DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/S. IFB Agro Industries Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2088/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1627 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAVID Z CHOWNGTHU ADD L
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Deemed dividend; Capital receipt
• Section: 14A; 115JB; 263; 28

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2088/KOL/2014- M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM ] ITA NO.2088/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, -VERSUS- M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN: AAACI 6487 L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI DAVID Z. CHOWNGTHU, ADD L. CIT(DR) FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SANJANDEEP CHOWDHURY, MANA GER FINANCE DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2017 ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KOLKATA FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. 'THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT TREATMENT OF LOAN S GRANTED BY M/S IFB AUTOMOTIVE (P) LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE AS DEEMED DIVID END WAS NOT WARRANTED, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE C ONDITION LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) FOR TREATING THE LOA N AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE.' 2. 'THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S1 4A OF RS.1,41,989/- WAS NOT WARRANTED, IGNORING THE FACT THAT AS PER CLARIFICAT ION ISSUED BY THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.5/2014 PROVISIONS FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A MAY BE INVOKED EVEN IF EXEMPT INCOME WAS NOT EARNED DURING THE PARTICULAR FINANCIAL YEAR. ' 3. 'THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT RECEIPT OF ACCOUN T OF SALE CER CREDIT WAS AN EXEMPT INCOME, IGNORING THE FACT THAT RECEIPT ON AC COUNT OF SALE OF CER WAS REVENUE IN NATURE AS DECIDED BY THE HON 'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA CONSULTANCY [271 ITR 401(SC)].' 2. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS :- ITA NO.2088/KOL/2014- M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.2010-11 2 THE FIRST GROUND IS WHETHER INTERCORPORATE DEPOSIT FALLS WITHIN THE KEN OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). 3. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.70 OF 2013 JUDGMENT DATED 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2014 IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX, KOLKATA VS IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD, UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL T HAT INTERCORPORATE DEPOSIT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A LOAN, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLICATION O F SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WHICH DOES NOT APPLY. IT HELD AS FOLLOWS :- KEEPING IN MIND, THAT A FISCAL STATUTE HAS TO BE C ONSTRUED STRICTLY, WE DO NOT FIND THE WORD DEPOSIT USED IN SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WHEN THE SAID ACT ITSELF CONTEMPLATES BOTH LOANS AND DEPOSITS AS PROVIDE D IN SECTION 269SS AND SECTION 269T. THEREFORE, AS THE WORD DEPOSIT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT THE INTERCROPROATE DEPO SITS CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE A LOAN FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS APPLICATION IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. WE, THEREFORE, ANSWER THE QUESTION FORMUL ATED IN THE POSITIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. WE ANSWER THE OTHER SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IN THE NEGATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE BINDING DECISION O F THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY O N THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U /S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO DISALLOWED RS.6,096/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE AO APPLIED SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF IT RULES AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWA NCE AT RS.1,48,085/-. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PARA 5.2. HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 5.2. AS STATED EARLIER, THE APPELLANT, IN ITS RETU RN, HAD OFFERED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,096/-. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE WORKING FOR THE SAME. ON GOING THROUGH THE APPELLANTS WORKING, IT IS SEEN T HAT IT HAS ALSO COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D AND THE ONL Y POINT OF DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT HAS TAKEN AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS RELATING TO EXEMPT INCOME AT RS.4,71,933/-. ON BEING ASKED THE BASIS OF THE SAM E, IT WAS INFORMED THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER INVESTMENTS IN SHARES, DURING THE YEAR THE DIVIDEND WAS EARNED ONLY IN RESPECT OF 5000 SHARES OF TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT LTD. IN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OF RS.4,71 ,933/-. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, IN HIS WORKING CON SIDERED THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT. THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF ITA NO.2088/KOL/2014- M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.2010-11 3 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD VS DCIT, CC-XX VII, KOLKATA IN ITA NO.1331/KOIL2011. IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUN AL IN ITS DECISION IN THAT CASE THAT IT IS ONLY SUCH INVESTMENT, IN RESPECT OF WHIC H EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED, WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF IT RULES, 1962. ALTHOUGH THE SAID D ECISION IS IN CONTRADICTION TO THAT OF SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF CHEMI NVEST LTD. 121 ITO 318 (DELHI)(S8), AS WELL AS BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 5/2014 DATED 11.2.2014, I AM FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN L INE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE: BY THE APPELLANT IS LARGELY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RATIO GIVEN IN THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL B ENCH OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. (SUPRA). HOWEVER, AS MENTION ED BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF, THERE WAS A COMPUTATIONAL ERROR DUE TO WHICH THE DI SALLOWANCE HAS BEEN UNDERSTATED BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,124/-. CONSIDERING THIS, THE FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,41,989/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REDUCED TO RS. 2,124/-. 6. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. THE DECISI ON OF THE JURISIDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. VS DCIT WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS VIREET I NVESTMENTS PRIVATE LTD. ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT ONLY THOSE INVES TMENTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIE LDED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENTS WHICH DO NOT YIELD ANY EXEMPT INCOME SHOULD NOT ENTER INTO THE COMPUTATION UNDER RULE 8D WHILE ARRIVING AT THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF GENERAL INVESTMENT LTD. 121 ITD 318 (DELHI)(SB) HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 02.09.2015 IN ITA NO.749 OF 2014. HE NCE WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THIS GROU ND OF THE REVENUE. 7. GROUND NO.3 IS ON THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT REALISED ON TRANSFER OF CERTIFIED EMISSION REDUCTION (CER IN SHORT) OR CAR BON CREDITS UNDER THE NORMAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS WELL AS FOR MAT PURPOSE. T HE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PARA 8.7 AND 8.8 HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 8.7. COMING TO MERTIT OF THE CLAIM, IT IS NOTED THA T THE CER UNDER QUESTION HAD ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT FOR IMPLEMENTING MODERN TE CHNOLOGY WHICH REDUCED LEAKAGE OF BIO- GAS AND THUS WAS MORE ENVIRONMENT- FRIENDLY. THE QUESTION REGARDING TAXABILITY OF SUCH RECEIPT HAS BEEN CONS IDEREED BY HON'BLE ITAT IN SEVERAL CASES. IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MY HO ME POWER LTD. VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7 IN ITA NO. 1114 OF 2009, HYDERABAD BENCH OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ITA NO.2088/KOL/2014- M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.2010-11 4 EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND HELD THAT CARBON CREDIT IS IN NATURE OF ENTITLEMENT TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSION WITHOUT ANY COST OF ACQUISIT ION OR COST OF PRODUCTION AND SUCH CARBON CREDIT WAS NOT IN NATURE OF PROFIT OR I NCOME. THEREAFTER, CHENNAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF SRI VELAY UDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 582 OF 2013 THAT SALE OF CAR BON CREDIT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. JAIPUR BENCH OF TR IBUNAL HAS ALSO, IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHREE CEMENTS LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, ITA NO. 503/JP/2012, TAKEN THE VIEW THAT CARBON CREDIT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE AN D NEITHER CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME NOR AS 'CAPITAL G AIN'. SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN/BY CHENNAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF A MBICA COTTON MILLS LTD.VS CIT IN ITA NO. 1836/MAD/2012. NO DECISION TO THE C ONTRARY HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE UNDERSIGNED. RECENTLY, HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M Y HOME POWER LTD. (SUPRA) BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IN THE CASE OF MY HOME POWER LTD., AS REPORTED IN 46 TAXMANN.COM 314 (AP). RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE RATIO GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, AS WELL AS VARIOUS BENCHES OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CITED CASES, IT IS HELD THAT RECEIPT FROM SALE OF C ER CREDIT IS NEITHER TAXABLE AS CAPITAL GAIN NOR AS BUSINESS PROFIT. IN OTHER WORDS , THE SAM TO BE TREATED AS EXEMPT FROM INCOME TAX IN THE COMPUTATION UNDER NOR MAL PROVISION OF INCOME TAX. 8.8. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM R EGARDING EXCLUSION OF RECEIPTS FROM TRANSFER OF CER FROM COMPUTATION U/S 115JB IS CONCERNED, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SALES FROM CER WAS DULY CREDITED BY THE APPELL ANT ITSELF TO ITS P&L A/C AND THUS WAS PART OF BOOK PROFIT. COMPUTATION OF TAX LI ABILITY UNDER SECTION 115JB IS BASED ON BOOK PROFIT AS PER P& L A/C PREPARED IN AC CORDANCE WITH PART II & III OF SCHEDULE-VI TO THE COMPANY ACT, 1956. IT HAS BE EN HELD BY SUPREME COURT IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES LTD. V, C IT 255 ITR 273, THAT FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 115J (EQUIVALENT TO THE PRESENT 115 JB), THE NET PROFIT AS PER P&L ACCOUNT CAN BE MODIFIED ONLY TO THE EXTENT PROVIDE D FOR IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115J. THE ADJUSTMENT SOUGHT TO BE MADE BY T HE APPELLANT BY WAY OF EXCLUDING SALE FROM CER FROM BOOK PROFIT IS NOT COV ERED UNDER ANY OF THE CLAUSES OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. THE DECISIONS OF JAIPUR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREE CEMEN T LTD. ITA NO. 614,615 & 635/JP/2010 AND OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF P AL SYNTHETICS LTD. ITA NO.1310/MUM/03, RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, ARE R ELATED TO RECEIPT OF TREATMENT OF SUBSIDY. MOREOVER, THEY HAVE, IN MY O PINION, NOT GIVEN DUE WEIGHTAGE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH WAS A BINIDNG PRECEDENT. THEREF ORE, WITH DUE RESPECT TO HONBLE JAIPUR AND MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL, I DIFF ER WITH THEIR VIEW. FOLLOWING THE RATIO GIVEN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES LTD. (SUPRA) THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR REDUCING CER RECE IPTS FROM BOOK PROFIT FOR PURPOSE OF SECTION 115 JB OF THE ACT IS NOT FOUND T O BE ACCEPTABLE AND THE SAME IS REJECTED. ITA NO.2088/KOL/2014- M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.2010-11 5 8. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUBHASH KABINI POWER CORPORATION LTD. [2016] 69 TAXMANN.COM 394 (KARNATA KA) JUDGMENT DATED 29.03.2016 HELD AS FOLLOWS :- THE PRINCIPAL QUESTION WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS AS TO WHETHER BY SALE OF CARBON CREDIT CAPITAL RECEIPT IS GENERATED OR A PRO FIT OUT OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE [PARA 4]. THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MY H OME POWER LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT CARBON CREDIT IS NOT AN OFFSHOOT OF BUSINESS, BUT AN OFFSHOOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS . IO ASSET IS GENERATED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, BUT IT IS GENERATED DUE TO ENVI RONMENTAL CONCERNS. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE CARBON CREDIT IS NOT EVEN DIRECTLY L INKED WITH THE POWER GENERATION AND THE INCOME IS RECEIVED BY SALE OF THE EXCESS CA RBON CREDIT. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT IT IS CAPITAL RE CEIPT AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME. [PARA 6] AS SUCH WHEN THE ISSUE IS ALREADY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, ONE MAY SAY THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WOULD ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION. [PARA 7] HOWEVER, THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 28 AND CONTENDED THAT IF ANY BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE OR CREDIT IS GENE RATED FROM THE BUSINESS, THE SAME WOULD BE A PROFIT FROM BUSINESS AND IS TAXABLE. THE REFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TERMED AS CAPITAL. RECEIPT, BUT BUSINESS INCOME. IN SUBMISSION, IT WAS STATED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF RUNNING THE BUSINESS OF POWER GENERAT ION, CARBON CREDIT IS EARNED, WHICH IS MARKETABLE AND, THEREFORE, IT IS AN INCOME OUT OF BUSINESS. [PARA 8] ONE CANNOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION FOR THE SIMPLE R EASON THAT EARNING OF CARBON CREDIT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE SAME IS GENERATED AS A BY- PRODUCT ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF POWER GE NERATION, BUT IT IS GENERATED ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYMENT OF GOOD AND VIABLE PRACTIC ES BY THE ASSESSEE. [PARA 9] WHEN THE CARBON CREDIT IS GENERATED OUT OF ENVIRO NMENTAL CONCERNS AND IT IS NOT HAVING THE CHARACTER OF TRADING ACTIVITY, THE TRIBU NAL HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT RECEIPT FROM SALE OF CARBON CREDIT IS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND I T IS NOT INCOME OUT OF BUSINESS AND HENCE NOT LIABLE TO INCOME TAX. [PARA 12] ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT REALISED BY SALE OF CARBON CREDIT IS NOT TAXABLE AS PROFIT, NATURALLY IT WILL' HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFEC T ON THE REVENUE. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 263 IS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT ONLY BE ERRONEOUS, BUT SHOULD ALSO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE R EVENUE, WHICH IS LACKING IN THE INSTANT CASE AND RIGHTLY FOUND SO BY THE TRIBUNAL. [PARA 13] ITA NO.2088/KOL/2014- M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.2010-11 6 THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DESERVE D TO BE UPHELD. [PARA 14]. 9. THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MY HOME POWER LTD. (SUPRA) AT PARA-3 HELD AS FOLLOWS :- 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION AND WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SAME, AS THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS FACTUALLY FOU ND THAT 'CARBON CREDIT IS NOT AN OFFSHOOT OF BUSINESS BUT AN OFFSHOOT OF ENVIRONM ENTAL CONCERNS. NO ASSET IS GENERATED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS BUT IT IS GENER ATED DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEMS.' WE AGREE WITH THIS FACTUAL ANALYSIS AS TH E ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF POWER GENERATION. THE CARBON CREDIT IS NOT EVEN DIRECTLY LINKED WITH POWER GENERATION. ON THE SALE OF EXCESS CARBON CRED ITS THE INCOME WAS RECEIVED AND HENCE AS CORRECTLY HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IT IS C APITAL RECEIPT AND IT CANNOT BE BUSINESS RECEIPT OR INCOME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E DO NOT FIND ANY ELEMENT OF LAW IN THIS APPEAL. 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH COURTS IN THE CASES REFERRED TO ABOVE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23.08.2017. SD/- SD/- [S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI] [ J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23.08.2017. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,PLOT NO.IND-5, SEC- 1, EAST, KOLKATA-700107. 2. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, KOLKATA. 3. C.I.T.(A)- VI, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T-XVIII, KOL KATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO.2088/KOL/2014- M/S. IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.2010-11 7