The DCIT, Circle 1, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Adani Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1623/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2433 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH SINGH
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS. 1623/AHD/2013 & 2895/AHD/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11) DCIT, CIRCLE-1/CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD-380015 / VS. M/S. ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., ADANI HOUSE, NR. MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD - 380009 ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) & CO NO. 190/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 1623/AHD/2013) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., ADANI HOUSE, NR. MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD - 380009 / VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD- 380015 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAFCA9521J ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAURABH SINGH, SR. D.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VARTIK CHOKSI, A.R. DATE OF HEARING 19/06/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/09/2018 ITA NO. 1623/AHD/12 & 2 ORS. [ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 2 - / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION FOR AY 2009-10 HAS B EEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 26.03.2013 ARI SING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (T HE ACT). THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD DATED 13.08.2014 ARISING IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2013 PASSED BY THE AO UNDER S.143 (3) OF THE ACT. AS SOME OF ISSUES ARE STATED TO BE COMMON, ALL THE APPEALS AS CAPTIONED HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION THEREOF. 2. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THEREON CONCERNING AY 200 9-10 FOR ADJUDICATION PURPOSES. ITA NO. 1623/AHD/2013-AY 2009-10-REVENUES APPEAL 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL CONCERNING AY 2009-10 READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR ACCOUNTING CENVAT AS AGAINST INCLUSIVE METHOD MANDATED U/S 145A OF THE A CT. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE INTEREST DISALLOWED U/S14A AS PER METHOD PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D(2). 4. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO ADDITION UNDER S.145A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT OF CLOSING STOCK OF THE ASSES SEE BY DUTY AND TAXES ETC. IN THE FORM OF CENVAT. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEAR NED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY F OLLOWS EXCLUSIVE ITA NO. 1623/AHD/12 & 2 ORS. [ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 3 - METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. IN THIS PROCESS, THE DUTIES AND TAXES IN PURCHASE AS WELL AS IN SALES AND CLOSING STOCKS ARE EXCLUDED AND KEPT IN THE SEPARATE ACCOUNT. THUS, OWING TO EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REVENUE N EUTRAL AND DOES NOT WARRANT ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDIT OF RS.49,16,866/- TO THE CLOSING STOCK. FOR THIS PROP OSITION, THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDO NIPPON CHEMICALS CO. LTD. [2003] 261 ITR 27 5 (SC), CIT VS. BELL GRANITO CEREMICA LTD. (GUJ.) TAX APPEAL NO.436 -437 OF 2011 JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2011. THE LEARNED AR THEREAFT ER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND COVERED BY PLETHORA OF DECISIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ON THE ISSUE. 6. LEARNED DR HOWEVER RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS ON THE ISSUE TOWARDS APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WHILE IT IS T HE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE ELEMENT OF EXCISE DUTY / CENVAT ETC. WOULD REPR ESENT PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 1 45A OF THE ACT, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THAT S ECTION 145A OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I T IS FURTHER CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT FOLLOWS EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUN TING FOR VALUATION OF INVENTORY AND THEREFORE, ENTIRE EXERCISE WOULD B E TAX NEUTRAL. WE NOTICE THAT SECTION 145A FALLS UNDER THE CHAPTER XI V PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT. IT ESSENTIALLY DEALS WITH METHOD OF AC COUNTING AND IS IN THE NATURE OF MACHINERY PROVISION. SECTION 145A INTER ALIA PROVIDES THAT INVENTORY OF GOODS SHALL BE VALUED IN ACCORDAN CE WITH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE ON FACTS AND BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND CONCLUDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY IMPACT ON THE PROFITABILITY OF THE A SSESSEE PER SE DUE TO ITA NO. 1623/AHD/12 & 2 ORS. [ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 4 - EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED, WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERROR IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A). IN PARITY WITH THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN NARMADA CHEMATUR PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (2010) 327 ITR 369 (GUJ.) AND GENERAL MOTORS INDIA (P.) LTD. V. DE PUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2013] 37 TAXMANN.COM 4 03 (AHMEDABAD), WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCL USION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPE AL IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.2 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UN DER S.14A OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO INTER ALIA NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.30,42,833/- WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THE AO AC CORDINGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AN D COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH EX EMPT INCOME BY RESORTING TO FORMULA PROVIDED IN THE RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D ALSO INCLUDED DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.28,38,647/- IN TERMS OF RU LE 8D(2)(II) OF THE IT RULES WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF CONTROVERSY. 11. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE AFORESAID ACTION OF PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF THE AO AND DELETED SUCH DISALLOWANCE. 12. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS ON THE ISSUE. WE NOTICE THE PLEA ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON GRO SS OUTGO OF INTEREST IS RS.126.49 CRORES WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO E ARNED INTEREST INCOME SIMULTANEOUSLY OF A BIGGER SUM OF RS.130.02 CRORES. THUS, ITA NO. 1623/AHD/12 & 2 ORS. [ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 5 - ESSENTIALLY, THERE IS EXCESS OF INTEREST EARNED OVE R INTEREST EXPENDITURE. IT IS THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST PER SE. IT IS THUS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NETTING OF INTEREST INCOME AND OUTGO IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE WHILE INVOKING RULE 8D (2)(II) OF THE IT RULES IN THE LIG HT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CI T VS. NIRMA CREDIT & CAPITAL (P.) LTD.[2017 85 TAXMANN.COM 72 (GUJARAT ). IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE FACTORED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF INTEREST, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE THAT RULE 8D(2)(II) SHALL HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE GIVEN FA CTS WHERE THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED OUTWEIGH THE INTEREST EXPEND ITURE. IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY T HE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APP EAL IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO.1623 /AHD/2013 FOR AY 2009-10 IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO. 190/AHD/2013-AY 2009 -10 16. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE CAPTIONED CROSS OBJECTION CONCERNING AY 2009-10 READS AS UNDE R:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.165 ,150 U/S. 14A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,23,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT REPRESENTED EXPENDITURE ON PAYMENT OF RENT. ITA NO. 1623/AHD/12 & 2 ORS. [ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 6 - 17. LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT HE DOES NOT SEEK TO PRESS THE AFOR ESAID CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IN CO NO.190/AHD/2013 CONCERNING AY 2009-10 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO. 2895/AHD/2014-AY 2010-11-REVENUES APPEAL 19. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL CONCERNING AY 2010-11 READS AS UNDER:- (1) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.31,46,467/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UN-UTILIZED CENVA T CREDIT BY HOLDING THAT THE SAME AS REVENUE NEUTRAL WHEN THE ACT SPECIFICALLY R EQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO INCLUDE THE TAXES ETC. U/S.145A. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CON TRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A BY FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOU NTING INSTEAD OF INCLUSIVE METHOD MANDATED U/S.145A. (3) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE INTEREST OF RS.2,37,61,930/- DISALLOWED U/S 14A AS PER METHOD P RESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D(2). (4) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,37,61,830/- TO THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB DESPI TE THE FACT THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS TO BE ADDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT AS PER CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(1) OF THE ACT. 20. GROUND NO.1 & 2 CONCERN ADJUSTMENT OF TAXES FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF INVENTORY UNDER S.145A OF THE ACT. TH E FACTS IN ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS CONCERNING AY 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND THUS, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TOWARDS TAXES ETC. AT THE TI ME OF VALUATION OF INVENTORY IS REVENUE NEUTRAL. IN PARITY WITH THE V IEW TAKEN IN AY 2009-10 AS PER PARA NOS. 7 & 8 OF THIS ORDER, WE FI ND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THUS DECLINE TO INTERFERE. ITA NO. 1623/AHD/12 & 2 ORS. [ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 7 - 21. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 22. GROUND NO.3 CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U NDER S.14A AS COMPUTED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE IT RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.4,86,440/- WHICH IS TA X FREE. AS PER THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE TH E CIT(A) (IN PARA NO. 3.4 PAGE NO.24 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)), THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSERTED THAT AS AGAINST THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE O F RS.67.97 CRORES CONSIDERED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSEE HA S EARNED TAXABLE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.68.71 CRORE. IT IS THUS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY INTEREST EXP ENDITURE EFFECTIVELY WHICH CALLS FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) O F THE IT RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) T HAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSE E FAR EXCEEDS THE CORRESPONDING INVESTMENTS GIVING RISE TO THE TAX FR EE INCOME. THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE CONCLUSION RENDERED IN AY 2 009-10. CONSISTENT WITH OUR VIEW TAKEN IN AY 2009-10 ON SIM ILAR FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CI T(A) GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT. WE THUS DECL INE TO INTERFERE. 23. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APP EAL IS THUS DISMISSED. 24. GROUND NO.4 CONCERNS ADJUSTMENTS IN THE BOOK PR OFIT COMPUTED UNDER S.115JB OF THE ACT FOLLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT. 25. THE AO HAS INCREASED BOOK PROFIT COMPUTED UNDER S.115JB OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,37,61,930/- BEING DIS ALLOWANCE MADE ITA NO. 1623/AHD/12 & 2 ORS. [ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 8 - UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT COMPUTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 26. THE CIT(A) IN FIRST APPEAL HOWEVER DID NOT AGRE E WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS SO MADE BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT IDENTI CAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN C ASE OF ARVIND LTD. VS. DCIT ITA NO.1816/AHD/2011 ORDER DATED 08.03.201 8 CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PAR T OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS REPRODUCED HER EUNDER: 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO SEVERAL JU DICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE LIMI TED CONTROVERSY AS TO WHETHER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK P ROFIT UNDER S.115JB, THE AO IS ENTITLED TO INCREASE BOOK PROFIT BY THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES AS FOUND ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOM E UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OR NOT. WHILE IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF LONG LINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, SUCH ADJUSTMENT IN BO OK PROFIT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE, IT IS THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF CODIFIED LAW IN THIS REGARD, THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER 115JB HAS BEEN RIGH TLY INCREASED BY THE REVENUE. 6. WE NOTICE THAT ISSUE IS EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED BY CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. WE FIND AT THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ON THE POINT AS TO WHETHER ADJUSTMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE UNDER S.14A OF THE CAN BE SIMILARLY MADE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATI ON OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER S.115JB OF THE ACT WAS ANSWERED AGAINST THE R EVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO TAKE NOTE OF DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH RENDERED IN ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENT PVT.LTD. & ANR. 165 ITD 27 (DELHI)[SB] WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT E NTITLED TO TINKER WITH BOOK PROFITS CONTEMPLATED UNDER S.115JB TOWARDS DIS ALLOWANCE MADE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT. WE SIMILARLY FIND THAT JUD GEMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BENGAL FINANCE AND IN VESTMENTS PVT.LTD. IN ITA NO.337 OF 2013 ORDER DATED 10/02/2015 ALSO C OMPLEMENTS THE ISSUE. THUS, SEEN ON THE ANVIL OF THE JUDICIAL FIAT AVAILA BLE SQUARELY ON THE ISSUE, WE ARE DISPOSED TO ASSIGN MERITS TO THE CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE PAUSE TO NOTE THE C ONCERN OF REVENUE SEEKING TO PLEAD POSSIBLE REDUNDANCY OF CLAUSE(F) T O EXPLANATION TO S.115JB IN THE EVENT OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ACTIO N OF AO. WE ARE ALIVE TO SUCH CONCERNS. HOWEVER, AS NOTED, WE ARE GOVERN ED BY THE SUPERIOR WISDOM AVAILABLE IN THIS REGARD. HENCE, REMEDY TO REVENUE, IF ANY, PERHAPS LIES ELSEWHERE. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS GOVERNING THE FIELD, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE DETERMINE D UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER U/S.115JB O F THE ACT. ITA NO. 1623/AHD/12 & 2 ORS. [ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.] A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 - 9 - 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE INTEGRATED TO SAME POINT REQUIRES TO BE DECIDED IN NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 27. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY ERRO R IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A). 28. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APP EAL IS DISMISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE CONCERNING AY 2010-11 IS DISMISSED. 30. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF T HE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP K UMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/09/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/09/20 18