M/s Theon Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT, C-5(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1648/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2307 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDEEP GOYAL
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1648/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) M/S THEON PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., VS. THE A.C.I.T., SCF 90, SECTOR 26, CIRCLE-5(1), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AACCT2692J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAGDEEP GOYAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.08.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHANDIGARH DATED 16.10.2017 RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE SOLE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961,(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) TO 30% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS, AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION CARRIED OUT BY IT. 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS AT BADDI IN HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE IND USTRIAL UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INSTALLED AND COMME NCED THE PRODUCTION IN 2005 AND WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DE DUCTION ITA NO.1648/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14 2 OF ITS PROFITS U/S 80IC OF THE ACT , WITH THE INITI AL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE SAID PURPOSE BEING A.Y. 200 8-09. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION FROM THE PR OFITS IN THE FIRST FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BETWEEN A.Y 2008-09 TO A.Y 2012-13. THE IMPUGNED YEAR WAS THE 6 TH YEAR OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AND THE ASS ESSEE HAD AGAIN CLAIMED DEDUCTION @ 100% FROM THE ELIGIBL E PROFITS CLAIMING THAT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING PLANT AND MACHINERY HAD BEEN MADE BY IT. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CAS E OF TIRUPATI LPG INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT TO INTERPRET THE TERM 'SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION' AND 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEA R'. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'B LE ITAT, CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS, B ADDI SOLAN VS. ITO WARD-(2), BADDI, IN ITA NO. 798/CHD/2 012. AND DISTINGUISHING THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF TIRUPATI LPG INDUSTRIES LTD, AND RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF 30% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROF ITS. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND : 2. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER'S & WORTHY CIT (A) ERRED IN ADDING BACK RS.16,62,57,043/- ON ACCOUNT OF RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION TO 30% U/S 80LC OF THE ACT AGAINST THE CLAIM OF 100%. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 100% ITA NO.1648/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14 3 DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN. THE TERM 'SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION' CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION OR BAR ON MORE THAN ON E SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, A UNIT CAN UNDERTAKE ANY NUMB ER OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECI FIC RESTRICTION IN THE SECTION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER'S T WORTHY CIT (A)'S FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS DONE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE YEAR AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS ENTITLED FOR 100% DEDUCTI ON OF ITS PROFITS U/S 801C OF THE ACT. BUT THE LD. A.O. PROCEEDED TO ADD BACK THE SUM WITHOUT GIVING ANY PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND MAKING THE ASSESSMENT IN HAS TE. THE ID. AO & WORTHY CIT(A) HAD IGNORED THE JUDGEMEN T OF HON'BLE IT AT DELHI IN THE CASE OF TIRUPATI LPG IND USTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRLCE 22014 (1) TML 1689 & HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BAJA TEMPO (1992 (4) T ML 4- SUPREME COURT, GWALIOR RAYON SILKS MFG. CO. LTD. (1 992 (4) TML 3- SUPREME COURT IN WHICH IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS ADMISSIBLE AND BENEFIT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, AT THE OUTSET ITSE LF ,IT WAS CONCEDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT THE I SSUE HAD BEEN SETTLED AND DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY TH E ORDER OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CLASS IC BINDING INDUSTRIES CIVIL APPEAL NO.208 OF 2018 & OTHERS DAT ED 20 TH AUGUST 2018. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE AP EX COURT IN THE SAID CASE AND FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN CA TEGORICALLY HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER THE SECTION FOR A TOTAL PE RIOD OF 10 YEARS, WITH THE DEDUCTION BEING @ 100% OF THE ELIGI BLE PROFITS ONLY FOR THE INITIAL FIVE YEARS AND THEREA FTER @ 25% OR 30%, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 80IC(3) & 80IC(6) OF TH E ACT. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS IN VERY CLEAR TERMS HELD THA T IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION NO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION @ 100% OF PROFITS BEYOND THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF F IVE YEARS IS ALLOWABLE. ITA NO.1648/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14 4 THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT ARE AS UNDER: 14. A GIST OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND PURPOSE BEHIND THE INSERTION OF SECTION 80-IA, 80-IB AND 80-IC HAS ALREA DY BEEN MENTIONED ABOVE. WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE CASES ARE CONFINED TO SECTION 80-IC ALONE. AS MENTIONED ABOV E, SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC PROVIDES FOR TAX BENEFI T TO THOSE UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES WHICH HAD SET UP THEIR MANUFACTURING UNITS IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED AREAS INCLUD ING STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH TO WHICH THIS CASE IS BELONGED. 