GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEV. CO. LTD., Gandhinagar V. THE ACIT, GNR CIRCLE, Gandhinagar

ITA 199/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6519 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: A C SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 28/04/2011 DRAFTED ON: 2 8/04/2011 ITA NO.199/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. BLOCK NO.5, 4 TH FLOOR UDHYOG BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR VS. THE ACIT GNR CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR PAN/GIR NO. : AAACG 6988 Q ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.C. SHAH, A.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K. DHANESTA, SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) -GANDHINAGAR 13/11/2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. GROUND NO.1 AND ITS SUB-GROUNDS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE AO IN TREATING THE DOWN PAYMENT AND INSTALLMENT OF RS.1,63,42,940 BEING THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS INCOME IN AS MUCH AS THE GROSS RECEIPT CANNOT BE TAXED AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCT ION. ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 2 - 1.1. THE APPELLANT SAYS AND SUBMITS THAT THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT IS RS.261 PER SQ.MTR AND THE PLOTS ARE LEASED AT RS.260 PER SQ.MTR AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY PROFIT WHATSOEVER. 1.2. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SAYS AND SUBMITS THAT AS PER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES, THE COMPANY CANNOT MAKE ANY PROFIT AND THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD RECOVER THE COST WHILE LEASING. 1.3. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SAYS AND SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 2.1. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DAT ED 27/11/2008 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS BEEN SET UP FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR NEW INDUSTRIES. IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.1,63,42,940/- AS DOWN PAYMENT AND INSTALLMENTS TOWARDS ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS . IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS FOUND DULY CREDI TED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE LAND WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION ON LEASE @ RS .260/- PER SQ.METER. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO THAT T HE COST OF LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COST WAS ALSO SHOWN AT RS.260/- PER SQ. METER. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE LAND WAS LEASED OUT ON THE SAID AMOUNT ON WHICH THE COST OF LAND AND ITS DEVELOPMENT COST HAD INCURRED THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF PROFIT. THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. ASSIGNING THE FOLLOWING ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 3 - REASONS THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WA S THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, RELEVANT PARA REPRODUCED BELOW:- 11. IT IS SENT HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.1 ,63,42,940/- DURING THE YEAR AS DOWN PAYMENT AND INSTALLMENTS TO WARDS ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CREDIT ED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE CO MPANY HAS GIVEN THE LAND ON LEASE @ RS.260/- PER SQ. METER AN D THE COST OF LAND AND ITS DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO RS.260/- PER SQ .METER, AS SUCH THERE IS NO PROFIT. THIS CONTENTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. MERELY BECAUSE GIDC HAS ESTIMATED THE LAND COST AT A FIGURE OF RS.260/- PER SQ.MTR., WOULD NOT MEAN IT TO BE TH E ACTUAL COST. THE ESTIMATE INCLUDES COST OF LAND, OVER HEA D @ 12%, INTEREST @ 14% FOR 1 YEAR AND DEVELOPMENT COST. OB VIOUSLY THESE ARE ESTIMATES WHICH CAN VARY AND INCLUDE INTE REST ELEMENTS. FURTHER THE LAND COST ESTIMATE IS AT RS. 99.14 SQ.MTR. WHILE DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE IS RS.214.58/ SQ. M TR. THE LATER COST COMPONENT IS CLEARLY IS ASSESSEES DOMAI N AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT ONLY R S.9118/- FOR THE SCHEME FOR WHICH THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,63,42,940/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND THERE IS ALSO AN ELEMENT OF TIMING OF RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS COMPUTED BY A DDING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,63,42,940/-. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY. ON EXPLAINING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION IS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY INCORPORATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT OF INDU STRIAL ESTATE KNOWN AS GROWTH CENTRES IN GUJARAT STATE. IN THE PAST, THERE WAS A DISPUTE ABOUT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINES S, HOWEVER, IN AY 2004-05 ASSESSEES STAND WAS ACCEPTED THAT THE B USINESS HAS ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 4 - COMMENCED THEREFROM. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISC USSED THE POSITION OF THE ACCOUNTS AND HE HAS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SHOWN THE RECEIPTS FROM DOWN PAYMENT, INSTALLMENTS, AND RENTALS RECEIVED ON ALLOTMENT OF LAND AS TAXABLE RECEIPT FO R THE YEAR. IN THE BALANCE-SHEET THE APPELLANT CONTINUED TO SHOW THE P AYMENT TO M/S.GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING UP THE GROWTH CENTRES AS LOANS AND ADVANC ES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS NOT INCO RPORATED TO EARN PROFIT. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WERE IN THE NATURE O F ADVANCES THEREFORE COULD NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE RECEIPTS OF LEASE-RENTAL OR AGAINST THE DOWN PAYMENT. HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT TH E IMPUGNED RECEIPTS WERE TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE. 4. WITH THIS BRIEF BACKGROUND, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH T HE SIDES. AT THE OUTSET, IT HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT IN THE PAST FOR AYS 2004-05 & 2005-06 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE ITAT AHME DABAD. IT WAS CLARIFIED BY THE LD.AR THAT AS FAR AS THE DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2005-06 WAS CONCERNED, THE SAME REVOLVE AROU ND THE SINGLE ISSUE OF TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOLLOWING ASSESSEES OWN DECISION BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2004-05. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, NO SUCH ISSUE WAS RAKED-UP B Y THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THEREFORE THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PR ESENTLY HAS NO RELEVANCE. NEXT, IS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2004-05 ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 5 - BEARING ITA NO.2143/AHD/2008 DATED 22/01/2010 WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS WAS SETTLED VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.6; REPRODUCED BELOW:- 6. WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN IN FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS COMMENDED ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN TH E PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004- 2005. THE REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT HAS BECOME A FINAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION HAS COMMENCED ITS BUS INESS OPERATION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPU GNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE RECEIPTS ARISING ON ALLOTTING INDUSTRIAL PLOTS ON NO PROFIT NO LOSS BASIS IS TAXA BLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.18; REPROD UCED BELOW:- 18. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIO N AND NATURE OF THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION. IT IS A GOVERN MENT- CORPORATION OWNED BOTH BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AN D STATE GOVERNMENT. IN FACT IT IS A SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICL E (SPV) INCORPORATED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN PURSUANCE O F THE POLICY AND GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL GROWTH IN THE STATE BY PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY TO WILLING ENTREPRENEURS. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION SELLING ANY LA ND TO THE ALLOTTEES AND MAKING PROFITS OUT OF IT FOR THE REAS ON THAT THE LANDS BELONGED TO THE STATE. THE ASSESSEE-CORPORAT ION IS ONLY A FACILITATOR. EVEN THE LAND IS LEASED OUT TO THE ALLOTTEES ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. NEITHER THE GOVERN MENT NOR THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION HAS COLLECTED ANY LEASE RE NT AS SUCH ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 6 - FROM THE ALLOTTEES. THERE IS NO SUCH STIPULATION I N THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND THE ALLOTTEES. THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION HAS INCURRED E XPENDITURE IN DEVELOP0ING THE LAND AS INDUSTRIAL ESTATES. THO S EXPENSES ARE COLLECTED FROM THE ALLOTTEES BY WAY OF COST REC OVERY. THEREFORE, IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE LANDS A LLOTTED TO THE ENTREPRENEURS, THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION IS NOT EARNING ANY INCOME. IN FACT THEY ARE ONLY RECOUPING THE C OST-BUILT- IN, MADE UP OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN DEVELOPING THE LAND AND PROVIDING OTHER INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES. AS THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION IS AN SPV, ACTING AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE STATE, WE CANNOT IMPUTE A CA SE OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE CASE OF A REALTOR. THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION IS A DESIGNATED-AGENT OF T HE GOVERNMENT. 6. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ALLOTTEES BY WAY OF COST WAS NOTHING BUT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION IN DEVELOPING GOVERNMENT LAND AND CONVERTING INTO A SUITABLE INDU STRIAL PLOTS. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION IS A FULLY GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATION WHEREIN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAS SUBSCRIBED 70% OF THE SHARE CAPITAL AND THE STA TE GOVERNMENT HAS SUBSCRIBED THE BALANCE 30% OF THE SH ARE CAPITAL. IT WAS INCORPORATED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AS PER THE POLICIES FORMULATED BY THE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. AN APPLICANT IS ALLOTTED AN INDUSTRIAL PLOT ON A LEASE OF 99 YEARS. THE ALLOTT EE HAS TO PAY A PRICE FOR THE SAID PLOT. A LUMP SUM PAYMENT IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ALLOTTEE AT 30% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT. TH E SAID AMOUNT OF ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 7 - 30% OF THE TOTAL PRICE IS TO BE PAID ON ALLOTMENT. THE BALANCE 70% OF THE PRICE IS TO BE PAID IN INSTALLMENTS OVER A P ERIOD OF 10 YEARS. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT AN AL LOTTEE HAS TO PAY INTEREST, AS WELL, ALONGWITH THE INSTALLMENTS AND T HAT INTEREST IS THE INCOME ENJOYED BY THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION. IN THIS REGARD, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 22/01/2010 FOR AY 2004- 05 HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO TO RE-DO THE ASSE SSMENT AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE INTEREST INCOME. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF INTEREST, BECAUSE THE PRESENT GROUND FOR OUR ADJUDICATION IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE DOWN PAYMENT AND INSTALLMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE ALLOTTEES TOWARDS ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS. IN THIS REGARD, ONCE A VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH(SUPRA)( A.Y. 04-05) THAT THE EXPE NSES ARE COLLECTED FROM THE ALLOTTEES BY WAY OF COST RECOVER Y THEREFORE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE LANDS ALLOTTED TO THE ENT REPRENEURS, THE ASSESSEE-CORPORATION IS NOT EARNING ANY INCOME. THE RESPECTED CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS THUS CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY RECOUPING THE COST-BUILT-IN I.E. EXPENSES INCURRED IN DEVEL OPING THE LAND AND ALSO EXPENSES INCURRED IN PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES. THEREFORE ON THE PRINCIPAL OF ACCOUNTANCY IF THERE IS NO INCOME ARISES AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT OF EXPENSES THEN THE RE SIDUE IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX . WE HEREBY FOLLOW THIS PRINCIPAL AND THEREF ORE DIRECT THE A.O. TO FIND OUT THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND IF THE NEXUS IS ESTABLISHED AND IF THE EXPENDITURE IS FOUND INCURRED FOR THE OBJECT OF THE CORPORATION ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 8 - THEN OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED AS PER LAW. IN THAT CONTEX T THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMENTED THAT, QUOTE, WE CANNOT IMPUTE A CASE OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE CASE OF REALTOR, HENCE NO OTHER MEANING IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE SAID OBSERVATION BUT A LOGICAL MEANING THAT TAX IS LEVIABLE ONLY IF ANY INCOME ARISES . FO LLOWING THIS, WE HEREBY DIRECT A.O. TO RECALCULATE THE PROFITS AFTER GRANTING THE REQUISITE ADJUSTMENT OF THE EXPENSES AGAINST DOWN PAYMENT AND INSTALLMENT AS CONTESTED IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS USED. 7.1. THE AO HAS MADE A CRYPTIC OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.59,76,889/- ON THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED IN A STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOTICED T HAT THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED ON NON-EXISTENT ASSETS . IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE LAND DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSES SEE THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE. ON HEARI NG BOTH THE SIDES AS ALSO ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE BECA USE IT IS A CASE WHERE THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS ARE THE DOWN PAYMENT RECEIVED AND THE INSTALLMENTS RECOVERED DURING THE LEASE PERI OD, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AGAINST SU CH RECEIPTS WHICH ARE NOT FOUND SURPLUS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS HELD IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS. WE ARE ALSO NOT INCLINED TO A CCEPT THE SAID ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 9 - CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF A NON-DEPRECIAB LE ASSET I.E LAND. WE THEREFORE DISMISS THIS GROUND. 8. GROUND NO.3 READS AS UNDER:- 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET-OFF OF CARRIED FORWARD LOSS AND DEPRECIATION OF THE EARLIER YEARS IN AS MUCH AS THE APPEALS OF THE EARLIER YEARS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8.1. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IT AP PEARS THAT THE GROUND IS MISCONCEIVED BECAUSE NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT(A) HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF SET OFF OF CARRIED FORW ARD LOSS/ SET-OFF OF DEPRECIATION. RATHER THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT TALK ABOUT THE SAID ISSUE. RATHER, IT WAS DIRECTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND DECIDE AS PER LAW. IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, THERE S HOULD NOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE OF THIS ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID DIRECTI ONS. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND DISMISS THIS GROUND. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27 5 /2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL) ( MUKUL KR. SH RAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD; DATED 27 / 05 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.199/AHD/ 2010 GUJARAT GROWTH CENTERS DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD. VS. A CIT ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 10 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-GANDHINAGAR 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION.. 18.5.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.05.2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S27/5/2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27/5/2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER