The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda V. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd., Baroda

ITA 1794/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5901 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 32

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 1684 & 1794/AHD/2014 GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] I.T.A. NO.1684/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD. .....APPELLANT NEAR IPCL COMPLEX, PO PETROCHEMICALS, AT RANOLI, DIST. BARODA 391 346 [PAN : AAACG 8896 M] VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .RESPONDENT CIRCLE 1 (1), BARODA I.T.A. NO.1794/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .....APPELLANT CIRCLE 1 (1), BARODA VS. GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD. .RESPONDENT NEAR IPCL COMPLEX, PO PETROCHEMICALS, AT RANOLI, DIST. BARODA 391 346 [PAN : AAACG 8896 M] APPEARANCES BY: SUNIL TALATI FOR THE APPELLANT VK SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 20.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 19.03.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 18 TH MARCH, 2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1. ITA NOS. 1684 & 1794/AHD/2014 GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 7 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. 3. IN THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, BARODA, IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO LEGAL PRONOUNCEM ENT AND SAME BE QUASHED. THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES CONFIRMED BY THE HONBL E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)-I, BARODA, ARE UNWARRANTED AND UNJUST IFIED. IT BE HELD SO NOW AND SAME BE DELETED. 2. THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL)- I, BARODA, HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING OF RS.14,51,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMORTIZA TION OF LEASE RENT TREATING THE SAME AS OF CAPITAL NATURE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DI SALLOWANCE MADE IS UNWARRANTED AND SAME BE DELETED NOW. 4. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS I SSUE IS NOW COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT S JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2016 (ITA NO.578 OF 2016) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,51,000/-. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS THUS ALLOWED. 6. IN GROUND NO.3, GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I BARODA, HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) OF THE AC T ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF YOUR APPELLANT AND THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME IS INCORRECT. YOUR APPELLAN T SUBMITS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPTED INCOME AND H ENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I BARODA, IS UNJUST AND UNCALLED FOR AND SAME BE DELETED NOW. 7. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS I SSUE IS ALSO COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION, IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE NEVERTHELESS SUBMITS THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT EXPRESSLY RECORD HIS DISSATISFACTION WITH THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISENTITL E HIM TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.S. 8D. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL TH AT IS NECESSARY IS THAT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND IS REASONABLY DEMONSTRATED, AS IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. WE ARE, HOWEVER, NOT SWAYED BY THIS SUBMISSION AS THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGE R RES INTEGRA AND AS BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENT DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSITIONS SO STRENUOUSL Y CANVASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT TH E CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLLOWED HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BUT THAT HAS NOW BEEN REVERSED BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND THE MATTER IS SAID TO BE PENDING BEFORE H ONBLE HIGH COURT. RESPECTFULLY ITA NOS. 1684 & 1794/AHD/2014 GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 7 FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,00,000/- AS WAS DONE IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 8. GROUND NO.3 IS ALSO THUS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS IN DICATED ABOVE. 9. IN GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GRIEVANCE:- 4. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) -I BARODA, HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DEDUCTION OF RS.30.96 CRORES CLAIMED U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE NECESSARY BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND ALL CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80IA ARE FULFILLED . HENCE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO DISALLOW YOUR APPELLANT CLAIMS BY ADOPTING THE M ARKET RATE OF UNITS OTHER THAN RATE ADOPTED BY YOUR APPELLANT. IT IS THEREFORE SUB MITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA IS RIGHTLY CLAIMED BY YOUR APPELLANT AND HENCE BE ALLOWED NOW. 10. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4), IN RESPECT OF PROF ITS ON 90MV CAPTIVE POWER PLANT, AMOUNTING TO RS.30,96,49,300/-. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, HOWEVER, DECLINED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS:- (F) THEREFORE, FOR TAKING UNIT SALE PRICE, THE PRIC E IN THE SALE OF GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD (GSECL) WHO IS POWER GE NERATOR AND THE AVERAGE PRICE FOR THE YEAR FOR SALE OF POWER TO GUVNL OR PU RCHASE PRICE OF GUVNL FROM GSECL WAS AT RS.2.81 PER UNIT. THE GUVNL PURCHASED FROM ALL SOURCES I.E. GSECL, GIPCL, NTPC, PVT GENERATORS, WIND MILLS, POW ER/ENERGY EXCHANGES DURING THE YEAR AND FOR THE GUNVL THE AVERAGE PURCH ASE PRICE DURING THE AY 2009-10 WAS AT RS.3.11 PER UNIT. IN THE FINDING OF CIT(A) THE RATE FOR POWER GENERATOR COMES TO RS.2.99 PER UNIT. IN THE CASE O F ASSESSEE ITSELF, IT HAS SOLD ELECTRICITY TO THE GUVNL AT THE RATE OF RS.2.9769 P ER UNIT. TAKING THIS PRICE FOR SALE CONSIDERATION, THE UNDERTAKINGS OF THE ASSESSE E RESULTED IN THE LOSS AND THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) DO ES NOT ARISE. PARTICULARS KWH RATE PER KWH (RS.) AMOUNT (RS./LACS) REVISED AMOUNT @ RS.2.81 (IN LACS) CAPTIVE USAGE AT DAHEJ PLANT 66,43,54,783 5.6623 37618.08 19777.17 CAPTIVE USAGE AT BARODA PLANT (WHEELED FROM DAHEJ CPP) 4,32,37,993 6.2021 2681.66 1287.15 SALE TO GUVNL 3,62,98,045 2.9769 1080.57 1087.57 OTHER-FROM SALE OF UTILITIES - - 1878.41 1878.41 74,38,90,821 43258.72 24030.30 ITA NOS. 1684 & 1794/AHD/2014 GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 7 ON TAKING THE RATE AT RS.2.9769 PER UNIT THE SALE V ALUE COMES TO RS.24,030.30 LAKHS WHEREAS THE EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT RS.28,821.54 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, NO PROFIT AND ACTUALLY INCURRED LOSSES, HENCE DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) IS TREATED AT NIL. 11. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L. LEARNED CIT(A) REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY, INTER ALIA, OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 10.3 AS FAR AS DENIAL OF THE AO FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) DUE TO CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF AHMEDABAD MANUFACTURING AND CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD. (1986) 1 62 ITR 760. IN THIS CASE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, IN THE CONTEXT OF AV AILABILITY DEDUCTION U/S 80I HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80I WAS AVAILABLE IRRESPECT IVE OF THE FACT WHETHER PRODUCTS WERE SOLD IN OPEN MARKET ARE USED FOR CONS UMPTION BY OTHER UNITS. AGAIN, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8 0IA(4) THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) IS ENVISAGED IN RESPECT OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM INT ER UNIT TRANSFER AS WELL. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT IS HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) WAS AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY IT FOR CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION, SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS U/S 80IA. 10.4 REGARDING SALE PRICE TO BE ADOPTED FOR COMPUT ING PROFITS DERIVED BY CPPS, THIS ISSUE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A)-I, BARODA (I.E. MY PREDECESSOR) IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE IN- AY 2008-09 IN CAB-I/25/10-11 THROUGH ORDER DATED 03/11/2011. FACTS OF THE CASE BEING SAM E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUST IFIED IN REJECTING 'MARKET VALUE' OF ELECTRICITY CAPTIVELY CONSUMED TO BE RATE CHARGED B Y DGVCL AND MGVCL THE AO IS DIRECTED TO INSTEAD ADOPT MARKET VALUE FOR EL ECTRICITY UNITS ACTUALLY SOLD BY IT TO BE THE ACTUAL RATE, I.E. RS. 2.23 PER UNIT AND F OR ELECTRICITY UNITS CAPTIVELY CONSUMED TO BE AVERAGE RATE OF PURCHASE OF POWER BY GUVNL DURING FY 2009- 10 FROM VARIOUS GENERATING COMPANIES I.E. RS. 3.11 PER UNIT. ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD ACCORDINGLY RE-COMPUTE THE PROFIT OF ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA(4). SINCE THE SAME WOULD STILL WORK OUT TO BE LOSS FIGURE, NO DEDUCTION UNDER 80IA(4) WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THIS YE AR. FURTHER, THE LOSS SO COMPUTED OF CPPS WOULD BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET O FF AGAINST DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IA. 12. LEARNED COUNSEL NOW INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO HO NBLE HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2016 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN THE IR LORDSHIPS HAVE APPROVED ADOPTION OF RATE OF POWER GENERATION AT RS.4.73 PER UNIT I.E. THE RATE ON WHICH GEB SUPPLIED POWER TO ITS CONSUMERS AND NOT THE RATE OF RS.2.36 PER UNIT I.E. THE RATE AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPLIED ITS POWER TO GEB. IN EFFECT THUS THE LEGAL POSITION SEEMS TO BE THAT THE RATE AT WHICH INTERNAL CONSUMP TION OF POWER IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IS THE RATE AT WHICH GEB SELLS POWER TO ITS CONSUMERS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THE CLAIM IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE LEGAL POSITION. IN CAS E OF WORKING OF PROFITS ON WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) IS CLAIMED IS INDEE D ON THIS BASIS, THE ASSESSING ITA NOS. 1684 & 1794/AHD/2014 GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 5 OF 7 OFFICER WILL ALLOW THE SAME. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT DISPUTE THIS POSITION. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, MATTER STANDS R ESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. GROUND NO.4 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 15. WE NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 16. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,69,30,658/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE FOR REPLACEMENT OF RE-MEMBRANING CELLS - II DISREGARDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. (2007) 293 ITR 201 (SC). 17. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT S JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2016 (ITA NO.577 OF 2016) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AN D DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 18. GROUND NO.1 IS THUS DISMISSED. 19. IN GROUND NOS. 2 & 3, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE 'TONNERS' AS 'GAS CYLINDERS' AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLO W DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON CHLORINE TONNERS INSTEAD OF 15% APPLICABLE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY OF CAUSTIC CHLORINE PLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) ERRED DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1, 53,707/- ON COMPUTERS INSTALLED IN THE FACTORY PREMISES, WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT THE COMPUTERS ARE OFFICE APPLIANCES ONLY WHETHER INSTALLED IN FACTORY OR OFFICE AND LIABLE FOR DEPRECIATION AS APPLICABLE TO PLANT AND MACHINERY. 20. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THESE ISSUES ARE ALSO COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RTS JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2014 (ITA NO.942 OF 2013) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AN D DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 21 GROUND NOS.2 & 3 ARE THUS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 1684 & 1794/AHD/2014 GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 6 OF 7 22. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES:- 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,87,88,178/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON WIND ELECTRIC GENERAT OR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IT IS NOT COVERED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 23. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE A FORESAID ISSUE IS COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 PASS ED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO.2550/AHD/2012, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 24. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E VIEWS SO TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 IN ITA NO.2550/AHD/2012, WE REJECT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 25. GROUND NO.4 IS THUS DISMISSED. 26. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE:- 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE HON. ITAT DID NOT RELY ON THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF CHETTINAD CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. IN THE ITA NO.1026(MDS)/2005 FOR A .Y.2001-02 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CAPTIVE POWER GENERATION PLAN T AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 27. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT S JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2016 (ITA NO.708 OF 2016) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AN D DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 28. GROUND NO.5 IS THUS DISMISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 30. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED AS IN DICATED ABOVE; WHEREAS, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 **BT* ITA NOS. 1684 & 1794/AHD/2014 GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD VS. DCIT A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 7 OF 7 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF TAKING DICTATION: ....ORDER PREPARED AS PER 6 PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM ARE ATTACHED WITH THIS CASE FILE... .....19.03.2018.............. 2. DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACED BEFORE THE DI CTATING MEMBER: ........ 19.03.2018............... ... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.: ..... 19.03.2018. 4. DT. ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: ..... 19.03.20 18......... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: . ...... 19.03.2018.................... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: ..... 7. THE DT. ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASTT. REGISTR AR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: .................. ....... 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ................. ........