IS THAT THE DEPRECIATION SH OULD NOW BE ALLOWED. IN CANVASSING SUCH A VIEW FOR THE GRANT OF DEPRECIATION, HE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 32(1)(II) FOR BRINGING HOME THE POINT THAT THE TENANCY RIGHTS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE EXPRESSION ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE AS EMPLOYED IN DEFINING INTANGIBLE ASSETS. AU CONTRAIRE, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE IMPU GNED ORDER. 4. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CONTENTION ADVANCE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MANIFEST REASON IS THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION OF THE TERM INTANGIBLE ASSET GIVEN IN EXPLANATION (3) UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. 6 TO SECTION 32(1):- (B) INTANGIBLE ASSETS, BEING KN OW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHI SES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATU RE. 5. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE DEFINITION OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS AVAILABLE U/S 32 MAKES IT VIVID THA T THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS SO CLASSIFIED ARE KNOW-HOW, PATEN TS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES OR AN Y OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE. WE ARE REMINDED OF THE RULE OF NOSTICUR A SOCIIS WHICH SIM PLY MEANS THAT THE GENERAL WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPECIFIC WORDS DRAW THEIR MEANING FROM THE COMPANY THEY KEEP. THIS RULE HAS BEEN QUOTED WITH APPROVAL BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N SEVERAL JUDGMENTS INCLUDING CIT VS. VENKETASWARA HATCHERIES (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC), STONECRAFT ENTERPRISES VS. CIT (1 999) 237 ITR 131 (SC) AND ARAVINDA PARAMILLA WORKS VS. CIT ( 1999) 237 ITR 284 (SC). GOING BY THIS RULE, THE EXPRESSION A NY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS AS EMPLOYED IN THE D EFINITION OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS AS PER THE ABOVE EXPLANATION, M UST MEAN ONLY THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS SIMILAR TO THOSE WHICH P RECEDE IT, THAT IS, KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LI CENCES, FRANCHISES. THE FORMER CATEGORY OF INTANGIBLE ASSE TS INCLUDES SUCH ASSETS WITH WHICH THE BUSINESS IS DIRECTLY CAR RIED ON. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE ARE INTANGIBLE ASSETS BY WHICH E ITHER THE PERMISSION TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OR MANUFACTURE IS RECEIVED OR ARE USED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OR THE SALE OF THE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED. SUCH INTANGIBLE ASSETS DIRECTLY FACIL ITATE THE PROFIT EARNING ACTIVITY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TEN ANCY RIGHTS HAVE NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER EITHER WITH A RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE OR ACTUAL MANUFACTURE OF THE PRODUCTS O R THEIR SALE CARRYING BRAND NAME OR LOGO ETC. TENANCY RIGHTS SIM PLY PROVIDE A PLACE AT WHICH MANUFACTURING OR ADMINISTRATIVE AC TIVITY IS PERSUED. A BUSINESSMAN CAN CARRY ON MANUFACTURING A T ANY PLACE BUT THE BUSINESS CANNOT BE CARRIED ON WITHOUT LICENCE, OR WITHOUT SPECIFIC KNOW-HOW, COPY RIGHT, OR TRADE MAR K ETC. REVERTING TO THE EXTANT CASE, ONLY AN INTANGIBLE AS SET OF THE NATURE OF KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS , LICENCES, FRANCHISES ETC. CAN BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHT. THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE ITS INTENTION CRYSTAL CLEAR BY THE USE OF WORDS OF SIM ILAR NATURE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE WORDS ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS. THIS MAKES THE POSITION BEYOND ANY PALE OF DOUBT THAT ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS WOULD ONL Y BE SUCH WHICH ARE OF THE NATURE OF KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYR IGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES ETC. AS NOTICED SUPRA, THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, T RADE MARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES ETC. ON ONE HAND AND TE NANCY RIGHTS ON THE OTHER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TENANCY RIGHTS CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS INTANGIBLE ASSETS F ALLING WITHIN UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. 7 THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 32(1). THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. DR ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN TECHNO SHARES (SUPRA) IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IN THAT CASE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER DEPRECIATION CAN BE GRANTED ON THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBERSHIP CARD. AS THE OWNER SHIP OF SUCH MEMBERSHIP CARD IS SINE QUA NON TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS ON THE FLOOR OF STOCK EXCHANGE, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD IT TO BE AN INTANGIBLE ASSET ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIAT ION. SUCH MEMBERSHIP CARD IS A PERMISSION TO DO THE BUSINESS AS SHARE BROKER AKIN TO `LICENCE AND NOT A PLACE FOR CARRYI NG ON SUCH BUSINESS AKIN TO `TENANCY RIGHT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGMENT DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ANY FURTHER. TO SUM UP, WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE TENANCY RIGHT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET, THERE IS NO QUES TION OF ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON IT. WE, THEREFORE, APPROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND FAILS. 6. WHEN THE ABOVE DECISION WAS CONFRONTED TO THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM SH OULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON TANGIBLE ASSET. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED TENANCY RIGHT. THIS IS A P ERPETUAL INTEREST IN A PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID R EQUISITE STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF THE AGREEMENT. HENCE, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDER ED FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON TANGIBLE ASSET. 7. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISALLOW ED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED THE PREMISES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE SAID PREMISES WAS TO BE USED FOR RESIDE NTIAL PURPOSES, UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. 8 THE DIRECTORS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY USED TO TRAVEL TO MUMBAI AND USED THE AFORESAID FLAT FOR THE PUR POSE OF MEETINGS WITH THE BROKERS AND OTHER PERSONS IN RESPEC T TO THE SHARE TRADING AND BROKERAGE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE F IND THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SINCE WE ARE REMITTING THE ISSUE OF CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSEES C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS DEPRECIATION ON TANGIBLE ASSET, WE DEEM IT FIT AND P ROPER TO KEEP IT OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CANVAS ONCE AGAIN WITH APPRO PRIATE EVIDENCE THE CLAIM OF USAGE OF THE PROPERTY BEING TANGIBLE ASSE T FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDE R THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DEPRECIATION IS TO BE ALLOW ED ON THE TENANCY RIGHTS ACQUIRED AS DEPRECIATION ON TANGIBLE ASSET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF USAGE OF THE PREMISE FOR BUSINES S PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE NECESSARY SUBMISS IONS IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE INVOLVED, AS NARRATED ABOVE, I S REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTIONS AS ABO VE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECI ATION ON TENANCY RIGHTS AS INTANGIBLE ASSET AS PER ORIGINAL CLA IM BY THE ASSESSEE UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT. LTD. 9 BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOLLOWING THE COORDINA TE BENCH DECISION AS NARRATED ABOVE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.08.2015 SD/ - MUKUL K. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 28.08.2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, NAGPUR CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, NAGPUR; (6) GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY A SSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NAGPUR