The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Adani Logistics Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2007/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7137 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; TDS; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 40(a)(ia); 194C; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 2007/AHD/2016 & C.O. NO. 158/AHD/16 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD ADANI LOGISTICS LTD. ADANI HOUSE NR. MITHAKALI CIRCLE NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD V/S V/S ADANI LOGISTICS LTD. ADANI HOUSE NR. MITHAKALI CIRCLE NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABCI4157J APPELLANT BY : SHRI LALIT P. JAIN, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR & VARTIK CHOKSH I, A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 01 -01-201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 -03-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ITA NO. 2007/AHD/2016 & C.O. NO. 158/AHD/2016 ARE A PPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE PREFER RED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 2 LD. CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD DATED 24.05.2016 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2012-13. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1) THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.39,47,992/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R 8D OF THE ACT. (2) THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,33,143/- MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE I.T.ACT ON ACC OUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY. (3) THAT THE ID, CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,10,056/- MADE U/S 40(L)(IA) OF THE LT,ACT, 196 1. (4) THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS,L,23,08,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE (FOREX) LOSS, (5) THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,77,500/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF I NTEREST ON ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MULTI MODEL TRANSPORT OPERATORS, GENERAL CARRIER OF INTERNATIONAL AND DOM ESTIC CARGO WITHIN INDIA AND ABROAD BY ALL MODES AND MIXES SUCH A RAIL, ROAD, SE A, AIR, INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ROPEWAYS ETC. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN ON 21.09. 2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DECLARING TOTAL OF RS. (-)19,88,09,556/-. 3. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 1, LD. A.O. HAD DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PAGE NO. 2 TO 9 AT PARA NO. 2 AND LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISS UE AT PAGE NO. 2 TO 10 AT PARA NO. 3 TO 3.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED A SSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.19.86 CRORES AS ON 31ST MARCH, 201 2 WHEREAS SUCH VALUE WAS RS.16.75 CRORES AS ON 31ST MARCH, 2011. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER APPLIED PROVISION OF RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A AND MADE DISALLOWANCE ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 3 OFRS.39,47,992/- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY TAX-FREE INCOME. THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED IN APPELLANT'S CASE FOR A. Y. 2011-12 WHEREIN MY PREDECESSOR CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 3RD JUNE, 2015 IN APPEAL NO. 445/CIT (APPEALS)-L HELD AS UNDER: '(A) GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16, 19,259 UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 3D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHAR ES AND INCURRED VARIOUS EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF PERSONAL EXPENSES, INTER EST EXPENSES, ETC., BUT NOT CONSIDERED ANY EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE AC T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE DETAILED EXPLANATION (ALREADY DISCUSSE D AT PARA -4A) ABOVE AND DRAWN A SATISFACTION THAT INTEREST EXPENSES AND OTH ER RELATABLE EXPENSES FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME WERE NOT DISALLOWED/CONSIDE RED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT THAT AS IT HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS TO MAKE ABOVE INVEST MENT, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER, SECTION 14A IS CALLED FOR ON THE GROUND THAT APPELL ANT HAS TAKEN HUGE SECURED LOAN AND UNSECURED LOAN ON WHICH IT HAS PAID INTERE ST OF RS.9.52 CRORES AND APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN UTILIZATION OF NON-INTEREST BEARING FUND AND INVESTMENT MADE BY IT. THUS, THE A SSESSING OFFICER INVOKED PROVISION OF RULE 8D AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 6,19,259. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT REITERATED ITS CONTENTIO N AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EMPHASIZE THAT NO INTEREST-BEA RING FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR SUCH INVESTMENT, NO EXPENDITURE ARE RELATABLE FOR E ARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE RATIO O F HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CORRTECH ENERGY PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA) , NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACCOUNT IN THE CASE WHERE THERE IS NO DIVIDEND INCOME. I AM INCLINED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN VIEW OF FINDING BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME EA RNED AS WELL AS CLAIMED BY APPELLANT IN THE IMPUGNED PREVIOUS YEAR, THEN AS PE R THE RATIO OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CORRTECH E NERGY PVT. LIMITED (SUPRA) AS ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 4 RELIED ON BY APPELLANT, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTI ON 14A OF THE ACCOUNT CAN BE MADE. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 16,19,259. T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED.' 4. AS FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENT ICAL TO THE EARLIER CASE. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE CASE OF CORRTECH ENERGY LTD. 372 ITR 97 (GUJ.) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD RECORDED THE FINDING OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF ANY INCOME FROM PAYMENT OF T AX. HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/S. 14A OF INCOME TAX A CT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 5. NOW WE COME TO GROUND RELATING TO DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 16,33,143/- MADE U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT APPELLANT H AS SHOWN OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF RS. 16,33,143/- IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS PARTIES FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING THREE YEARS AND SAME HAS NOT BEEN PAID OFF EVEN AFT ER LAPSE OF THREE YEARS WHICH MEANS THAT LIABILITY HAS CEASED TO EXIST AS P ER PART 1 OF DIVISION 1 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REF ERRED TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT AND CONTENDED THAT WHERE S OME BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF TRADING LIABILITY HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY ASSESSEE, IT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS & PROFESSION. ON THE OTHER HA ND, APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN FACT REP RESENTS 'RECEIVABLE' BEING ADVANCE PAYMENT GIVEN TO CREDITORS FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS OR FOR SERVICES HENCE ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 5 SAME IS NOT COVERED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT AS APPELLANT HAS NOT WRITTEN BACK ABOVE LIABILITY IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CONTINUED TO BE SHOWN AS LIABILITY IN B OOKS OF ACCOUNT, SUCH AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAXED U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT FOR WH ICH IT HAS RELIED UPON DECISIONS OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAD HELD T HAT SECTION 41(1) CANNOT BE ATTRACTED UNLESS IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE LIABILITY HAD CEASED OR HAD BEEN REMITTED AND THAT MERE LAPSE OF THE LIMITATION PERI OD DID NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSUME THAT THE LIABILITIES HA D CEASED. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT AND APART FROM ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT, ASSESSEE R ELIED ON JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHOGILAL RAMJIBHAI ATARA [2014] 43 TAXMANN.COM 55 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - REMISSI ON OR CESSATION OF TRADING LIABILITY (CESSATION OF LIABILITY) - ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 - IN RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN A CERTA IN AMOUNT BY WAY OF HIS DEBTS. HE SUPPLIED DETAILS OF 27 DIFFERENT CREDITOR S. ASSESSING OFFICER UNDERTOOK EXERCISE TO VERIFY RECORDS OF SO CALLED CREDITORS A ND FOUND THAT CREDITORS HAD NO DEALING WITH ASSESSEE. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HA VING FOUND THAT DEBTS WERE OUTSTANDING SINCE SEVERAL YEARS APPLIED SECTION 41( 1) AND ADDED ABOVE AMOUNT IN INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS DEEMED INCOME. THERE WAS NOTH ING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY THAT TOO DURING PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. WHETHER IN PEC ULIAR FACTS OF CASE AMOUNT IN QUESTION COULD NOT BE ADDED BACK IN INCOME OF AS SESSEE AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 41(1). HELD, YES (PARA 8) (IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE)'. 7. THEREFORE APPLYING RATIO OF FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY AMBIGUITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A ). THUS SAME IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 6 8. NOW WE COME TO NEXT GROUND RELATING TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,10,056/- MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 9. LD. A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PAGE NO. 24 TO 26 IN PARA NO. 6 AND LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PAGE NO. 24 TO 28 IN PARA 7 TO 7.7. DURING THE COURSES OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICE R ASKED APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN WHY IT HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYMENT OF R S.2,10,046/- MADE TO SHREYAS RELAY SYSTEM LIMITED WHEN IT HAS ALREADY DE DUCTED TDS ON PAYMENT OF VOLUME DISCOUNT TO VARIOUS VENDORS. THE APPELLAN T'S REPLY DATED 11TH MARCH 2015 IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 25 OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS WHEREIN APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE PAYMENT TO SHREYA S RELAY SYSTEM LIMITED AND OTHER 15 COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION AND BRO KERAGE FOR GETTING CONTAINER CARGO BUSINESS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND H AS ALSO DEDUCTED TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE C OMPANY PROVIDES LOGISTIC SERVICES ALSO TO PAYMENT OF RS.2,10,046/- MADE TO S HREYAS RELAY SYSTEM LIMITED FOR WHICH VOLUME DISCOUNT IS GIVEN AND ON S UCH DISCOUNT PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE HENCE NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED. 10. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, LD. A.R. CITED A JUDG MENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT TEA PROCESSORS & PACKE RS LTD V/S DCIT[2012] 28 TAXMANN.COM 187 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 194C, READ WITH SECTIONS 194H AND 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 -DEDUCTIONS OF TAX AT SOURCE - CONTRACTORS/SUB-CONT RACTORS - TRADE DISCOUNT - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 - ASSESSEE WAS A MANUFACTUR ER AND SELLER OF TEA UNDER SALES PROMOTION SCHEME INTRODUCED BY ASSESSEE , BASED ON QUANTITY PURCHASED, RETAILER WAS GIVEN DISCOUNT- ASSESSING O FFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT ON GROUND THAT DIS COUNT GIVEN BY ASSESSEE WAS NOTHING BUT COMMISSION ON WHICH TAX WAS TO BE DEDUC TED AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 7 194C OR194H AND SINCE IT WAS NOT DONE A DISALLOWANC E UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS TO BE MADE - WHETHER INSTANT WAS A CASE OF CONT RACT FOR GOODS AND IS NEITHER A CONTRACT FOR SERVICE, NOR IS IT A CASE OF PAYING OF COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE - HELD, YES - WHETHER, THEREFORE, IT WAS COVERED NEIT HER UNDER SECTION 194C NOR UNDER SECTION 194H - HELD, YES [PARAS 15 & 18] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] 11. AND APART FROM ABOVE SAID JUDGMENT, HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION WHERE IN HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT CASH DISCOUNT GIVEN FOR BULK P URCHASE OF STAMPS DOES NOT ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H. IN OUR CONSIDER ED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED DETAILED AND REASONED ORDER AND SAME DOES NO T REQUIRE ANY KIND OF INTERFERENCE AT OUR END. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. 12. NOW WE COME TO GROUND RELATING TO DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,23,08,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE (FOREX)LOSS. 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT APPELLANT HAS FAI LED TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT SAID LOSS WAS NOT IN RELATIO N WITH FIXED ASSETS OR CWIP HENCE IT IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 43A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO TREATED SUCH LOSS AS NOTIONAL LOSS AND MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,23,08,000/-. ON THE OTHER HAN D, APPELLANT HAS REFERRED TO SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH NOTES FORMING PART OF AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND C ONTENDED THAT LOSS ARISING ON LONG TERM FOREIGN CURRENCY LOAN USED FOR ACQUISITION OF ASSET WAS ALREADY CAPITALIZED AND FOREIGN CURRENCY LOAN USED FOR PARKING OF DEPOSITS IS TREATED AS DIFFERED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS PER GUID ELINE ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS ON 29TH DECEMBER, 2011. THE APPEL LANT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT AS LOAN HAS BEEN USED FOR DAY-TO-DAY BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES AND NOT FOR ACQUISITION ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 8 OF ASSETS, FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION IS ALLOWABL E AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE COMPUTATION OF SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS AS SUBMIT TED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO REPRODUCED AT PARA 5 OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED. 14. IN THIS CASE, LOSS RECOGNIZED ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION AND SAME IS SUBSISTING LIABILITY AND NOT MERELY A CONTI NGENT OR A HYPOTHETICAL LIABILITY. LD. A.R. CITED AN ORDER OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR (2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC) WHEREIN I T IS HELD LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FLUCTUATION IN THE RATE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AS ON DATE OF BALANCE SHEET AS AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE, SAME TO BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 16. NOW WE COME TO GROUND RELATING TO DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 20,77,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON ADVANCES FO R PURCHASE OF LAND. . 17. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HA S GIVEN ADVANCES FOR PURCHASE OF LAND IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND NO INTEREST DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN APPELLANT'S CASE WHILE PASSING ASSESSM ENT ORDERS FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SUCH ADVANCES. THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXPLAINED THAT I T HAS ACQUIRED LAND FROM ALL THE PARTIES EXCEPT ONE PARTY IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSME NT YEAR AND APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SUCH PARTIES TO SH OW THAT LAND HAS BEEN ACTUALLY ACQUIRED FROM SUCH PARTIES HENCE OBSERVATI ON OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY LAND TILL DATE IS I NCORRECT. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY NEXU S BETWEEN USE OF BORROWED FUNDS AND ABOVE ADVANCES HENCE DISALLOWANCE IS MADE ON PRESUMPTION. IN ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 9 APPELLANT'S CASE SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES ARE OF RS.250.93 CRORES AND INTEREST- FREE LOAN FROM HOLDING COMPANY IS OF RS.203.36 CROR ES HENCE AGGREGATE INTEREST-FREE FUND AVAILABLE WITH APPELLANT AS ON 3 1ST MARCH, 2012 IS RS454.29 CRORES AND SUCH FUND IS IN EXCESS OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR RS. 1.73 CRORES. 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APP EAL. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. C.O. NO. 158/AHD/2016 20. THE GROUND NO. 1 HAS BEEN TAKEN ASSESSEE THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS. 8,58,750/- TREATING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. LD. A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THE ISS UE AT PAGE NO. 9.12 IN PARA NO. 3 AND LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PAG E NO. 10 TO 14 IN PARA 4 TO 4.3. 21. AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ITA NO. 2274/AHD/2015 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011- 12 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. ITAT HAS DISCUSSED THE I SSUE IN ITS ORDER AT PAGE NO. 3 IN PARA 8 AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, HAVING PARITY WITH THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH DECISION, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF C.O. 22. NOW WE COME TO GROUND RELATING TO THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 4,79,056/- ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ITA NO. 2007/AHD/1 6 & C.O. NO. 158/A/16 . A.Y. 2012-13 10 ESIC. LD. A.O. HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PAGE NO. 12 TO18 IN PARA NO. 4 AND LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PAGE NO. 14 T O 18 IN PARA 5 TO 5.3. 23. AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE GSRTC LTD. 366 ITR 170 (GUJ.) THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT S USTAINABLE. HENCE, SAME IS DISMISSED. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS C. O. OF ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29 - 03- 2019 SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 29 /03/2019 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD