Unifi Capital Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1810/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2657 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: N VIJAY KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 14A; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , '!# BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.1810 & 1811/MDS/2014 ' $ %$ / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2010-2011. UNIFI CAPITAL PVT. LTD (FORMERLY UNIFI WEALTH MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD) 11, KAKANI TOWERS, 15, KHADER NAWAZ KHAN ROAD, CHENNAI 600 006 VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE III(2) CHENNAI. [PAN AAACU 5196J ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) &' ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. N. VIJAYKUMAR, C.A. *+&' ( ) /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.B. KOLI, IRS, JCIT. ( , / DATE OF HEARING : 28-12-2015 -.% ( , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-02-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST D IFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- III, CHENNAI DT 28.02.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 20 10-2011 PASSED ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 2 -: U/S.143(3) 274 AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP APPEAL NO ITA NO.1810/MDS/2014 OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 FOR ADJUDICATION AND THE AS SESSEE RAISED THREE GROUNDS:- (I) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE DISALLOWANCE OF FINE OF B21,000/- P AID TO NATIONAL SECURITIES CLEARING CORPORATION LTD THOUGH IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT. (II) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF EXEMPT INCOME AMOUNTING TO B3,22,670/- U/S.14A WHERE THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 14A DOES NOT APPLY AS NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME WHEREAS CONSIDERING THE JUDICIAL DECISION 2% OF EXEMPT INCO ME IS TO BE TREATED AS DISALLOWANCE. (III) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SOFTWARE EXPENSES HAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS I N THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES , STOCK BROKING SERVICES, CORPORATE ADVISORY SERVICES, CUSTODIAL SE RVICES AND DEALING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES ETC., AND FILED RETURN OF IN COME ON 29.11.2006 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF B2,39,24,883/- AND PROCES SED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF TH E ACT DATED 27.09.2007 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIAN CE TO THE NOTICE, THE LD.AR HAS FILED INFORMATION FROM TIME AND TIM E AND SUBMITTED ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 3 -: THAT B21,000/- WAS PAID AS FINE TO NATIONAL SECURI TIES CLEARING CORPORATION (NSCCL) DUE TO DELAY IN UPLOADING OF I NFORMATION, SHORT COLLECTION OF MARGINS AND EXPOSURE VIOLATIONS ETC. THE NATURE OF FINE IS A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION BETWEEN NSCCL AND TRADE M EMBER AND NOT A STATUTORY FINE OR PENALTY AND SAME IS ALLOWABLE U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED SUCH EXPENDITURE AS EXTRANEOUS OF LAW AND DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEI VED B64,53,414/- AS DIVIDEND INCOME AND CLAIMED EXEMPTED INCOME U/S. 10(35) OF THE ACT AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF EXPE NDITURE INCURRED IN EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND DISALLOWED UNDER PROVISION OF SEC.14A OF THE AC B3,22,670/- BEING 5% OF DIVIDEND INCOME AND ALSO F OUND B2,70,795/- DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS COMPUTER SOFT WARE EXPENSES AND RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND TREATED SUCH EXPENSES AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED DEPREC IATION AT 60% B1,62,477/- AND DISALLOWED B.1,08,318/- AS EXCESS C LAIM AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ALONGWITH OTHER DISALLOWANCE A ND PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DT.24.12.2008. AGGRIEVED, TH E ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED B21,000/- TREATING THE FINE AS VIOLATION OF LAW AND ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 4 -: SUBMISSIONS BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) CONSIDERING THE EXPENSES AS CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE . THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME ON INVESTMENTS AND ALSO NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME. THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER CONSIDERED CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF M/S. IND BANK MERCHANT BANKING SECURITIES LTD IN ITA NO.420/MDS/98, DATED 14.04.2004 AND DISALLOWED U/S.14A OF THE ACT AT B3,22,670/- BEING 5% OF EXEMPTED INCOME. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THE DISALLOWANCE IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE AND SUPPORTED WITH THE DECI SION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIMPSON & CO LTD IN T.C. NO.2621/2006, DATED 15.10.2012, TO DISALLOW 2% OF EXEMPTED INCOME AS EXPENDITURE TOWARDS EARNING INCOME. ON THE THIR D GROUND THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE EXPENSES TOWARDS LICENCE FEES, ANTI VIRUS, MS OFFICE LICENCE , ODIN SOFTWARE LICENCE AND SOFTWARE UPGRADING AND ALSO CDSL SOFTWA RE RENTAL CHARGES ALL AGGREGATING TO B2,70,795/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE EXPENSES AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAVING ENDURIN G BENEFIT AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT 60% AND DISALLOWED EXCESS CLAIM B1,08,318/-. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED HIS SU BMISSIONS THAT SOFTWARE EXPENSES ARE IN THE NATURE OF OPERATIONAL SOFTWARE NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN STOCK MARKET TRADING AN D THE VALIDITY PERIOD IS LESS THAN ONE YEAR AND FURTHER PERIODICAL UPGRADATION CHARGES ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 5 -: INCURRED AND ALSO SHARE TRADING SOFTWARE RENTAL CHA RGES COLLECTED BY CDSL. BUT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF DISALLOWAN CE OF B21,000/- FINE IMPOSED BY NSCCL BASED ON DEBIT INVOICE AND ALSO CO NFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE U/SEC.14A BEING 5% OF EXEMPTED INCOME. IN THE CASE OF SOFTWARE EXPENSES THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FUN CTIONAL TEST AND USAGE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF A SOFTWARE AND FOUND M S OFFICE LICENCE SOFTWARE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND DIRECTED THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND ALLOW THE SAME IF IT IS REVENU E OR OTHERWISE ALLOW DEPRECATION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ON THE ISSUE OF FINE OF B21,000/- THE LD. AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE DREW ATTENTION TO THE PAGE NOS.2 TO 6 OF PAPER BOOK REFE RRING DEBIT INVOICE SHOWING PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS NON COLLECTION AND PA RTIAL COLLECTION OF MARGIN FROM CLIENTS AND ALSO CHARGES FOR NON SUB MISSIONS OF CLIENT DETAILS FOR TRADE IN F & O SEGMENT FOR A LIMITED PE RIOD IN JANUARY, 2006 AND THESE LETTERS EXPLAINED THE PAYMENT AS COMPENSA TORY AND IF THERE IS A DELAY IN PAYMENT, INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE @18 % PER ANNUM. THEREFORE, IT IS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND TREATED AS REVENUE ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 6 -: EXPENDITURE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER SEC.37(1) O F THE ACT. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/SEC. 14A THE LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT COMPANY HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDI TURE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME OF B64,53,414/-. THE LD. AO RELIED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL DECISION AND DISALLOWED 5% OF EXEMPTED INCOME AT B3,22,670/- BEING HIGHER SIDE AND PRAYED FOR RES TRICTING TO 2%. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCED INVOICE COPI ES OF SOFTWARE AT PAGE NO.7 TO 13 OF PAPER BOOK WITH DESCRIPTION OF S OFTWARE NEEDED PERIODICAL UPGRADATION AND YEARLY RENEWAL AND PRAY ED FOR ALLOWING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED PAYMENT OF B21,000/- AS FINE IS IN LIEU OF NON SUBMISSION CHARGES LEVIED AND PARTIALLY COLLECTION OF MARGIN A ND ARGUED THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF CONTRACT WITH NSCCL SUCH PAYMENTS ARE ALWAYS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. WE ARE OF THE OPINION ON T HE BASIS OF THE DEBIT NOTE AND DEBIT ADVICES THOUGH IN DEBIT ADVICE IT WAS REFERRED AS PENALTY FOR INITIAL MARGIN SUMMARY STATEMENT THEY T AKE THE ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 7 -: CHARACTERISTIC OF BUSINESS TRANSACTION WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY INCURRED IN TRADING OF SECURITIES AND COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS GROUND AND WE DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE U/SEC 14A OF THE ACT THOUGH NO EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY AND RELIED ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. IND BANK MERCHANT BANKING SECURITIES LTD IN ITA NO.420/ MDS/98 , DATED 14.04.2004 AND MADE DISALLOWANCE @5% OF THE EXEMPTE D INCOME. WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIMPSON AND CO. LTD VS. DCIT IN TAX T.C.(A) NO.2621 OF 2006 DECIDED ON 15.10.2012 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW 2% OF E XEMPTED INCOME AS DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. THIS GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7.2 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INCURRED COMPUTER SOFTWARE EXPENSES OF B2,70,795/- AS SOFTWARES HAVE VALIDITY PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIF Y AND ALLOW DEDUCTION IF IT IS REVENUE IN NATURE. THEREFORE, W E ARE NOT INCLINE TO ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 8 -: INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. ITA NO.1811/MDS/2014, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 :- THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 4.10.2010 ADMITT ING TOTAL INCOME OF B3,88,46,740/- AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITH DISALLOWANCE ALO NGWITH DISALLOWANCE ON DISPUTED ISSUES. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 9. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRANT ED PARTIAL RELIEF AND CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE EXP ENSES LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GAVE DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER AS IN EARLIER YEARS TO ALLOW LICENCE FEES AND EXPENSES HAVING VALIDITY PERIOD LESS THAN ONE YEAR TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENSES AND REMAINING AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ALLOW DEP RECIATION AND ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF NET PROFIT FR OM HEDGING INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF HEDGING TRANSACTIONS LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LOSS WAS INCURRED DU E TO MISTAKE OF FUTURE & OPTIONS TRANSACTIONS AND SAME BE ALLOWED. THE LD. ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 9 -: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON VERIFYING T HE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO CIRCUMSTANCES OF INCURRING LOSS DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AN D PARTLY ALLOWED THE GROUND. 10. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND IN COME OF B88,252/-. THE LD. AO BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEC . 14A R.W.R. 8D CALCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE WHEREAS ASSESSEE SUO-M OTU DISALLOWED B16,770/- AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH EXEMPTED INCOME. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING THE DISALLOWA NCE BY THE ASSESSEE MADE ADDITIONAL DISALLOWANCE OF B2,57,857/- AND AD DED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECISIONS RELIED AND HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE BASED O N THE JURISDICTIONAL DECISION OF TRIBUNAL WERE DISALLOWAN CE IS MADE MANDATORY AND CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER EXPLAINED THE LAW PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS NO APPLICABLE TO CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 10 -: 11. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE ARGUED AND SUBMITTED PAPER BOOK PLACING RELIANCE ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN SUBSIDIARIES AND TABULATION OF DISALLOWANC E U/SEC.14A EXCLUDING INVESTMENTS IN GROUP COMPANIES AND ALSO S TATEMENT WITH DETAILS OF SOFTWARE AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APP EAL. 12. CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIE D ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OPPOSED TO TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. 13. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF B7,20,560/- WHICH INCLU DES LICENCE FEES, SOFTWARE UPGRADATION CHARGES, CONTRACT NOTE SOFTWA RE, LICENCE APPLICATION SOFTWARE. WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 REFERRED AT P ARA 7.2 OF THE ORDER AND PARTLY ALLOW THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS MAD E IN SUBSIDIARIES AND OTHERS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CALCULA TION OF DISALLOWANCE RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE INVESTMENTS WORKED ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 11 -: OUT AT B2,74,627/- AS AGAINST SUO-MOTU DISALLOWANC E OF ASSESSEE B16,770/- THE EXEMPTED INCOME RECEIVED B88,252/- ON LISTED SECURITIES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER APPLYIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A R.W.R. 8D(III) HAS CALCULATED THE DISALLOWA NCE AND CONSIDERED B16,770/- AND MADE AN ADDITIONAL DISALLOWANCE OF B2 ,57,857/-. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED HIS SUBMIS SIONS AND ARGUED THAT THE TOTAL EXEMPTED INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS B88,252/- AND ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED B16,770/- W HEREAS THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED DISALLOWANCE UNDER RUL E 8D B2,57,857/- WHICH IS AT HIGHER SIDE ON COMPARISON WITH INCOME RECEIVED AND PRAYED DELETION. WE AFTER CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS AND JUDICIAL DECISION OF M/S.JOINT INVESTMENTS P. LTD VS. CIT 372 ITR 694 (DELHI) WERE HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPTED INCOME. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS GROUND AND REMIT TH E ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL VER IFY AND EXAMINE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE RATIO OF JUDICIAL DECISION. 15. IN RESPECT OF NET PROFIT FROM HEDGING B17,764/- DI SALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND PASS ORDER. THEREFORE, WE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PARTLY ALLOW THE GROUND OF THE AS SESSEE. ITA NOS.1810 & 1811/2014 :- 12 -: 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBR UARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI / / DATED: 26.02.2016 KV 0 ( *',12 32%, / COPY TO: 1 . &' / APPELLANT 3. 4, () / CIT(A) 5. 278 *',' / DR 2. *+&' / RESPONDENT 4. 4, / CIT 6. 89$ : / GF