15. IT ALSO GIVES BENEFIT TO THESE UNDERTAKINGS AND E NTERPRISES WHICH HAVE UNDERTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING T HE PERIODS MENTIONED THEREIN. AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE TH AT ALL THESE ASSESSEES ARE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SU B-SECTION (2), THAT ASPECT NEED NOT BE STATED IN DETAIL. WE, THUS, REPRODUCE THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROVISION WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR OUR DISCUSSION: S.80-IC. SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES IN CERTAIN SPECIAL CATE GORY STATES. (1) WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTA KING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-S ECTION (2), THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROV ISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS, AS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (3). XXX XXX XXX (3) THE DEDUCTION REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE (I) IN THE CASE OF ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE RE FERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSES (I) AND (III) OF CLAUSE (A) OR SUB-CLAUSES ( I) AND (III) OR CLAUSE (B), OF SUB-SECTION (2), ONE HUNDRED PER CEN T, OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS FOR TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCI NG WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEARS; (II) IN THE CASE OF ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE R EFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF CLAUSE (A) OR SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF CLAU SE (B), OF SUB-SECTION (2), ONE HUNDRED PER CENT OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER, TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT . (OR THIRTY PER CENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. (6) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERP RISE UNDER THIS SECTION, WHERE THE TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCT ION INCLUSIVE OF THE PERIOD OF DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SECT ION, OR UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTIO N 80- IB OR ITA NO.1648/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14 5 UNDER SECTION 10C, AS THE CASE MAY BE, EXCEEDS TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS.. 16. THE ESSENCE OF SECTION 3 AS WELL AS SECTION 6 HAV E ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE. WHEREAS THE EXEMPTION IS PROVIDED @ 100% OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS FOR FIVE ASSE SSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEARS AND , THEREAFTER, 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPA NY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS. THE DEDUC TION IS LIMITED TO A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. 17. IN THIS BACKDROP, THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER T HESE ASSESSEES, WHO HAD AVAILED DEDUCTIONS @ 100% FOR FIR ST FIVE YEARS ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD SET UP A MANUFACT URING UNIT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF THE ACT, C AN START CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS @ 100% AGAIN FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS AS THEY HAD UNDERTAKING SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE PE RIOD MENTIONED IN SUBSECTION (2)? THE ANSWER HAS TO BE IN THE NEGATIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING THE REASONS: 18. WE ARE DEALING WITH THE DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS UNDER SECTION 80-IC OF THE ACT. NO OTHER P ROVISION IS INVOLVED. THIS SECTION MAKES SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN RE SPECT OF CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES IN CERTAIN SPEC IAL CATEGORY STATES. SECTION 80-IC WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE A CT, 2003 W.E.F. APRIL 1, 2004. AS PER THIS PROVISION, CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS ORENTERPRISES IN CERTAIN SPECIAL CATEGO RY STATES ARE ALLOWED DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS, AS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION. (3) OF SECTION 80-IC. THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 80-IC PROVIDED DEDUCTION TO MANUFACTURING UN ITS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF SIKKIM, HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UTTARANCHAL AND NORTH-EASTERN STATES. THE DEDUCTION W AS PROVIDED TO NEW UNITS ESTABLISHED IN THE AFORESAID S TATES, AND ALSO TO EXISTING UNITS IN THOSE STATES IF SUBSTANTIAL E XPANSION WAS CARRIED OUT. THE DEDUCTION WAS AVAILABLE @ 100% F OR TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR THE UNITS LOCATED IN NORTH-EASTER N AND IN THE STATE OF SIKKIM AND FOR THE UNITS LOCATED IN HIM ACHAL PRADESH, THE DEDUCTION WAS AVAILABLE @ 100% FOR FIVE YEARS AND @ 25% FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS. 19. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ASS ESSEES WHO HAD ESTABLISHED THEIR UNDERTAKINGS IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. SUB-SECTION (3), AS NOTED ABOVE, MEN TIONS THE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMEN T YEAR. SUBSECTION (6) PUTS A CAP OF 10 YEARS, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR WHICH THE DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED TO ANY UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE UNDER THIS SECTION, ST ARTING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT FEATUR E UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) IS THAT THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE IS 100% OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS FROM AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPR ISE FOR FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREAFTER THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE AT 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. CUMULATIVE READING OF THESE PROVISIONS BRINGS OUT T HE FOLLOWING ASPECTS: ITA NO.1648/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14 6 (A) THOSE UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC BECOME ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS PROVISION. (B) THIS DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IS DEFINED IN SECTION 80-IB(1 4)(C) OF THE ACT. (C) THE DEDUCTION IS @ 100% OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAIN S FOR FIRST 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THEREAFTER A DEDUCTION IS PE RMISSIBLE @ 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY). (D) TOTAL PERIOD OF DEDUCTION IS 10 YEARS, WHICH MEAN S 100% DEDUCTION FOR FIRST 5 YEARS FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMEN T YEAR AND 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS. 20. WHEN WE KEEP IN MIND THE AFORESAID SCHEME AND SPI RIT BEHIND THIS PROVISION, SUCH A SITUATION CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED WHERE AN ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SECURE DED UCTION @ 100% FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. IF THAT IS ALLOWED IT WILL AMOUNT TO DOING VIOLENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S ECTION (3) READ WITH SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 80-IC. A PRAGMA TIC AND REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 80-IC WOULD BE TO HOLD THAT ONCE THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCES AND A N ASSESSEE, BY VIRTUE OF FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC, STARTS ENJOYING DED UCTION, THERE CANNOT BE ANOTHER INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80-IC WITHIN THE AFORESAID PERIO D OF 10 YEARS, ON THE BASIS THAT IT HAD CARRIED SUBSTANTIAL EX PANSION IN ITS UNIT. 21. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF OUR RECENT JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THIS VERY BENCHIN MAHABIR INDUSTRIES V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4765-4766 OF 2018 DECIDED ON MAY 18, 2018). HOWEVER, A FINE DIS TINCTION NEEDS TO BE NOTED BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF CASES. IN MAHABIR INDUSTRIES , THE ASSESSEES HAD AVAILED THE INITIAL DEDUCTION UNDER A DIFFERENT PROVISION, NAMELY, SECTION 80-IA O F THE ACT, I.E. BY FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB-SECT ION (4) OF SECTION 80-IA. THOSE CONDITIONS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFE RENT. DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS UNDER THE SAID PROVISION IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN THESE PROFITS AND GAINS ARE FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES ENGAGED IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ETC. EVEN THIS AVAILMENT STARTED AT A TIME WHEN SECTION 80-IC WAS NOT EVEN ON THE STATUT E BOOK. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, SECTION 80-IC WAS INSERTED BY TH E FINANCE ACT, 2003 WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 01, 2004. THE ASSESSEES IN THOSE CASES HAD STARTED CLAIMING AND WE RE ALLOWED DEDUCTIONS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 A ND 1999-2000 UNDER SECTION 80-IA AND FROM THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2000-01 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 UNDER SECTIO N 80- IB OF THE ACT. THE DEDUCTION WAS, THUS, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THOSE APPEALS UNDER THE NEW PROVISION I .E. ITA NO.1648/CHD/2017 A.Y.2013-14 7 SECTION 80-IC ON FULFILLING CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN S UB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07. THUS, INSOFAR AS THOSE CASES ARE CONCERNED, TH E INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SECTION 80-IN CASE START ED ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN CONTRAST, PO SITION HERE IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. THESE ASSESSEES HAVE A VAILED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC ALONE. INITIALLY, THEY CLAIM ED THE DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAD SET UP TH EIR UNITS IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND AFTER AVAILING THE DEDUCTION @ 100% THEY WANT CONTINUATION OF THIS RAT E OF 100% FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS ALSO UNDER THE SAME PROVISION O N THE GROUND THAT THEY HAVE MADE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION. AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, ONCE THE ASSESSEES HAD STARTED C LAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC AND THE INITIAL ASSESSM ENT YEAR HAS COMMENCED WITHIN THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, THERE CANNOT BE ANOTHER INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR THERE BY ALLOWING 100% DEDUCTION FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS ALSO WHEN SUB- SECTION (3), IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, PROVIDES FOR DEDUC TION @ 25% ONLY FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS. IT MAY BE ASSERTED AGAI N THAT THE ASSESSEES ACCEPT THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THEY CANN OT CLAIM DEDUCTION OF MORE THAN 10 YEARS IN ALL UNDER SECTION 80-IC . 22. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT AFTER AVAILING DEDUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS @ 100% O F SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS FROM THE UNITS, THE ASSESSEES WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FOR REMAINING 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR S @ 25% (OR 30% WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY), AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND NOT @ 100%. THE QUESTION OF LAW IS, THUS, ANSWE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE THEREBY ALLOWING ALL THESE APPEALS. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE P RESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 30 TH AUGUST, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH