DCIT, CHENNAI V. Gimpex Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 2023/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9568 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Permanent establishment
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' ! # . $ , % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 2023, 2024, 2025 & 2026/MDS/14 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05, 2008-09 TO 2010-11 AND CO NOS. 100, 101, 102 & 103/MDS/2014 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI 34. (/ APPELLANT) V. M/S. GIMPEX LIMITED, GIMPEX HOUSE, NO.181, LINGH CHETTY STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN AAACG2482P ( RESPONDENT/CROSS-OBJECTOR) ./ ITA NOS. 1530, 1531 & 1532/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 M/S. GIMPEX LIMITED, GIMPEX HOUSE, CHENNAI 600 001. (/ APPELLANT) V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI 34. (/ RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.B.KOLI, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE . / 0 123 / DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2016 45 0 123 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.05.2016 - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 2 ( / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ONE SET OF APPEALS BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.202 3, 2024, 2025 & 2026/MDS/2014 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE IN C.O.NOS.100, 101, 102 & 103/MDS/2014 AR E DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 200 8-09, 2009- 10 AND 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CORRES PONDING CROSS APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1530, 1531 AND 1532/MDS/20 15. SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COM MON, THEY ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED O FF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2023/MDS/2014 AND C.O. NO.100/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 3. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN D IRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE LOSS OF ` 10,53,12,695/- TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 3 CROSS-OBJECTION IN SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORDER OF THE C IT(APPEALS). 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, DUR ING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR 2 004-05 PURCHASED 17,338,188.397 UNITS OF ING VYSYA INCOME FUND REGULAR BONUS OPTION (MUTUAL FUND) FOR ` 27 CRORES ON 19.11.2003. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 10,456,440.524 BONUS UNITS, AT A COST OF ` NIL. A FTER RECEIVING THE BONUS UNITS, THE ASSESSEE SOLD (REDEEMED) THE ORIGI NAL 16,338,188.397 UNITS FOR ` 16,46,87,305/-. SINCE THE COST OF THE BONUS SHARES WAS NIL, THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE CAPITAL LOSS (SHORT TERM) ON THE SALE OF THE ORIGIN AL 16,338,188.397 UNITS AT ` 10 , 53,12,695/- (I.E . ` 27 , 00,00,000 ` 16,46,87,305).THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THESE LOSSES AS SET OFF AGAINST OTHE R LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. SHRI VIJAYA GIMPEX MINING PVT LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASING THE 16,338,188 . 397 UNITS OF ING VYSYA INCOME FUND REGULAR BONUS OPTION - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 4 (MUTUAL FUND) FOR ` 27 CRORES ON 19 . 11.2003 AND SELLING THE S A ME , IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECEIVING THE BONUS UNITS, ON 20.11.2003, WAS WITH THE INTENTION OF BOO KING THE L OSSES ONLY AND HENCE THE LOSSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFF I CER DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF LOSSES FROM THE SALE OF ING VYSYA INCOME FUND REGULAR BONUS OPTION (MUTUAL FUND) UNITS AND THEIR SET OFF AGAINST OTHER CAPITAL GAINS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AS UNDER: 3. DURING THE COURSE HEARING, IT IS LEARNT THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN EXPORTER , HAS PURCHASED ING VYSYA INCOME FUND REGULAR BONUS OPTION (16,338,188 . 397 UNITS) FOR ` 27 CRORES ON 19 . 11 . 2003 . THE MUTUAL FUND HAD COME OUT WITH A BONUS ISSUE FOR WHICH 10,456,440.524 UNITS HAD BEEN ALLOTTED FREE OF COST FOR WHICH NO COST HAS BEEN PAID BY THE COMPANY . SINCE THE COMPANY HAD ONLY REDEEMED THE ORIGINAL UNITS FOR ` 16,46,87,305/ - AGAINST A COST OF ` 27 CRORES , THE LOSS ALONG WITH LOSS SUFFERED ON SALE OF SHARES OF SHARES OF O . P. STEELS HAD BEEN COMPUTED AND SET OFF AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES OF M /S. SHRI VIJAYA GIMPEX MINING PVT LTD. THE BONUS UNITS SO ALLOTTED WERE HELD FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING 12 MONTHS AND WAS SOLD IN THE ASST YEAR 2005 - 2006 AND HAD OFFERED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS DURING ASST YEAR 2005-06 . - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 5 4. ON FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE BOUGHT THE ING VYSYA INCOME FUND REGULAR BONUS OPTION ON 19 . 11 . 2003 FOR ` 27 CRORES AND REDEEMED THE SAME ON THE VERY NEXT DAT E I.E . 20.11.2003 FOR ` 16,46 , 87,305 / - INCURRING LOSS OF ` 1 0,53,12 , 6 95/- . IT IS ALSO ASCERTAINED THAT THE NOMINATED DATE FOR THE ALLOTMENT OF BONUS UNITS WAS 19.11 . 2003 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR THE UNITS ON TH E NOMINATED DATE AND SOLD THE SAME ON THE VERY NEXT DAY. AS TH E UNIT S PURCHASED WERE REDEEMED ON THE VERY NEXT DAY , THE INTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE OBVIOUSLY IS TO INCUR LOSS AND SET OFF THE LOSS AGAINST TH E INCOM E EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES OF M / S . SHRI VLJAYA GIMPEX MINING LTD . TH E WHOLE TRANSACTION IS NOT THAT OF SIMPLE INVESTMENT BUT WITH TH E PRIMARY MOTIVE OF GENERATING LOSS FOR SETTING OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME UNDER TH E HEAD CAPITAL GAINS'. 5. THE DECISION AT THE PANJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF VAN EE T JAIN VS CIT 294 ITR 432 IS TO BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE. THE PRIMARY MOTIV E OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO AVOID THE INCIDENCE OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH R E SULT E D BY SALE OF SHARES OF M / S.SHRI VIJAYA GIMPEX MINING LTD. THE ENTIR E LOS S BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF ING VYSYA BANK ISSU E I S DISALLOWED. THIS HAS BEEN FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT THE S E CTION 94 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ITSELF WAS AMENDED SUBSEQUENTLY. DISALLOWANCE ` 1 0 , 5 3, 1 2,695 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), WHO ALLOWED THE GROUND OF APPEAL. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 6 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS GIVEN REL IEF IN THIS CASE ON THE REASON THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.94(8) WAS CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO.2) 2004. AS SUCH, IT IS APPLICABLE FROM THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06 ONWARDS AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2004-05. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 5.1 THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.94(8) PROVIDE THAT THE LO SS ARISING OUT OF BONUS STRIPPING OF UNITS IS TO BE IGNORED AFTER 1.4.2005. THE PHRASEOLOGY OF SEC.94(8) OF TH E ACT, ITSELF REVEALS THAT THE PARLIAMENT IN ITS WISD OM RESTRICTED THE SCOPE OF BONUS STRIPPING UNDER SEC .94(8) OF THE ACT FROM 1.4.2005. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT U/S.94(8) OF THE ACT, NO DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS STRIPPING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 AS IT WAS CAME INTO EFFECT ON 1.4.2005 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2004-05, THERE IS GAP I N THE LAW WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN EXPLOITED BY THE ASSESSEE. - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 7 5.2 THE LEGISLATURE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RECOGNISED THE LACUNA IN THIS LAW AND TAKEN STEPS TO RECTIFY B Y INTRODUCING SEC.94(8) W.E.F. 1.4.2005. EVEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. (326 ITR 1) , ALSO CONFIRMS THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT TRANSACTION W AS PRE-PLANNED, THERE IS NOTHING TO IMPEACH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HENCE, LOSS ARISIN G IN THE COURSE OF DIVIDEND STRIPPING TRANSACTION BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF CLAIM U/S.94(7) W.E.F. 1.4.2002 CAN NOT BE DISALLOWED; DIVIDEND STRIPPING TRANSACTION CANNOT B E SAID TO BE ABUSE OF LAW EVEN IF IT IS PRE-PLANNED . BEING SO, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS BASED ON THE LAW, AS IT STOOD IN THE RELEVANT ASST. YEAR AND IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(APPEALS). 5.3 FURTHER, OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. B.G. MAHESH (64 SOT 39). ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 8 5.4 THE CROSS OBJECTION IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. SINCE, WE HAVE DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE R ESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 2024, 2025 & 2026/MDS/14 & CO NOS. 101, 102 & 103/MDS/14 : 6. FIRST GROUND IN ITA NOS. 2025 & 2026/MDS/2014 IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A )(I) OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT AT SOURCE ON THE FOREIGN COMMISSION PAYMENTS MADE TO THE NON-RESIDENT U/S.195 OF THE ACT. 7. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NARRATED IN ITA NO.2025/MDS/14 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR ASST. YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11 CLAIMED FOREIGN SALES COMMISSION OF ` 88,53,677/- AND ` 1,28,44,758/- RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED ANY TDS WHILE REMITTING THE SAID AMOUNTS ABROAD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DISALLO WED - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 9 THE FOREIGN COMMISSION U/S.40(A)(I) OF THE ACT FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORD ER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, DURING THE FINAN CIAL YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11 MADE EXPORT SALES COMMISSION OF ` 88,53,677/- AND ` 1,28,44,758/- TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS, WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF ANY TDS. HENCE, THE AO OPINED THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS OF FOREIGN COMMISSION WAS A VIOLATION U/S.40(A)(I) R.W.S.195 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOW ED THE SAID FOREIGN COMMISSION PAYMENTS FOR VIOLATIO N OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(I) R.W.S. 195 OF THE AC T AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSES SEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE PRIMARY CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO NON-RESIDENT AGENTS TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION AND NON-RESIDENT AGENTS WERE NOT HAVING ANY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 10 IN INDIA. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION REGAR DING THE DETAILS OF PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE MA DE OR THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM. IN VIE W OF THIS, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO APPRECIATE THE FI NDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT T HE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. EURO LEDER FASHIONS LTD. (15 6 ITD 208)(MADRAS), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : SECTION 40(A)(I) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE IN CASE OF ANY PAYMENT MADE WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THIS ACT AND IS PAYABLE OUTSIDE INDIA OR IN INDIA TO A NON- RESIDENT NOT BEING A COMPANY OR TO A FOREIGN COMPANY ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE. THEREFORE, THE FIRST CONDITION REQUIRED TO BE FULFI LLED IS THE PAYMENT MUST BE CHARGEABLE UNDER THE ACT, THEREAFTER THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION OF TAX WILL ARISE. SECTION 195(1) ALSO PRESCRIBES THAT TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO NON-RESIDENT WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX IS THAT INCOME MUST BE CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH FOREIGN AGENTS TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE APPOINTED TO ACT AS COMMISSION AGENTS - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 11 OUTSIDE INDIA IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN CAST UPON IT TO SHOW THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY NON-RESIDENT AGENT. IF THERE ARE SERVICES RENDERED BY NON-RESIDENTS, WHO HAVE NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA OR HAVE ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA, BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ACCRUED OR AROSE IN INDIA THEN, IT IS EXEMPTED, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THOSE NON-RESIDENTS ABROAD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE NON-RESIDENT HAD RENDERED SERVICES ABROAD AND THERE WAS NO BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA BY PRODUCING RELEVANT RECORDS, VIZ., EITHER AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THEM OR CORRESPONDENCE TOOK BETWEEN THE PARTIES. WITHOUT EXAMINING THESE DETAILS, ONE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO DECIDE THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT. THEREFORE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ENTIRE IS SUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS SALE S COMMISSION TOWARDS PROCUREMENT OF ORDERS FROM ABROAD. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS TO THE FILE OF T HE - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 12 ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. ACCORDIN GLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S, FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 9. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS I S WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION MADE U/S.40(A)(I) ON THE PAYMENT OF FOREIGN SERVICE CHARGES. 10. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO IN HIS OR DER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR S 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10, RELEVANT TO THE A.YS 2008-09, 2009- 10 AND 2010-11 PAID FOREIGN SERVICE CHARGES OF ` 32,24,612/-, ` 74,25,790/- AND ` 50,14,290/- TO NON- RESIDENTS WITHOUT MAKING ANY TDS. HENCE THE AO OPI NED THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS OF FOREIGN SERVICE CHARGES WAS A VIOLATION U/S.40(A)(I) R.W.S.195 OF THE ACT. ACCOR DINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAID FOREIGN SERVICE CHARGES PA YMENTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(I) R.W .S. 195 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. AGAINST THIS, T HE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), WH O DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED, TH E REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 13 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, THE ABOVE ISSU E IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE OF FOREIGN COMMISSION PAYMEN T. AS SUCH, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO TO THE FILE OF TH E AO AS DISCUSSED IN EARLIER PARA WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 12. THE NEXT GROUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-1 0 AND 2010-11 IS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF EXPENSE S BY THE AO FOR EARNING THE EXEMPTION INCOME, 0.5% OF THE AV ERAGE INVESTMENTS OF THE YEAR UNDER THE STEP II OF THE FO RMULA GIVEN IN RULE 8D SHOULD BE TAKEN. 13. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOTICED I N HIS ORDERS THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR S 2007- 08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RELEVANT TO THE A.YS 2008-0 9, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY MADE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF INVESTMENTS IN PURCHASE OF SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS, THE INCOME FROM WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXEMPT INCOME, IN THE FORM OF DI VIDENDS EARNED, DURING THE A.YS. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 ARE ` 22,57,008/-, ` 7,779/- AND ` 6,189/- RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 14 THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A R.W.R 8D O F THE I.T.RULES AND WORKED OUT THE EXPENSES IN EARN THE S AID EXEMPTED INCOME FROM THE FIRM BY ADOPTING THE FORMU LA CONTAINED UNDER RULE 8D AT ` 6,87,014/-, ` 1,70,45,052/- AND ` 1,97,20,306/- RESPECTIVELY IN A.YS 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 AND DISALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPE ALS). 14. THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 1,51,77,757/- AND ` 96,72,958/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D, IN ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2009-10 AND 2010-11, DISALLOWANCES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 14,24,646/- AND ` 15,03,265/- ARE CONFIRMED AND THE BALANCE OF DISALLOWANCES OF ` 1,56,20,406/- AND ` 1,82,17,041/- ARE DELETED. HOWEVER, FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ENHANCE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D TO ` 7,43,362/- (SUBJECT THE VERIFICATION OF THE TOTAL ASSETS AS ON 1.4.2007 AND RE- COMPUTATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE), AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 6,87,014/- MADE BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS UNDER : - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 15 A.Y. DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO DISALLOWANCEU/S.14A CONFIRMED NOW RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE 2008-09 ` 6,87,014 ` 7,43,362 ENHANCED 2009-10 ` 1,70,45,052 ` 14,24,646 ` 1,56,20,406 2010-11 ` 1,97,20,306 ` 15,03,265 ` 1,82,17,041 AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME FOR CONSIDERATION BE FORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. MARG LTD. V. JCIT IN I TA NOS.344 TO 346/MDS/2016 DATED 6.4.2016, WHEREIN FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S. LAKSHMI RING TRAVELLERS IN ITA NO.2083/MDS/2011 DATED 2.3.2012, HELD AS UNDER: 6. WE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES IN DETAIL. SEC.14A(1) DECLARES THE LAW THAT THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE AC T SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SEC.14A(2) PROVIDES FOR DETERMINI NG THE QUANTUM OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH SHALL NOT BE AL LOWED AS A DEDUCTION. THAT IS THE MACHINERY PROVISION AS FA R AS SEC.14A IS CONCERNED. IN THAT PROVISION, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATIS FIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE COMPUTATIONS MADE BY AN ASSESSEE , HE SHALL COMPUTE THE QUANTUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ME THOD THAT MAY BE PRESCRIBED. FOR THIS MATTER, RULE 8D HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESCRIBED. SUB-SEC.(3) FURTHER PROVI DES THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY H AS TO PRESUME THE INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AS PROV IDED - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 16 UNDER SUB-SEC.(2) READ WITH RULE PRESCRIBED. THERE FORE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSE E CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS SO INCURRED, THE STA TUTE HAS PROVIDED FOR A PRESUMPTIVE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS T O BE DISALLOWED BY FORCE OF THE STATUTE. IN A DISTANT MANNER, LITERALLY SPEAKING, IT MAY EVEN BE CONSIDERED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE AS A DEEMING PROVISION. WHEN SUCH DEEMING PROVISION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATUTORY PRESUMPTION, THE REQUIREMENT OF FACTUAL EVIDENCE IS REPLACED BY STATUTORY PRESUMPTION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FOLLOW THE CONSEQUENCES STATED IN THE STATUTE. IT MEANS THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE NO EXPENDITURE IS STATED TO HA VE BEEN INCURRED, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS TO APPLY RULE 8D. AS THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION SUBSTITUTES THE REQUIREME NT OF FACTUAL EVIDENCE, THE QUESTION OF ENQUIRY DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED CA. 7. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6.5 THIS VIEW OF OURS IS ALSO FORTIFIED BY THE JUDG MENT OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRADEEP KAR V. ACIT (319 ITR 416), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDE R : THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION OF INTERES T ON THE AMOUNTS BORROWED BY HIM FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES IS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY HIM AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHO RITY BY APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN CIT VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY [1978] 115 ITR 519. THE REVENUE TOOK UP THE MATTER IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HEREINAFTER CALLED A S 'THE TRIBUNAL' IN SHORT. THE TRIBUNAL REVERSED THE DECIS ION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND RESTORED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, T HE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US BY FILING THIS APPEAL FRAMING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AND URGED THE GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 17 SMT. ANURADHA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE DECISION REPORTED IN CIT VS. RAJENDRA PRAS AD MOODY [1978] 115 ITR 519 WHEREIN, IT IS HELD THAT I NTEREST PAID ON MONEY BORROWED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE EXPENDITURE MUST BE LAID OUT OR E XPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR MAKING OR EARNING INCOME . SHE ALSO RELIED UPON ANOTHER DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KHADARIA [2009] 319 ITR 413 (BOM) ; [2009] TIOL 171 HC (MUM-IT) AND SUBMITS THAT THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL ARE ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISI ONS. THEREFORE, SHE SUBMITS THAT SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS ( I) AND (II) FRAMED IN THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ARISE FOR CONSIDERA TION OF THIS COURT AND REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAM ED IN THE APPEAL ARE EXTRACTED AS HEREUNDER. '(I) WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN NOT ALLOWING THE INTEREST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXPENDITUR E IN COMPUTING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE? (II) WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN REVE RSING THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS), WHICH WAS BASED ON A SUPREME COURT'S DECISION BY RE LYING ON THE DECISION OF OTHER TRIBUNALS? (III) WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE ON HAND BY PLACING RELIANCE ON JUDGMENTS, WHICH WERE NOT CITED BY EITHER SIDE? (IV) WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN RELY ING ON THE DECISIONS INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ON HAND BY DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE?' WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONTENTIONS URGED, WE HAVE PE RUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL WITH A VIEW TO FIND OUT - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 18 AS TO WHETHER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAM ED IN THIS APPEAL WOULD ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED LOANS AND IN VESTED THE SAME IN SHARES. DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED BY HIM OF THE INTEREST AMOUNT PAID ON THE BORROWED LOANS. THE AMO UNTS BORROWED BY THE APPELLANT WERE INVESTED IN SHARES A ND DIVIDEND IS EARNED. WHEN DEDUCTION FOR THE INTEREST PAID IS CLAIMED, THE DIVIDEND EARNED CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FRO M INCOME. COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS TO BE MADE TAKING THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CONSIDERED THE DECISION IN RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY'S CASE [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND HELD THAT IT IS NOT APPL ICABLE TO THE FACT SITUATION. THE REASONS ASSIGNED FOR SUCH A CONCLUSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: 'THE DECISION IS WITH REFERENCE TO DEDUCTION ALLOWA BLE UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE DE CISION RELATES TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR WHERE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 10(33) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 THE POSITION OF LAW IN REGARD TO TAXABILITY OF DIVIDENDS HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE S UCH INCOME BECOMES A PART OF INCOME WHICH DO NOT FORM A PART OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 14A INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001, WI TH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1962, RETROSPECTIVELY BARS ALL OWING ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH IS NOT INCLU DIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME. CONSIDERING THIS CHANGE IN THE PO SITION OF LAW THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT RELIED UPO N BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. ' THEREFORE, THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS EXEMPTED FROM THE TAX LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 10(33) OF THE ACT. UNDER SE CTION 14A OF THE ACT, EXPENDITURE RELATING TO EXEMPTED INCOME IS NOT ALLOWABLE. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS CONSIDERED T HE - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 19 ABOVE RELEVANT FACTOR AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY BY APPLYING THE DECISION IN RAJ ENDRA PRASAD MOODY'S CASE [1978] 115 ITR 519 (SC), REFERR ED TO SUPRA, WHICH WAS RENDERED PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND WHICH HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACT SITUATION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED TH AT DIVIDEND INCOME IS EXEMPTED UNDER SECTION 10(33) OF THE ACT FROM THE TAX LIABILITY AND THE SAME CANNOT BE COMPUTED FOR I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER SOURCES'. EXEMPTED INCOME IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF SECTION 14A OF T HE ACT. IN VIEW OF THESE TWO PROVISIONS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY T HE LEARNED COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT SITUATION. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THE TRIBUNAL AND DIFFER FRO M THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FOR THE REA SONS STATED SUPRA, INTERFERENCE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS CASE. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUEST IONS OF LAW MUCH LESS THE QUESTIONS OF LAW FRAMED BY THE APPELL ANT WILL ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT. THE APPEAL I S DEVOID OF MERIT AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. LEENA RAMACHANDRAN 7339 ITR 296, THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST AT 24 PER CENT. PER ANNUM ON FUNDS BORROWED FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES IN A COMPANY. HER CLAIM WAS THAT THE ACQUISITION OF SHAR ES WITH THE BORROWED FUNDS WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLI NG THE COMPANY AND SINCE THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILISED FOR THE - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 20 ACQUISITION OF SHARES OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE CONT ROL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE UTILISATION OF THE BORROWED FUNDS WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE ENTITLING THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCTIO N OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENTS BY UTILISING THE BORROWED FUNDS ILL THE FORM OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES IN THE COMPANY AND THE ONLY BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE GOT WAS DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 3 LAKHS . SINCE SECTION 14A OF THE ACT BARS ANY DEDUCTION PERTAININ G TO ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING A NY INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT. THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM BUT MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 LAKHS BEING THE INTEREST STAT ED TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 3 LAKHS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LEASING COMPANY DURING THE PR EVIOUS YEAR. ON APPEAL: HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT ANY EXPENDITUR E INCURRED FOR EARNING ANY INCOME WHICH WAS NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT WAS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. DIVIDEND INCOME W AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(33) OF THE ACT AND THE DIVI DEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SHARES ACQUIRED BY HE R WITH THE BORROWED FUNDS DID NOT CONSTITUTE PART OF THE T OTAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 LAKHS, I. E., BY APPLYING SECTION 14A, SQUARELY APPLIED TO THE INTER EST PAID ON THE BORROWED FUNDS BECAUSE IT WAS ON RECORD THAT THE ENTIRE FUNDS BORROWED WERE UTILISED FOR THE ACQUISI TION OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON THE BORROWED FUNDS UTILISE D FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SHARES ONLY IF SHARES WERE HELD AS S TOCK-IN- TRADE AND THAT WOULD ARISE ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN TRADING IN SHARES. SO FAR AS THE ACQUISITION OF SHARES WAS IN THE FORM OF INVESTMENT AND THE ONLY BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED WAS THE DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH WAS NOT ASSES SABLE UNDER THE ACT, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A W AS - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 21 SQUARELY ATTRACTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTL Y DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEA L OF THE REVENUE. 16. IN ITA NO.2024/MDS/2014, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ONE MORE GROUND, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F ` 16,37,262/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE SALES TURNOVER SHOWN IN THE TAX RETURNS AND THE SAL ES SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIRECTION TO RECO NCILE THE TURNOVER DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SALES TAX RETURN WITH THE TURNOVER DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME I.E. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ANNEXED TO RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 18. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN C O NOS.101 TO 103/MDS/14 ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CI T(APPEALS). IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS IN REVENUES APPEAL ON THE SAM E ISSUES, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. 19. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.1530/MDS/2014, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 22 REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 20. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIMPSON & CO. LTD. VS. DCIT IN TC(A) NO.262 1 OF 2006 DATED 15.10.12, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DI SALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT AT 2% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME AS TH ERE IS NO RULE 8D APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 A S THIS WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. 24.3.2008. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. THE COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 1531 & 1532/MDS/2014 IS WITH REGARD TO SUSTENANCE O F DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE I.T.RULES. 22. SINCE, WE HAVE ADJUDICATED SAME ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN REVENUES APPEA L, THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED IN ASSESSEES APPEALS. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2023/MDS/2014 IS DISMISSED, 2024 TO 2026/MDS/201 4 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF - - ITA 2023 TO 2026/14 ETC. 23 THE ASSESSEE IN CO NO.100/MDS/2014 TO 103/MDS/2014 ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1530/MDS/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND ITA NOS. 1531 & 1532/MDS/2014 ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 4 TH OF MAY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . 6 . 7 . 8 9:; ) ( < = > ?2 ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) D EF /JUDICIAL MEMBER 93 EF/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER <9D / /CHENNAI, JE /DATED, THE 4 TH MAY, 2016. MPO* E9K 0 1LM N9M1 /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. . O1 () /CIT(A) 4. . O1 /CIT 5. MPQ 1 R /DR 6. Q; S/ /GF.