Kasturi and Sons Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2106/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6287 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R JEYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Additional depreciation; Non-deduction of tax; Difference of opinion; Commercial expediency; Change of opinion; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 194C; 32; 147; 148; 37; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1617, 1 618, 1619/MDS/2014 & 2106/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S KASTURI AND SONS LTD., C/O M/S SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, NEW NO.75A (OLD NO.105A), DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PAN : AAACK 3000 H V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(4) / CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(24), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NOS.2012, 2013, 2014, 2015/MDS/2014 & 2252/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 TO 2010-11 & 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(4), THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S KASTURI & SONS LIMITED, NOS. 859 & 860, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) './ 0 1 /ASSESSEE BY : SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCA TE 0 1 /REVENUE BY : SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, CIT 2 0 /# / DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2017 34( 0 /# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2017 2 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II / 8, CHENNAI. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARI SE FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED AN ISSUE WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 3. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE A SSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME D ECLARING INCOME OF ` 93,88,88,874/-. INITIALLY, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSE D UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUEN TLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENT TOWARDS MANAGEMENT TRAI NEE FEES CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE 3 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS ONLY CHANGE OF OPINION. HE PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN CIT V. KE LVINATOR INDIA LTD. (2010) (320 ITR 561). 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN WAS ORIGI NALLY PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY. AC CORDING TO THE LD. D.R., ON VERIFICATION OF LEDGER AND OTHER DETAI LS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TUITION FEE PAID TO THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEES . WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE DETAILS, THE ASSES SEE FILED EXTRACT OF BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 18.04.2002 REGARDING THE TUI TION FEE PAID TO MANAGEMENT TRAINEES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., TH E MANAGEMENT TRAINEES ARE NONE OTHER THAN THE CHILDREN OF DIRECT ORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRINTING, PUBLISHING AND DISTRIBUTION OF 4 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 NATIONAL NEWSPAPER KNOWN AS THE HINDU. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME D ECLARING INCOME OF ` 93,88,88,874/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SEC TION 143(1) OF THE ACT, ACCEPTING THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TUITION FEE PAID TO THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEES. ON CALLING FOR THE DETAILS, T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MAN AGEMENT TRAINEES ARE THE CHILDREN OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THERE WAS CHANGE OF OPINION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE? THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FACT THAT THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEES ARE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPA NY WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIRST TIME DURI NG THE REASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH ERE WAS CHANGE OF OPINION. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING DETAILS WITH REGARD TO TUITION FEE PAID TO THE MANA GEMENT TRAINEES 5 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 WHO ARE NONE OTHER THAN THE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTO RS OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGH TLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. 6. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEE FEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPEN DITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR THE CHILDREN O F THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE TUIT ION FEE WAS PAID TO THE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS FOR THE DIRECTORS TO TAKE CARE OF RESPECTIVE CHILDREN AND THEIR EDUCATION. THE ASSES SING OFFICER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENTS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN M. SUBRAMANIAM BROS. V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 769 AND ALS O IN CIT V. R.K.K.R. STEELS P. LTD. (2002) 258 ITR 306. IN THO SE JUDGMENTS, A SIMILAR PAYMENT MADE FOR THE EDUCATION OF THE CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS / PARTNERS WAS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN FACT, FOLLOWED THESE JUDGMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT FOR DISALLOWING THE TUITION FEE PAID TO THE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTO RS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO 6 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDI TURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REPAIRING THE BUILDING ON LEASE PR EMISES. 8. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ` 66,24,032/- ON THE LEASE HOLD PREMISES IN REPAIRING AND MAINTAINING THE EXIS TING BUILDING. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE EXPENDITURE WAS I NCURRED IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. REFERRING TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THA T THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE SINCE THE EXPEN DITURE WAS INCURRED ON LEASE PREMISES. THE LD.COUNSEL PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THIRU AROORAN SUGAR LTD. V. DCIT (350 ITR 324). THE LD.COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENTS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT V. TVS LEAN LOGISTICS LTD. (293 ITR 432) AND CIT V. SAKTHI FINA NCE LTD. (291 ITR 83). 7 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 9. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED AT MADURAI, COIMBATORE AND MUMBAI. ACCORDING TO THE L D. D.R., THE ASSESSEE INCURRED VARIOUS EXPENSES FOR CONSTRUCTION /EXTENSION/ RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE . ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE EXPENDITURES AR E CAPITAL IN NATURE, HENCE, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 10% AS ALLOWABLE ON BUILDING. THE E XPENDITURES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE BRING INTO EXISTENCE A NEW CAPITAL ASSET / ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING BENEFIT, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOW ANCE. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED ON THE LEASE PREMISES. WHEN THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE ON THE LEASE PREM ISES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSEE MAY NOT GET ANY BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE. AT THE BEST, THE A SSESSEE MAY USE 8 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 AND OCCUPY THE PREMISES DURING THE PERIOD OF LEASE. MOREOVER, THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE IS FOR LAYING FALSE CEILING, ADVANCE MADE TO C&D FOR RENOVATION, ETC. A BARE READING OF ORDER O F THE CIT(APPEALS) SHOWS THAT APART FROM FALSE CEILING AN D MAIN REPAIR WORKS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PUT UP ADDITIONAL CONS TRUCTION. IF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS THE BUILDING BY DOING SOME REPAI R WORK AND OTHER TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LIKE FALSE CEILING, TH EN THE ASSESSEE MAY CLAIM THE EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE IN NATURE. HO WEVER, IN RESPECT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION / EXTENSION OF THE BUIL DING, IT NEEDS TO BE CAPITALIZED. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS ON THE LEASE HOLD LAND, THE CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE, AT THE BEST, MAY CLAIM ONL Y DEPRECIATION. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT AS FAR AS THE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING BUILDING IS CONCERNED, THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE IN NATURE. WHEREVER TH E NEW CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE, THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL NATURE. 11. SINCE THE DETAILS OF WORK CARRIED ON BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RE-EXAMINE THE SAME AN D FIND OUT THE 9 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. ACCORDINGLY, THE O RDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS EXPENDITURE ON LEASE PREM ISES IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE AND FIND OUT WHEREVER THER E WAS EXTENSION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING, THE SAME HAS TO BE CAPITALIZED AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED ONLY FOR DEPRECIATION. HO WEVER, WHEREVER THERE WAS MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING OR REPAIR AND TEM PORARY CONSTRUCTION LIKE FALSE CEILING, ETC., SUCH EXPENDI TURE HAS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE IN NATURE. 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ONE MORE ISSUE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06 REGARDING LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES. 13. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE LOSS SUFFERED ON SALE OF SHARES HAS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS LOSS AND TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSI NESS INCOME. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD 2,4 3,00,000 SHARES HELD BY ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY M/S SPORTING PASTIME INDIA LTD. FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 2,43,00,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE COST OF PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS ` 2,43,0,000/- AT THE 10 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 RATE OF ` 1/- PER SHARE. THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED A LOSS OF ` 21,87,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF ` 19,30,00,000/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF EARLIER YEAR BY WAY OF PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DEBITED THE BALANCE OF ` 2,57,00,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE LOSS WAS CLAIMED AS CAPITAL LOSS. SUBSEQUENTLY, A REVIS ED RETURN WAS FILED ON THE BASIS OF LEGAL OPINION CLAIMING THE LO SS OF ` 21,87,00,000/- AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED SET OFF OF THE SAME AGAINST THE REGULAR BUSINESS IN COME. 14. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S SPORTING PASTIME INDIA L TD. IS 100% OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE VERY OBJECT OF THE FLOATING COMPANY WAS FOR PROMOTING GO LF COURSE NEAR CHENNAI. SINCE THE GOLF COURSE PROJECT COULD NOT B E TAKEN OFF FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD AND LOSSES WERE SUFFERED BY SUBSID IARY COMPANY, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD TO HONOUR THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE GIVEN BY IT FOR ` 24 CRORES. REALIZING THE SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE PROFIT & LOS S ACCOUNT, DEBITED THE DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 11 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 ` 30,00,000/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000. THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO DEBITED A SUM OF ` 5,00,00,000/- TOWARDS CORPORATE GUARANTEE LIABILITY IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 AND ANOTH ER SUM OF ` 14,00,00,000/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04. IT W AS DEBITED ONLY BY WAY OF PROVISION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME . THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE WAS INITIALLY TREATED AS LOAN. WHEN THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SELL PART OF ITS EQUITY, CONVER TED THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE AS EQUITY SHARES OF 2,40,00,000 AT THE RA TE OF ` 10/- EACH SHARE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE SOLD 90% OF SHARES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 2,43,00,000/- TO M/S CHENAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. AMALGAMATION PV T. LTD. (1997) 226 ITR 188, THE LD.COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE LO SS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BANK GUARANTEE WHICH WAS LATER ON CONVERTED INTO EQUITY, WOULD AMOUNT TO BUSINESS LOS S, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT. 15. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSIN ESS IS PRINTING AND PUBLISHING OF NATIONAL NEWSPAPER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT VENTURED IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO THE L D. D.R., THE 12 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 ASSESSEE FLOATED A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IN THE NAME A ND STYLE OF M/S SPORTING PASTIME INDIA LTD. THE TOTAL INVESTME NT WAS BY WAY OF EQUITY SHARES OF ` 3 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SINCE THE PROJECT COULD NOT BE TAKEN OFF FOR LONG TIME, 2,43,00,000 SHARES OF M/S SPORTING PASTI ME INDIA LTD. WAS SOLD TO ONE SHRI K.C. PALANISAMY OF M/S CHENAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AT A PRICE OF ` 1/- PER SHARE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., EQUITY SHARE OF ` 10/- EACH WAS SOLD TO SHRI K.C. PALANISAMY AT THE RATE OF ` 1/- PER SHARE. IN THAT PROCESS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED THAT THERE WAS A LOSS. IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ASSESSEE VALUED THE SHARES OF M/S SPORTING PASTIME INDIA LTD. AT THE RA TE OF ` 1/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. EVEN THOUGH PROVIDING BANK GUARANTEE TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, IN THIS CASE, THE BANK GUARANTEE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED INTO EQUITY SHARES OF ` 10/- EACH AND THE SAME WAS SOLD AT THE RATE OF ` 1/- EACH SHARE. MOREOVER, AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(APPEALS), ALL ALONG THE INVESTM ENT IN M/S SPORTING PASTIME INDIA LTD. WAS TREATED AS INVESTME NT, WHICH WAS 13 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 SPECIFICALLY CLASSIFIED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CAPITAL INVESTMENT. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000, WHEN THE ASSESSEE CREATED PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION VALUE OF SHARES, DEBITED ` 30,00,000/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BY WAY OF PROVISION FOR DIMIN UTION VALUE OF INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS N EVER TREATED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANY POINT OF TIME . IT WAS ALSO NOT CONVERTED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT SUFFERED ANY LOSS IN GIVING BANK GUARANTEE. IN FAC T, THE BANK GUARANTEE SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED INTO EQUITY SHARES . THE LOSS SAID TO BE SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON SALE OF EQUITY SHARES. THEREFORE, AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE CIT(APPEALS), THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN AMALGAMATION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) MAY NO T BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MA TERIAL TO SUGGEST THE VALUATION OF SHARES AT ` 1/- PER SHARE WHEN THE FACE VALUE OF SHARE WAS ` 10/-, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT THE SO-CALLED LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE AL LOWED AS REVENUE LOSS. MOREOVER, THE LOSS WAS NOT SUFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF BANK GUARANTEE. HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTL Y CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL DO N OT FIND ANY REASON 14 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 17. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONE MORE GROUND WITH REG ARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT TO TRADE UNIONS. 18. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A S UM OF ` 21,50,000/- BEING THE PAYMENT MADE TO TRADE UNIONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO CARRY ON T HE BUSINESS IN A SMOOTH AND AMICABLE MANNER, THEREFORE, THE PAYMEN TS WERE MADE TO THE TRADE UNIONS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DISPU TES WITH WORKERS. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 19. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE PAYME NTS WERE MADE TO TRADE UNIONS. THE PAYMENT MADE TO TRADE UNIONS WAS NOT FOR CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS. AT THE BEST, IT COULD BE A DONATION FOR SOME OTHER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE PAYMENT OF ` 21,50,000/- WAS MADE TO TRADE UNIONS. TRADE UNIONS RECEIVED THE PAYMENT TOWARDS WELFARE OF THE WORKERS . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE PAYME NT WAS MADE TO THE TRADE UNIONS WITH AN INTENTION TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS IN A SMOOTH MANNER AND ALSO TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DISPUTE S WITH WORKERS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE WORKERS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY ARE ALSO MEMBERS IN THE TRADE UNIONS. THER EFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUCH PAY MENT MADE TO TRADE UNIONS, WHEREIN THE WORKERS OF THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY ARE ALSO MEMBERS, IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING O N THE BUSINESS IN A SMOOTH AND AMICABLE MANNER WHICH WOULD DEFINITELY AVOID UNNECESSARY DISPUTES BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND WOR KERS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND HENC E THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 21,50,000/- IS DELETED. 16 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 21. NOW COMING TO REASSESSMENT MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN I.T.A. NO. 1613/MDS/2014, SH. VIKRAM VIJ AYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BEYOND FOUR YEARS F ROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN ON 28.10.2005 AN D THE ASSESSMENT PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE AC T WAS COMPLETED ON 11.12.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISS UED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 25.03.2011, WHICH I S BEYOND FOUR YEARS PERIOD. THE TUITION FEE PAID TO MANAGEMENT T RAINEES ARE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ORIGINAL SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, REOPENING OF ASSES SMENT AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 22. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. JEYARAMAN, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE DETAILS OF THE TUITION FEE PAID TO MANAGEMENT TRAIN EES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WHEN THE SCRUTINY PROCESS WAS TAKEN U P FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUN D THAT THE TUITION FEE WAS PAID TO THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEES. T HE ASSESSEE 17 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 THEREAFTER EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT TUITION FEE WAS PAID TO THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEES WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE CHILDREN OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., SINCE THE DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF TH E ACT WOULD COME INTO OPERATION. 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT APPEARS THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW THAT THE TUITION FEE WAS PAID TO THE M ANAGEMENT TRAINEES WHO ARE NONE OTHER THAN THE CHILDREN OF TH E DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ONLY WHEN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDING WAS TAKEN UP FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AS SESSEE SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT THE TUITION FEE WAS PAID TO THE MANAGE MENT TRAINEES. SINCE THE TUITION WAS PAID TO THE CHILDREN OF THE D IRECTORS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE COURSE OF 18 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NEGLIGEN CE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THESE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. HENCE, AS RIGH TLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WOU LD COME INTO OPERATION. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTL Y REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT EVEN THOUGH FOUR YEARS PERIOD EXPIRED FR OM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 24. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE APPEAL, THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS TUITION FEE PAID TO MANAGEMENT TRAINEES WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTORS. 25. THIS ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THIS TR IBUNAL BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENTS OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN M . SUBRAMANIAM BROS. V. CIT (250 ITR 769) AND CIT V. R.K.K.R. STEE LS PVT. LTD. (258 ITR 306), FOUND THAT IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF R ESPECTIVE PARENTS TO PAY THE TUITION FEE AND NOT THAT OF THE COMPANY. T HEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. SINCE THE PA YMENT WAS ADMITTEDLY PAID TO CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTORS, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS 19 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 26. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN I.T.A. NO.1614/MDS/2014, THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE REASSESSMENT WAS MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS, I.E. 2004-05 AND 2005-06, THE BOARD RESOLUTION AND RELATIONSHIP OF MANAGEMENT TRAINEES WERE NOT AVAILA BLE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDING FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSME NT. MOREOVER, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING REL IANCE ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN R.K.K.R. STEE LS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND M. SUBRAMANIAM BROS. (SUPRA). THEREFOR E, THIS 20 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 27. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONE MORE GROUND WITH REG ARD TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. 28. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ADDITIONAL DEPR ECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT ACTIVITY OF PRINTING AND PUBLISH ING WOULD NOT AMOUNT MANUFACTURE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD . COUNSEL, HE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. COUNSEL, PRINTING AND PUBLISHING WOULD AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURI NG ACTIVITY, THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CON FIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 29. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE TERM MANUFACTUR E IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(29BA) OF THE ACT. AS PER THIS DEFINITION , MANUFACTURE MEANS A PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE RESULTING IN TRA NSFORMATION INTO A NEW DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE. IN THIS CASE, PAP ER MEANS PAPER EVEN IF IT IS PRINTED. THE ASSESSEE COLLECTS INFOR MATION FROM VARIOUS 21 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 SOURCES, WHICH WERE PRINTED ON THE PAPER AND NO DIS TINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE CAME INTO EXISTENCE. HENCE, THE CIT(APPEAL S) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 30. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 20% ON THE COST OF THE ASSETS WHICH WERE USED FOR MANUFACT URE OR PRODUCTION OF ARTICLE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT PR INTING AND PUBLISHING OF NEWSPAPER AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURING AC TIVITY. SECTION 2(29BA) OF THE ACT DEFINES THE WORD MANUFACTURE A S FOLLOWS:- 2(29BA) MANUFACTURE, WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS , MEANS A CHANGE IN A NON-LIVING PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE O R THING, (A) RESULTING IN TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING INTO A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING HAV ING A DIFFERENT NAME, CHARACTER AND USE ; OR (B) BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH A DIFFERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INTEGRAL STRUCTURE ; 31. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS NECESSARY TO BRING INTO EXISTENCE A NEW OR DISTINCT OBJECT HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME OR C HARACTER. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE COLLECTS NEWS FROM VARIOUS SOURC ES AND GETS IT 22 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 PRINTED ON THE RAW PAPER. A RAW PAPER IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PRINTED ONE. BEFORE PRINTING THE ARTICLE IS CALLED AS PAP ER, AFTER PRINTING IT IS KNOWN AS NEWSPAPER. THEREFORE, THE NEWSPAPER IS AN ARTICLE OR COMMERCIALLY A DIFFERENT ARTICLE THAN THE ORDINARY PAPER. WHEN THE ASSESSEE, BY PRINTING, CONVERTS THE RAW PAPER INTO NEWSPAPER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIO N 2(29BA) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR A DDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT ADDI TIONAL DEPRECIATION. 32. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE FIRS T ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF NEWS GA THERING EXPENSES. 33. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ` 73,35,550/- FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING 23 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PERSONS WHO ARE WRITING ART ICLE / COLUMN ARE NON-RECURRING AND INDEPENDENT. THEREFORE, THE RECE IPTS IN THEIR HANDS ARE CASUAL IN NATURE, HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. AT THE BEST, TAX IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SEC TION 194C OF THE ACT AT THE RATE OF 2%. 34. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ARTICLE WRITERS ARE PROFESSIONALS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX UND ER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT AS PROFESSIONAL FEES. SINCE TAX WAS NOT DE DUCTED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 35. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE NEWS WRITERS OR ARTICLE WRITERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE ORDIN ARY PERSONS. THEY ARE PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED IN WRITING NEWS/ARTICLES . THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE ENGAGES PROFESSIONALS IN WRITING ARTIC LES AND NEWS, TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE AC T. EVEN THE 24 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE TAX AT THE BEST CAN BE DED UCTED ONLY AT THE RATE OF 2% UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, THAT ALSO NOT DEDUCTED. HENCE, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FAILURE OF THE A SSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX WOULD ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 36. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENSES. 37. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 55,69,593/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON SOFTWARE AT ` 2,01,58,144/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, FOU ND THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF ` 61,61,225/- CAN BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE BALANCE WAS DISALLOWED AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIAT ION AT THE RATE OF 60%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRMED THE DISALL OWANCE AT ` 55,98,768/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ENT IRE EXPENDITURE IS FOR SOFTWARE, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 25 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 38. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE ACQU IRED LICENCE FOR USE OF SOFTWARE, THEN THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE ON THE REVENUE FIELD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED SOFTWARE ITSELF , THEREFORE, IT IS A BENEFIT ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED SOFTWARE, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGME NT OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT V. ARAWALI CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. (2003) 259 ITR 30 AND ALSO DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL IN I SOFT R&D PVT. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO.465/MDS/07. 39. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IF THE ASSESSEE OBTAINS LICENCE FOR USE OF SOFTWARE, THEN THE OWNER SHIP WOULD REMAIN WITH THE SOFTWARE COMPANY WHICH CREATED THE SOFTWARE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SOFTWARE ON OUTRIGHT SALE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE EXCLUSIVELY AND IT HAS RIGHT TO MODIFY THE SOFTWARE AS IT NEEDS. THER EFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE SOFTWARE EXCLUSIVELY, IT HAS AN ENDURING 26 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 BENEFIT. HENCE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THIS TRIBUNAL DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 40. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMI SSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS MANAGEMENT TRAINING EXPENDITURE. 41. WE HAVE HEARD SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE TUIT ION FEE WAS PAID TO THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEES WHO ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HENCE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CO MMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTIO N 263 OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 42. THE NEXT GROUND ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WIT H REGARD TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. 27 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 43. THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED IN THE EARLIER PART O F THIS ORDER. THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT BY PRINTING AND PUBLISHING OF NEWS ON RAW PAPER, THE ASSESSEE CONVERTS THE RAW PAPER INTO PRI NTED PAPER. THEREFORE, IT AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE WITHIN THE MEA NING OF 2(29BA) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR AD DITIONAL DEPRECIATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER, THEREFORE, THE ORDER O F THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IS SET ASIDE AND THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. 44. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE FIRS T ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDI TURE INCURRED ON MANAGEMENT TRAINEES. 45. THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. IT WAS HELD THAT S INCE THE TUITION FEE WAS PAID TO THE MANAGEMENT TRAINEES WHO ARE THE CHI LDREN OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 28 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 46. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE IN THE LEASE HOLD PREMISES. 47. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER AND THIS TRIBUNAL REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE AND FIND OUT THE NA TURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALS O, THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT DEPRECIATION IF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS FOR EXTENSION OR NEW CONSTRUCTION OF B UILDING. IF THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON REPAIR AND TEMPORARY CO NSTRUCTION LIKE FALSE CEILING, ETC, SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE TREA TED AS REVENUE IN NATURE. 48. COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE FIRST IS SUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF MANAGEMENT TRA INEE EXPENDITURE. 49. WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS ARISEN FOR CONSIDERATION FO R THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) HOLDING THA T THE 29 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON MANAGEMENT TRAINEES WHO ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. TH EREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 50. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISA LLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. 51. WHILE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE IN THE EARLIER PAR T OF THIS ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED F OR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION SINCE THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE CON VERTING THE RAW PAPER BY PRINTING AND PUBLISHING OF NEWS INTO PRINT ED PAPER AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE. HENCE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GR ANT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 52. COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE FIRST IS SUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEP RECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. 30 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 53. AS ALREADY HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, THE CONVERSION OF RAW PAPER INTO PRINTED PAP ER BY THE ASSESSEE BY PRINTING AND PUBLISHING NEWS AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATIO N. 54. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF ` 24,78,688/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 55. SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED A NY EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IF AT ALL THERE CAN B E ANY DISALLOWANCE, IT HAS TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO EXEMPTED INCOME EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ONLY ` 49,000/-. THE LD.COUNSEL PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN RE DINGTON (INDIA) LTD. V. ADDL. CIT (2017) 77 TAXMANN.COM 257. 56. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) FOUND THAT DISALLOWA NCE CANNOT BE MADE IN VACUUM. WHEN THERE WAS NO EXEMPTED INCOME, THERE 31 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE. AT THE BEST, IT HAS TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THER EFORE, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN REDI NGTON (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISAL LOWANCE TO ` 49,000/-. 57. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE FIRS T ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION AL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. 58. AS HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSES SEE CONVERTING RAW PAPER INTO PRINTED PAPER BY PUBLISHING NEWS AMO UNTS TO MANUFACTURE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR AD DITIONAL DEPRECIATION. 59. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 60. AS HELD BY MADRAS HIGH COURT IN REDINGTON (INDI A) LTD. (SUPRA), WHEN THERE WAS NO EXEMPTED INCOME, THERE C ANNOT BE ANY 32 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 DISALLOWANCE. AT THE BEST, IT HAS TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE ON LY TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 61. NOW COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007- 08, THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS SAL ARY PAID TO FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS. 62. SHRI R. JEYAKUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FARIDA SHOES PVT. LTD. IN I.T.A. NO.159/MDS/2013 DATED 11.04.2013 ALLOWED THE SALARY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS WITHOUT DEDUCTIN G TAX. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN THE CASE OF FARIDA SH OES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), COMMISSION WAS PAID TO FOREIGN AGENTS. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, SALARY WAS PAID FOR NEWS COLLECTED BY FOREIGN C ORRESPONDENTS WHO ARE NOT RESIDENTS IN INDIA, FOR PRINTING NEWSPA PER. THE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE 33 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 AGREEMENT. THIS ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ALSO. 63. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. VIKRAM VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT SALARY WAS PAID TO NON-RESIDENTS FOR COLLECTING NEWS IN FOREIGN TERRITORY. ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. COUNSEL, SOME OF THE CORRESPONDENTS ARE FOREIGN NATIONALS AN D SOME OF THEM ARE NON-RESIDENT INDIANS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SA LARY TO FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS HAVE NO PERMANE NT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA. THEY ARE GATHERING NEWS/AR TICLE OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY AND SEND THEM TO INDIA. ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS ARE OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY, THEREFORE, THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY IS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA. HENCE, ACCORDING TO T HE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX. 64. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT NEWS/ARTICLES WERE COLLECTED OUTSIDE T HE COUNTRY BY FOREIGN NATIONALS WHO ARE NON-RESIDENTS OF INDIA. THE FACT REMAINS 34 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 THAT THE ARTICLES/NEWS COLLECTED BY THE FOREIGN NAT IONALS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PRINT AND CIRC ULATE IN INDIA. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE N EWS COLLECTED BY THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS OUTSIDE INDIA WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER THE PAYMENT MADE TO FOREIGN CORRE SPONDENTS ARE LIABLE TO TAXED? THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD . D.R. IS THAT DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT WAS NOT TAKEN I NTO CONSIDERATION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGR EEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO I NDICATE THAT THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A FTER CONSIDERING THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 35 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 TWO COUNTRIES, AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRE SH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 65. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 66. TO SUM UP THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T. A. NOS.1611 &1613/MDS/2014 ARE DISMISSED, I.T.A. NOS.1612 & 161 7/MDS/2014 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, I.T.A. NOS.1614, 1615, 1616 & 1618/MDS/2014 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND I.T.A. NOS.1619/MDS/2014 AND I.T.A. NO.2106/MDS/2015 ARE A LLOWED. WHEREAS, ALL THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH AUGUST, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 18 TH AUGUST, 2017. KRI. 36 I.T.A. NOS.1611 TO 1619/MDS/14 I.T.A. NO. 2106/MDS/15 I.T.A. NOS.2012 TO 2015/MD S/14 I.T.A. NO.2252/MDS/15 0 ,/78 98(/ /COPY TO: 1. './ /ASSESSEE 2. ASSESSING OFFICER 3. 2 :/ () /CIT(A) 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 5. 8; ,/ /DR 6. <' = /GF.