Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1 , Nashik V. MSS India Pvt.Ltd, Nashik

ITA 171/PUN/2020

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Revenue against MSS India Pvt. Ltd. concerning the treatment of royalty payments and a subsidy received under the Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) 2007 from the Maharashtra government. The primary legal issues were whether the royalty payments for technical know-how constituted capital assets eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the subsidy received was a capital or revenue receipt. The CIT(A) had previously ruled in favor of the assessee, which the Tribunal upheld, citing judicial consistency and relevant case law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137342 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Radha Soami Satsung vs. CIT, CIT vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs CIT, CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers, LG Electronics India (P) Ltd vs. CIT, CIT V. Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Revision of order; Depreciation; Capital receipt; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 263; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.171/PUN./2020& ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 Assessment Years 2016-2017& 2017-2018 The ACIT, Circle-1, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik. Maharashtra. PIN – 422 002. vs. MSS India Pvt. Ltd., H-111, MIDC, Ambad, Nashik – 422 010 Maharashtra. PAN AAACI5887J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Sardar Singh Meena For Assessee : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA.No.171/PUN./ 2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021, for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, arise against the CIT(A)-1, Nashik’s order dated 20.11.2019 passed in case No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/709/2016-17 and the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/ 1036040934(1) dated 29.09.2021, respectively, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that Revenue’s former appeal ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 for assessment year 2016-17 raises the following twin substantive grounds : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the royalty payment of Rs.5,97,78,401/- resulted in acquisition of intangible asset and therefore, the same could not be allowed as a capital asset. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that as per the Foreign Collaboration Agreement entered into with MSS Products Ltd. (MSS UK), the assessee had acquired a right to use technical know-how and therefore the payment made was a capital asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32(l)(ii) of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) having allowed the subsidy received of Rs.64,07,000/- by way of Octroi/LBT refund under package scheme from Maharashtra Government should be treated as capital receipts. 3 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.” 3. Coming to the Revenue’s latter appeal ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 for assessment year 2017-18, there is no dispute between the parties that it seeks to raise the sole substantive ground of royalty payment of Rs.8,39,93,831/- which is indeed identical to that proposed in the above former assessment year’s pleadings. We thus take-up the instant issue of royalty payment first of all. 4. Both the learned representatives at this stage invited our attention to CIT(A)'s detailed discussion in the “lead” assessment year 2016-17 accepting the assessee’s stand as follows : 4 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. 5 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. 5. Learned CIT-DR vehemently argued in tune with the Revenue’s pleadings that the assessee’s royalty payments made in lieu of having received technical knowhow had been rightly treated as an intangible capital asset eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. Mr. Meena took us to the 6 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. assessee’s foreign collaboration agreement dated 14.09.2009 [pages 1 to 5 of the paper book], and more particularly, clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 16 therein to buttress the point that the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the payments in issue as ‘royalty’ for acquiring technical knowhow giving rise to acquisition of capital asset eligible for depreciation only than allowable as revenue expenditure. Mr. Meena further highlighted various terms in the impugned agreement that the assessee had acquired technical knowhow in order to carry- out its routine business activities for manufacturing of its products after making these payments to M/s. MSS UK. The Revenue’s stand, therefore, is that once the assessee had made the impugned payments for acquiring technical knowhow from M/s. MSS UK forthwith; which was returnable, to the extent physically possible, would not give rise to any revenue expenditure allowable u/s.37 of the Act. 6. The assessee has placed strong reliance on the CIT(A)'s above extracted findings. 7. We find no merit in the Revenue’s above arguments. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessee had executed its foreign collaboration agreement with M/s. MSS UK way back on 14.08.2009 [relevant to assessment year 2010-11] and all along it has been claiming the very payments of ‘royalty’ as revenue expenditure in the 7 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. intervening assessment years. Mr. Pathak invited our attention not only to the Assessing Officer’s regular assessments in assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 but also in assessment year 2018-19 [pages 198 to 199 of the paper book] that no such disallowance at all has been made either in preceding or in succeeding assessment years. He thus quoted hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Radha SoamiSatsung vs. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) that we can very well adopt judicial consistency in such an instance so as to maintain the settled proposition accepted from the very beginning. 7.1. We find merit in assessee’s submissions as in case the Revenue’s foregoing contentions are accepted, there won’t be any proper computation of any“written down value”[in short “WDV”] of the so-called intangible asset as well in tune with sec.43(6)(a) and (b) of the Act. We also place reliance on the hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., [2015] 55 taxmann.com 230 (Del.) that merely acquiring such a right to use technical knowhow only gives rise to revenue expenditure claimed since the ownership and intellectual property rights in knowhow remain with the foreign company only. Faced with the situation, we do not see any reason to accept the Revenue’s instant arguments. The same stand rejected. The Revenue fails in its former substantive ground in assessment year 2016-17 and sole 8 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. grievance in assessment year 2017-18. It’s latter appeal ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 for assessment year 2017-18 raising the instant sole issue also follows the suit. 8. This leaves us with the Revenue’s latter substantive ground in assessment year 2016-17’s ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 that the Assessing Officer had rightly treated the assessee’s subsidy of Rs.64,07,000/- by way of Octroi/LBT refund under the package incentive scheme from the Maharashtra government as a revenue receipt and the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the same in his lower appellate discussion. Learned CIT-DR has also filed a detailed written note qua the instant issue as follows : “1. Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) 2007:- This scheme is in continuation and extension of various schemes of the Government which were started in 1960s and onwards. This scheme is basically for industrial development promotion scheme in backward areas. It is clearly mentioned in the preamble of the scheme that "In order to encourage the dispersal of industries to the less developed areas of the State, Government has been giving a Package of Incentives to New / Expansion Units set up in the developing region of the State since 1964 under a Scheme popularly known as the Package Scheme of Incentives. 9 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. The Package Scheme of Incentives, introduced in 1964, was amended from time to time. The last amended Scheme, commonly known as the 2001 Scheme is operative from the 1st April, 2001 to 31st March, 2007.....” (A copy of Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 is enclosed). There are other schemes started by the government like 'Multiplex Theatre Complex' scheme in entertainment cum cultural field and Incentive Subsidy scheme of 1980, 1987, 1988 and 1993 etc. for promotion of new sugar manufacturing units. It is stressed here that the Package Scheme of Incentive for industrial promotion in backward areas is different from the other schemes as it is meant for development of and employment generation in the backward areas having low industrial development index. 1.2. Here it is to bring to the kind notice of the Hon'ble bench that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (339 ITR 632) has been relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT (Pune Benches and Bombay Benches) on the issue of subsidy. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the subsidy is on capital account and accordingly, Question (D) as framed would not arise. The said Question (D) was as under : 10 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. "(D) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax incentive is a Capital Receipt ?" The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case in Civil Appeal No. 7769 of 2011 and Civil Appeal No. 7770 of 2011 has held that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appeal without considering the following question, which, according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court did arise for consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax incentive is a Capital Receipt ?" The above question figures in Civil Appeal No. 7769 at (C) and in Civil Appeal No. 7770 at (B). In view of above, the issue of subsidy has been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the High Court of Bombay on the issue of nature of subsidy whether capital or revenue and which is yet to be decided by the Bombay High Court as no such order of the Hon'ble High Court could be traced from the public domain. Therefore, the ITAT decisions (Bombay Benches and Pune Benches) which followed the above decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (339 ITR 632) 11 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. have become uncovered. Therefore, it is submitted that the Hon'ble ITAT has to decide on the above issue considering the submissions of the Revenue in this case. 1.3. The lead case for seeking legal guidance with respect to the PSI 2007 is the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253. Considering the facts of the case it is submitted that in the present case the subsidy was not given to the assessee for purchase of capital asset or for setting up of an industrial unit as the same has already been setup and the subsidy was given after commencement of the business. Therefore the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. where in the Hon'ble Court has observed that these subsidies were given to encourage the industry in the state of Andhra Pradesh by making the business of production and sales of goods in the state more profitable. This judgement has laid down the basic tests to be applied for judging the character of subsidy and that test is that the character of receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. It is to be highlighted that in the instant case the assessee was free to use the amount of subsidy 12 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. in its business as per his will and it was not obliged to spend the money for a particular purpose. It is also to be submitted that in the case of Ponni Sugar the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the amount of subsidy was of capital nature only because the subsidy was meant for repayment of term loans was on capital account whereas in the present case the subsidy is in the form of sales tax exemption, electricity, interest, stamp duty, royalty, etc. which is mentioned in Para-5. Promotional and Financial Incentives" of the scheme. 1.4. Further, in the case of LG Electronics India (P) Ltd [(2022) 134 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi)] the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the revisional jurisdiction of the CIT u/s 263 was justified and accordingly has remit the matter to the AO to pass a fresh order based upon his independent analysis as to whether the amount received by way of subsidy is capital or revenue in nature. Further, SLP filed by the assessee on the above issue has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court [(2022) 134 taxmann.com 330 (SC)]. Here it is to mention that the facts of the above case are identical to that of the instant case. The LG Electronics India (P) Ltd has its manufacturing unit in Maharashtra and got benefit of subsidy. 13 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. 1.5. I also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Bhushan Steels & Strips Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 204 (Delhi) which is in favour of the Revenue. The assessee has filed SLP which is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 2. Legal compilation of case laws which are relied on by the Revenue is submitted as under :- 14 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. The above submission may kindly be considered while deciding the appeal in this case.” 9. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant vehement contentions as this tribunal coordinate bench’s order has already declined it’s appeal ITA.No.1647/PUN./2017 for the assessment year 2012-13 dated 04.09.2019 in assessee’s case itself as follows : “3. In the appeal filed by Revenue, the only issue raised is whether incentive received by the assessee from Government of Maharashtra under the PSI Scheme, 2007 in the form of Octroi refund was capital subsidy or not. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing and supply of fabricated electrical components, connectors, bus-bars and assemblies, etc. The assessee during the year under consideration had made claim in respect of incentive subsidy by way of Octroi refund under Package Scheme of 15 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. Incentive by Government of Maharashtra, 2007. The assessee had claimed that it had received the aforesaid incentive for expansion of facilities in the form of Octroi refund from the Government of Maharashtra. The refund benefit of ₹ 1.14 crores (approx.) was reduced by the assessee from the cost of material / purchases. The assessee claimed the Octroi refund to be capital receipt not includable in its hands. The Assessing Officer did not accept the plea of assessee and held it to be revenue receipt. On without prejudice basis, the Assessing Officer also held that it was a fresh claim made during assessment proceedings without filing any revised return of income and hence, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC) was attracted and the claim of assessee was held to be not acceptable. 5. The CIT(A) on the other hand, observed that in order to decide whether the subsidy was revenue receipt or capital in nature, the object of subsidy scheme was to be considered and the form of mechanism through which the subsidy given was held to be irrelevant. Vide para 4.14.1, it was held as under:- “4.14.1. To achieve the purpose and objective referred to herein above, it was, interalia, provided in 16 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. the package scheme of incentive 2007 of Government of Maharashtra that the refund of octroi duty would be available only on production of Certificate from Director of Industries for expansion of unit. As per the sanction letter assessee has invested ₹ 485.96 lacs in land building plant, machinery and preoperative expenses.” 6. The CIT(A) in turn, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers (2013) 351 ITR 309 (Bom) held that Octroi refund was to be treated as capital in nature. It was further observed that since the subsidy received helped in reducing the actual cost of the asset, hence the same is to be reduced from the cost of asset and the depreciation to be recomputed. In the final analysis, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to disallow depreciation of ₹ 37,03,619/- after due verification. 7. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue stands covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.1909/PUN/2016, order dated 02.01.2019. 17 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the order of Assessing Officer. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The limited issue which arises in the present appeal is whether Octroi refund received in the form of subsidy by the assessee is capital or revenue in nature. We find that similar issue arose in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2011-12 (supra) wherein the Tribunal in turn, relying on another decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal, held that subsidy received in the form of Octroi refund under the Government of Maharashtra PSI Scheme 2007 was capital subsidy. The relevant findings are in paras 7 to 8 of the said order dated 02.01.2019. 11. We further find that the CIT(A) in turn, relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers (2018) 252 TAXMAN 360 (SC), wherein it has been laid down that purpose test has to be applied to determine whether the subsidy received is on capital or revenue account. 12. Then, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (supra) has made reference to 18 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. judgment in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 2008 (9) SCC 337 and it was observed as under:- “The next important judgment that was referred to is the judgment in Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited (supra). On the facts in that case, incentives given under a scheme relating to sugar production were in the nature of a higher free sale sugar quota, and also allowing the manufacturer to collect excise duty on the sale price of free sale sugar in excess of the normal quota but to pay to the government only the excise duty payable on the price of levy sugar. Clause 7 of the aforesaid scheme was set out in para 3 of the judgment as follows:- “The beneficiaries of the incentive scheme shall ensure that the surplus funds generated through sale of the incentive sugar are utilised for the repayment of term loans, if any, outstanding from the Central financial institutions. The sugar factories should submit utilisation certificates annually from Chartered/Cost Accountant, holding certificate of practice. Utilisation certificate in respect of each sugar season during the incentive period should be furnished on or before 31 st December 19 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. of the succeeding year. Failure to submit utilisation certificate within the stipulated time may result not only in the termination of release of incentive free sale quota, but also in the recovery of the incentive free sale releases already made, by resorting to adjustment from the free sale releases of future years.” The Court then referred to the background of the incentive scheme and to the fact that the Sampat Committee was set up to examine the question relating to the economic viability of new sugar factories. The Court then found in para 9 of the judgment that the Sampat Committee referred to the fact that the increase in the cost of new sugar factories was because of increase in the cost of plant and machinery. The Committee then stated that five possible incentives for making a sugar plant economically viable could be provided. It is two of such incentives referred to that was the subject- matter for decision before this Court. In Para 10 this Court found: “We have examined in this case the 1980 and 1987 Schemes. Essentially all the four Schemes are similar except in the matter of details. Four 20 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. factors exist in the said Schemes, which are as follows: (i) Benefit of the incentive subsidy was available only to new units and to substantially expanded units, not to supplement the trade receipts. (ii) The minimum investment specified was Rs. 4 crores for new units and Rs. 2 crores for expansion units. (iii) Increase in the free sale sugar quota depended upon increase in the production capacity. In other words, the extent of the increase of free sale sugar quota depended upon the increase in the production capacity. (iv) The benefit of the Scheme had to be utilized only for repayment of term loans.” After discussing the judgment in Sahney Steel case, this Court then held: “The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel case lies in the fact that it has discussed and analysed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to the applied in judging 21 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. the character of a subsidy. The test is that the character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is given. In other words, in such cases, one has to apply the purpose test. The point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial. The form of subsidy is immaterial. The main eligibility condition in the Scheme with which we are concerned in this case is that the incentive must be utilised for repayment of loans taken by the assessee to set up new units or for substantial expansion of existing units. On this aspect there is no dispute. If the object of the Subsidy Scheme was to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is on revenue account. On the other hand, if the object of the assistance under the Subsidy Scheme was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was on capital account. Therefore, it is the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given which determines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant.” 22 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. Sahney Steel was distinguished, in para 16 by then stating that this Court found that the assessee was free to use the money in its business entirely as it liked. Finally, it was found that, applying the test of purpose, the Court was satisfied that the payment received by the assessee under the scheme was not in the nature of a helping hand to the trade but was capital in nature.” 13. The Apex Court in CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (supra) thus, held as under:- “What is important from the ratio of this judgment is the fact that Sahney Steel was followed and the test laid down was the “purpose test”. It was specifically held that the point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant; the source of the subsidy is immaterial; the form of subsidy is equally immaterial.” 14. The Apex Court noting the facts before it observes, where the object of scheme was to encourage development of Multiplex Theatre Complexes, merely because the scheme kicks in only post construction, would not change the object of scheme to construct Multiplexes. The Apex 23 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. Court also held that We have no hesitation in holding that the finding of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Shri Balaji Alloys vs. C.I.T. (2011) 333 I.T.R. 335 (J&K) on the facts of the incentive subsidy contained in that case is absolutely correct. In that once the object of the subsidy was to industrialize the State and to generate employment in the State, the fact that the subsidy took a particular form and the fact that it was granted only after commencement of production would make no difference. 15. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (supra), we hold that where the purpose for which the subsidy was given for establishment of facility, then the subsidy received in this regard is capital subsidy in the hands of assessee. Accordingly, we hold so. In the present facts and circumstances, the assessee on its own motion had reduced the said subsidy from the cost of its assets. Accordingly, the same is reduced as the said method has been adopted by the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are thus, dismissed.” 9.1. Faced with the situation and in absence of any distinction on the instant issue from the very beginning we adopt judicial consistency to reject the Revenue’s instant latter substantive ground as well as main appeal 24 ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 & ITA.No.646/PUN./2021 MSS India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. ITA.No.171/PUN./2020 for assessment year 2016-17. It is made clear that the Assessing Officer may ensure in his consequential computation that there is no double deduction on the very issue. Ordered accordingly. 10. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 11. These Revenue’s twin appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.02.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 20 th February, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.