Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Smt. Shruti A. Patni, Pune

ITA 1847/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 184724514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1835/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITO WARD - 2(3), PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. SMT SADHANA ASHOK KUMAR PATNI, S.NO 1A, IRANI MARKET COMPOUND, YERAWADA, PUNE - 411006 PAN NO. AAUPP2868H .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1836/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITO WARD - 2(3), PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. RUCHI AMIT KUMAR PATNI, S.NO 1A, IRANI MARKET COMPOUND, YERAWADA, PUNE - 411006 PAN NO.AARPP 6091R .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1837/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITO WARD - 2(3), PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI AMITKUMAR G.PATNI, S.NO.1/A, IRANI MARKET COMPOUND, YERWADA, PUNE 411 006 PAN NO. AAUPP 2869G .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1847/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. SMT.SHRUTI A. PATNI, S.NO 1A, IRANI MARKET COMPOUND, YERAWADA, PUNE - 411006 PAN NO.ALSPS 5573R .. RESPONDENT 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 23-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-09-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN CASE O F DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 22-04-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 . SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THE A BOVE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.1835/PN/2013 (SMT. SADHANA ASHOK KUMAR PATNI ) : 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF TRANSACTION IN SHARES/MUT UAL FUND BY ENGAGING PMS WAS AN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AND RESULTANT GAIN/LOSS W AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. (2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS IN A SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED MA NNER BY UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICE PROVIDER S TO ACT AS AN AGENT. (3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT MOST OF THE TRANSACTIONS EFFECTED WE RE OF SHORT TERM NATURE, CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF THE MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSE E TO EARN PROFITS BY RESORTING TO FREQUENT TRADING RATHER THAN TO EARN DI VIDEND BY HOLDING SHARES FOR LONG DURATIONS. (4) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT TRANSACT IONS IN HIGH VOLUME AND IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER WHICH CONSTITUTE THE ACTI VITY AS BUSINESS AND NOT INVESTMENT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THE P ROFITS DERIVED FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCO ME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION. 3 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 27-07-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.34,46,970/-. THE INCOME CONSISTS OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHARES ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CON TINUED INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS THROUGH PORTFOLIO MANAGEMEN T SERVICES. IT HAS ENTERED INTO PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PMS) AG REEMENT WITH KOTAK SECURITIES PMS, HDFC PMS, DSP MERILL LYNCH PM S, ENAM PMS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTRUSTED CERTAIN FUNDS. AS PER THE PMS AGREEMENT, THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE INVESTED IN STOCK MARKET BY THESE PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED SHORT TER M CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES. THE AO F OLLOWING HIS REASONINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR S HELD THE GAIN IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT THROUGH PMS AS BUSINESS INCOM E AND ALLOWED THE RELATED EXPENDITURE VIZ. PMS FEES AS DEDUCTION. HE NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED RELIEF, HOWEVER, THE DEPARTM ENT HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TREATED THE LOSS OF RS.3,19,34,714/- AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS AGAINST THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AS WELL AS OTHER RELATED PARTIE S VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 27-09-2012 WHERE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD TH AT THE ACTIVITY OF 4 TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUND BY ENGAGING PMS WAS AN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AND THE RESULTANT GAIN WAS ASSESSABLE UNDE R THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) REA DS AS UNDER : 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I ALSO PERUSED THE APPELLATE ORD ERS IN APPELLANT'S CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OF TAXING PROF IT ON SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE A.O. HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDERS AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS BY ENGAGING THE PMS WAS AN INVESTMENT ACT IVITY AND THE RESULTANT GAIN WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAI NS'. THIS VIEW WAS FURTHER UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE, VIDE CO MBINED ORDER DATED 27.09.2012 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND OTH ER RELATED CASES IN ITA NOS. 1534, 1535, 1568, 1569, 1570 AND 1571/PN/11 . THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARAS OF THE ITAT'S ORDER DATED 27.09.2012 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: '6 ................WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWIN G THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE GROUP CASES FOR A. Y. 2006-07, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM GAIN IN RESPEC T OF INVESTMENT THROUGH PMS SERVICE AS AGAINST 3.................................................. ................................................... .................................................. ................................................... ..................... '9. ............................................... .... 10. ....................................... ............ 11................................................. ................................................... ....................WE HAVE EXAMINED THE POSITION, IN PARTICULAR THE ANA LYSIS MADE OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN THE EX TRACTED PORTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT AND TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THE INFERENCE DRAWN OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CLEARL Y ESTABLISHES THAT THE VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED ACTIVITY STANDS ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FOOTING AND IS QUITE DISTINCT FROM THE ACTIVITY OF TRADING IN SHARES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, IT IS NOTA BLE THAT IN THE SHARE TRADING BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS CARRIE D OUT CERTAIN SPECULATIVE AND TRADING ACTIVITIES AND THAT IN THE CA SE OF A PMS PROVIDER SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE PROHIBITED IN LAW. HAVING REGARD TO THE ..........................OF THE RECORD, WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASONS TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE VOLUME AND FREQUENC Y OF TRANSACTIONS. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO POINTED OUT TH AT EARNING OF DIVIDENDS WAS NOT AT ALL THE MOTIVE OF SUCH TRANSACTION S BECAUSE THE SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD JUST BEFORE THE SAME BECAME EX-DIV IDEND ON THE STOCK EXCHANGES. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) HAS FACTUALLY FOUND THE SAME TO BE CONTR ARY TO MATERIAL ON RECORD AS PER THE DISCUSSION IN PARA 4.15 OF THE ORDER , WHICH IS AS UNDER: '4. 15........ .................................... ................................................... ..................................... ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, WE FIND NO MATERIAL TO DIFFER WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), WHICH WE HEREBY AFFIRM. 13. ANOTHER ASPECT MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT BY ITS VERY NATURE, SALES AND PURCHASES CARRIED OUT BY T HE PMS PROVIDER WAS OF SHORT-TERM NATURE AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS TO BE REGARDED AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. FACTUALLY SPEAKING ON THIS ASPECT THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME IN PARA 4.17 OF HIS O RDER, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 5 '4.17.............................................. .........' 14. . CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID MATTERS, WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE OBJECTIONS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA VE BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN COMING TO HIS FINDINGS THAT THE INVESTMENTS CARRIED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE PMS PROVIDER DO NOT RESULT IN A GAIN ASSESSA BLE AS BUSINESS INCOME. 15. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, AND HAVING REG ARD TO THE REASONINGS EXTENDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS) WITH WHICH WE HEREBY AFFIRM, WE FIND THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS MISDIRECTED AND ACCORDINGLY THE CONCLUSION A RRIVED AT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ASPECT IS HE REBY AFFIRMED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO O UR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. ................................................... ......................... RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO O UR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. SINCE NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CONNECTED CASES, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE GROUP CASES WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISM ISSED. 3.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND AS THE FACTUAL MAT RIX IN THE CASE IS PARI MATERIA THE SAME AS IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND A.Y. 200 8-09 FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED, THE GROUND BEING THE SAME AS IN THE EARLIER Y EARS, FOLLOWING THE DECISION TAKEN EARLIER AND THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE VI DE ORDER DATED 27.09.2012, IT IS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITY OF TRANSACTI ONS IN SHARES / MUTUAL FUND BY ENGAGING THE PMS WAS AN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY, AND THE RESULTANT GAIN WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. THE G ROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND THE SUB-GROUNDS RAISED FOR THIS YEAR ARE, THE REFORE, LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. 4.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITA NO.1535/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 27-09-201 2 FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 AND OTHER CONNECTED APPEALS. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR EARLIER YEAR IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST 6 THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE ALSO FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT T HE ACTIVITY OF TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS BY ENGAGED THE PMS WAS AN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE RESULTANT GAI N WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.5 BY THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER : (5) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, DISALLOWA NCE U/S.14A CANNOT BE MADE DEHORS THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(3) OF THE ACT ? 6.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED PROFITS FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF SHARE TRADING FROM PMS AND HAS ALSO E ARNED TAX FREE DIVIDENDS. HE, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE BUSINESS. HE ACCO RDINGLY DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,82,776/- U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT WH ICH HE CALCULATED BY TAKING 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT. 7. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 2 7-09-2012 DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4.2 THIS HAS ALSO BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE NO. PN/CIT(A)-II/DCIT C IR-2, PN/154/10- 11 DATED 06.09.2011 AND UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE, VIDE COMBINED 7 ORDER DATED 27.09.2012 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE APPEL LANT AND OTHER RELATED CASES IN ITA NOS. 1534, 1535, 1568, 1569, 1570 AND 1571/PN/11. THE HON'BLE ITAT HELD AS UNDER: '10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND NO INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL F INDING THAT EXPENDITURE ON PMS HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE DOES NOT REMAIN ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN THIS EXP ENDITURE, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D CAN BE MADE. THE ABOVE FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CO NTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT TH E LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.' 4.3 THE A.O. HAS APPLIED THE RULE 8D TO ARRIVE AT TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 12.82.776/- AS THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON PMS OF RS. 32, 50,642/- WAS ALLOWED BY HIM. HOWEVER, SINCE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A RE QUIRES FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAS INCURRED OR CLAIMED, DISALL OWANCE U/S 14A CANNOT STAND. THE EXPENDITURE ON PMS HAS NOT BEEN CLA IMED BY THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE, THERE DOESN'T REMAIN ANY O THER EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN THIS EXPENDITURE WHICH IS OTHERWISE LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER RULE 8D OF THE IT. RULES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS.12,82,776/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL UPHOLDIN G THE REASONING EXTENDED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE ORDER DATED 27-09-2 012, THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE BEING PARI MATERIAL THE SAME GROU ND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASIS IS L IABLE TO BE ALLOWED. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FIND ING THAT EXPENDITURE ON PMS HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RE DOES NOT REMAIN ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN THIS EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D CAN BE MADE. THE ABOVE FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROV ERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWAN CE MADE BY THE AO. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 9. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.6 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE I S DISMISSED. 9.1 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO.1836/PN/2013 (SMT. RUCHI AMIT KUMAR PATNI) : ITA NO.1837/PN/2013 (SHRI AMIT KUMAR G. PATNI) : ITA NO.1847/PN/2013 (SHRUTI A. PATNI) : 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE GROUN DS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE 3 APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO GRO UNDS OF APPEAL BY REVENUE IN ITA NO.1835/PN/2013. WE HAVE ALREADY DE CIDED THE GROUNDS AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMIS SED. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE ABOVE 3 APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE ABOVE 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-09-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. THE CIT-II, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE