Gemini Communication Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1933/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7774 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: G MOORTHY
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1933/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. GEMINI COMMUNICATIONS LTD., 1, DR.RANGA ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI-600 018. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(2) CHENNAI. PAN:AAACG2531K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. G. MOORTHY, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 14 TH JANUARY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 TH MARCH, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 6, CHENNAI DATED 10.03.2015 IN ITA NO.179/CIT(A)-6/ 2013- 14 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF TH E ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS, HOWEVE R THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.3,79,87,050/- BEING THE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTAB LE FOR 2 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 EARNING EXEMPT INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TELECOMMUNICATION, NE TWORKING, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, SOFTWARE SALES & SERVICES FILED ITS E- RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.09.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,14,95,650/- AND COMPUTED BOOK PROFIT OF RS.16,78,95,019/- UNDER SEC TION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT ON 18.03.2013. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT IT HAD MADE INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.55,77,85,000/- A S ON 31.03.2010 IN ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES NAMELY M/S . GEMINI TRAZE RFID PVT. LTD., M/S. POINTREAD TELECOM PVT. L TD., AND M/S. GEMINI INFOTECH LTD. HOWEVER, IN THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. SINCE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE FOR PURCHASE OF EQUITY SHARES, THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF W HICH IS 3 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 EXEMPT FROM TAX, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER INVO KED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D AND THEREBY DISALLOWED RS.3,79,87,050/- CONSIDERING IT TO BE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.8 FURTHER, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ANALYSED THE ASSESSEE'S ACTIVITY OF INVESTING IN SHARES AND OBSERVED THAT THERE WILL BE SOME ELEMENT OF EXPENDITURE, BOTH IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL BURDEN (INTEREST ELEMENT) AS WELL AS THE IN TERMS OF USE O F MANPOWER AND INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES IN MAKING THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES/FUNDS. HENCE THERE WAS A SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS SOME ELEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH NEEDS TO BE QUANTIFIED AND DISALLOWED U/S.14A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, AS PROVIDED U/S.14A OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY QUANTIFIED THE SAID EXPENSES AT RS.3,79,87,050/-, BY USING THE RULE 8D, AND DISALLOWED U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 4.9 THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS AN ELEMENT OF EXPENSES INVOLVED IN MAKING INVESTMENTS WHOSE INCOME IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE-8D. ONCE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE- 8 D ARE INVOKED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OPTION BUT TO ARRIVE AT THE EXPENSES @ 0.5% AS PER STEP-3 OF THE FORMULA WHICH IS MANDATORY. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER HAS CLEARLY STATED THESE FACTS BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R.8D. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY INVOKED THE 4 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 RULE-8D AND ARRIVED AT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UFS.14A R.W.RULE-8D. 4.10 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION OF DETERMINING THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AT RS.3,79,87,050/-, U/S.14A R.W.R.8D, IS AS PER THE LAW AND JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, U/S.14A R.W.R.8D, IS JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE FAILS IN ITS APPEALS IN THIS REGARD. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED BEFORE US STATING THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT S IN EQUITY SHARES ARE MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF THE AS SESSEE AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY EXPENDITUR E IS INCURRED FOR MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS. FURTHER, IT W AS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF RESERVES & SURPLUS EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT OF INVESTME NT MADE IN ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND THEREFORE TO T HAT EXTENT OF INVESTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST FREE FUNDS. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENT LY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE AND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 5 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS APPARENT F ROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE ENTI RE AMOUNT IN ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AS STRATEGIC INVESTMENT . IN SUCH SITUATION, NO EXPENSE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCU RRED FOR MANAGING / INVESTING IN SUCH FUNDS WHEN THE ASSESSE E HAS INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO THAT EXTENT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS EVIDENT FROM ITS BALANCE SHEET THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RESERVES AND SURPLUS EXCEEDING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY IT IN ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. FURTHER, THE CHENNAI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.DATA SOFTWARE RESEACH COMPANY (INTERNATIONAL) PVT. LTD., VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS 2169 TO 2172/MDS/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.02.2016 ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A NORMAL P RACTICE TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN SISTER COMPANIES DUE TO COMMERCIAL EXIGENCIES. WHILE DOING SO, NO EXPENSE CAN BE ATTRIBUTABLE OTHER THAN INTEREST EXPENSE FOR MAK ING SUCH INVESTMENTS BECAUSE ALL MANAGEMENT COSTS WILL BE ABSORBED FOR STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING PROCESS WHIC H IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO INTEREST COST WAS INCURRED AS THE ENTIRE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS. FURTHER IN THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I TA NO.115/MDS/2015 DATED 06.01.2016, EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE WHEN INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN SIST ER COMPANIES. 6 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A.R. THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.156/MDS/2013 VIDE O RDER DATED 20/08/13 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 HAS REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DECIDE THE MATTER ONCE AGAIN AFRESH BASED ON THE FINDINGS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE REL EVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- FURTHER, ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAVE HEL D AS FOLLOWS:- I) GARWARE WALL ROPES LTD., VS. ACIT REPORTED IN (2014) 65 SOT 086 (MUM.) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- WHEN ASSESSEE HAS PRIMA FACIE BROUGHT OUT CASE THA T NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING INCOME, W HICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME, THEN IN ABSENCE OF A NY FINDING THAT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEM PT INCOME PROVISIONS 14A CANNOT BE APPLIED.. II) INTEGLOBE ENTERPRIESES LTD., VS. DCIT REPOTED IN (2014) 40 CCH 0022(DEL. TRIB.) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(I) & 8D(II) WHERE NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED INTEREST FREE FUNDS FOR MAKING FRESH INVESTMENTS AND THAT TOO INTO ITS SUBS IDIARIES, WHICH WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING EXEMPT INC OME AND WHICH WAS FOR STRATEGIC PURPOSES ONLY, NO DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(I) & 8D(II) AND STRATEGIC INVESTMENT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FOR PUR POSE OF ARRIVING AT DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(III). III) M/S.JM FINANCIAL LTD., VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 2 014-TIOL- 202-ITAT-MUM HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT ABOUT 98% OF THE INVESTMENT ARE IN SUBSI DIARY COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE PURPO SE OF INVESTMENT IS NOT FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME B UT HAVING CONTROL AND BUSINESS PURPOSE AND CONSIDERATION. TH E ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT OUT A CASE TO SHOW THAT NO EXP ENDITURE 7 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR MAINTAINING THE 98% OF THE IN VESTMENT MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING THAT ANY EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURR ED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED, ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DELETED. (IV) CIT VS. BHARTI TELEVENTURE LTD. REPORTED IN (2 011) 331 ITR 0502. WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE HAVING ADEQUATE NON-INTEREST BEARING FUND BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL A ND RESERVES AND THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWALS OF ASS ESSEE AND THE ADVANCES GIVEN, NO DISALLOWANCE FOR INTERES T WAS CALLED FOR . (V) CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD., REPOR TED IN (2009) 313 ITR 0340(BOM.) HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- TRIBUNAL HAVING RECORDED A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE POSSESSED SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN WHICH WERE GENERATED IN THE COURSE OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL Y EAR, APART FROM SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDERS FUND, PRESUMPTION STA NDS ESTABLISHED THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN SISTER CONCERNS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND THER EFORE NO PART OF INTEREST ON BORROWINGS CAN BE DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF INTEREST BEAR ING FUNDS. (VI) EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD VS. DCIT REPORTED I N 2013- TIOL-796-ITAT-MAD . THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SU BSIDIARY COMPANY ARE NOT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT FOR EARNIN G CAPITAL GAINS OR DIVIDEND INCOME. SUCH INVESTMENTS HAVE BEE N MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROMOTE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY INTO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON ACC OUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. ANY DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASS ESSEE FROM INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS PURELY INC IDENTAL. THEREFORE THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN IT S SUBSIDIARY IS NOT TO BE RECKONED FOR DISALLOWANCE U /S.14A R.W.R.8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-C OMPUTE THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AFTER DELETING INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. TAKING NOTE OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS AND THE DECISION OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO.156/MDS/13 CITED SUPRA, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATT ER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMIN E THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AFRESH AND PASS APPROPR IATE 8 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 ORDER AS PER LAW AND MERITS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED HEREIN ABOVE. WHILE DOING SO, WE AL SO DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE M/S AGILE ELECTRIC SUB ASSEMBLY PVT. LTD. CITED SUPRA WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 7.2 IN REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D ALSO; THE ABOVE VIEW WILL BE APPLICABLE. MOREOVER IN THE CASE EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD V. D CIT REPORTED IN 2013 (9) TMI 604 IN ITA NO.1503, 1624/M DS/2012 DATED 17 TH JULY, 2013, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AS FOLLOWS:- DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A RW RULE 8D CIT UPHELD DISALLOWANCE HELD THAT INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ARE NOT ON ACCOUNT OF INV ESTMENT FOR EARNING CAPITAL GAINS OR DIVIDEND INCOME. SUCH INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROMO TE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY INTO THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) SHOWS THAT OUT OF TOTAL I NVESTMENT OF RS.64,18,19,775/-, RS.63,31,25,715/- IS INVESTED IN WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY. THIS FACT SUPPORTS THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. ANY DIVIDEND EARNE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS P URELY INCIDENTAL. THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBSIDIARY ARE NOT TO BE RECKONED FOR DISALL OWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.R. 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED T O RE- COMPUTE THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AFTER DELETING INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESS EE. FOR THE ABOVE SAID REASONS, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WIT H RULE 8D WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN REGARD TO INVESTMENTS MAD E FOR ACQUIRING THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCE RNS. ACCORDINGLY WE RESTRAIN OURSELVES FROM INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS REGARD. 8. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 1 4A WHERE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN SISTER CONCERNS SUCH AS EQUITY SHARES. HOWEVER, IF THE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE FROM BORROWED FUNDS, SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE AND LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMP UTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 8. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,79,87,050/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS FURTHER SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION THAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBSIDIARY/SISTER CONCERNS AND TO T HE EXTENT OF INVESTMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAS OWN FUNDS IN THE FORM OF RESERVES & SURPLUS. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREI N ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 18 TH MARCH, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 18 TH MARCH, 2016 SOMU 10 ITA NO.1933 /MDS/2015 *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /