Vasant Chemicals Private Limited, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

ITA 2182/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7396 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M NARMADA SR DRI
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2182/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 VASANT CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD [PAN: AAACV7249K] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI A.V.RAGHURAM, AR FOR REVENUE : SMT. M.NARMADA, SR.DR-I DATE OF HEARING : 24-06-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-08-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2014-15 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-5, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 30-10-2017 PASSED IN CASE NO.0494/2016-17/CIT(A)-5, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL: 1)THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND LAW ON THE POINTS IN DISPUTE. 2)THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN DENYI NG WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,45,67,871 T OWARDS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT O N THE GROUND OF ITA NO. 2182/HYD/2017 :- 2 -: NON FURNISHING OF CERTIFICATE IN FORM 3CL FROM DEPA RTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (DSIR). 3)THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAVING NOTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE RELEVANT APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (DSIR) BEFORE CO MPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION AS TH E RELEVANT EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED DURING THE RELEVA NT PREVIOUS YEAR. 4)THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN TREAT ING THE AMOUNT OF PREMIUM PAID TOWARDS LEASEHOLD RIGHTS OF LAND AS NO N-DEPRECIABLE ASSET. 5)THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT T REATING THE PREMIUM PAID FOR LEASEHOLD RIGHTS AS INTANGIBLE ASS ET AND THEREBY DENYING THE DEPRECIATION ON LEASEHOLD RIGHTS @25% A MOUNTING TO RS. 86,06,701. 6)THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT C ONSIDERING THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. COMING TO THE FORMER ISSUE OF SECTION 35(2AB) WEIGH TED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,45,67,871/-, WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THA T BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED THE SAME FOR TH E SOLE REASON THAT THE THEN TAXPAYER HAD FAILED TO FILE CORRESPO NDING FORM-3CL ISSUED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY I.E., DEP ARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DSIR. CASE FILE INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PETIT ION DT.08-10-2020 PLACING ON RECORD THE DSIRS APPROVAL I N FORM- 3CI, DT.28-11-2017 WHEREAS THE CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER C HALLENGE IS DT.30-10-2017. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO R ESTORE THE INSTANT FORMER ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE EXAMINED AFRESH IN LIGHT OF THE DSIR APPROVAL DT.28-11 -2017 ISSUED IN ASSESSEES CASE IN AYS.2014-15 TO 2016-17; AS THE CASE MAY BE. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 4. NEXT COMES THE LATTER ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.86,06,701/-. THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION TO THIS EFFECT READS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 2182/HYD/2017 :- 3 -: 5. DISALLOWANCE OF RS.86,06,701/- OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON LEASE HOLD RIGHTS. 5.1 THE FACTS: DURING THE FY 2010-11 THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO A LEASE DEED WITH APIIC (ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LTD) FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD RIGHTS ON LAND TO SETUP A UNIT IN SEZ. AS PER THE LEASE DEED, THE APPELLANT IS GIV EN 16.47 (11.97+4.50) ACRES OF LAND ON LEASE FOR WHICH AN AM OUNT OF RS.5,85,30,062/- (RS.4,18,95,000 - 11.97 ACRES RS.5 7,50,000 4.50 ACRES + RS.8,85,062 - STAMP AND REGISTRATION CHARGE S) SHALL BE PAID AS A ONE-TIME PREMIUM TO ACQUIRE THE LEASEHOLD RIGH TS OF THE LAND. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE LEASE PREMIUM, AN AMOUNT EQUA L TO 2% OF THE LEASE PREMIUM I.E. RS.11,52,900/ -SHALL BE PAID AS ANNUAL LEASE RENTALS AS PER PARA 1(D) OF THE LEASE DEED SUBJECT TO ANNUAL ENHANCEMENT OF 5%. THE LEASE PERIOD IS FOR A TERM O F 33 YEARS. ON EXPIRY OF SAID PERIOD OF 33 YEARS, THE LAND ALONG W ITH CONSTRUCTION THEREON SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE LESSOR I.E. APIIC. 5.2 SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT: FOLLOWING ARE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUND: 'THE ANNUAL LEASE RENTALS ARE TREATED AS REVENUE EX PENDITURE AND ARE CHARGED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ONE TIME PR EMIUM PAID FOR LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IS CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND THE SAME IS BEING TREATED AS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET AS PER SECT ION 32(1)(II) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE PAYMENT ALLOWS THE APPE LLANT TO EXERCISE A RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY OVER A SPECIFIC PERIOD FO R CONDUCTING ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THERE IS A CONFERMENT OF RIGHT ON THE LESSEE (APPELLANT) BY ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD LAND AND PREMIUM HAS BEEN PAID IN LIEU THEREOF. AS THE RIGHT ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT TO UTILIZE T HE LAND IS IN THE NATURE OF A LICENSE OR COMMERCIAL RIGHT TO CARR Y ON ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM. THE LEASE AGREEME NTS, THE APPELLANT TREATED THE RIGHT IS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET U/S.32(1)( II) AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 25% AMOUNTING RS.1,03,80,339 /- (25% OF RS. 4,15,21,357/-) BEING ASSETS IN THE FORM OF INTANGIB LE ASSETS. PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX LAW: AS PER SECTION 32(1)(II) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 'IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF KNOWHOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENSES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGH TS OF SIMILAR NATURE, BEING INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTE R THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1998, OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY THE ASSESS EE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, THE FOL LOWING DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE ALLOWED:- A. IN THE CASE OF ANY BLOCK OF ASSETS, SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE THEREOF AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED ITA NO. 2182/HYD/2017 :- 4 -: B. IN THE CASE OF ASSETS OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, SUCH PERCE NTAGE ON THE ACTUAL COST THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE AS MAY BE PRESC RIBED AS PER RULE 5(1) OF INCOME TAX RULES 1962 'SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-RULE (2), THE ALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SU B-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF ANY BLOCK OF ASSETS SHALL BE CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED IN THE SECO ND COLUMN OF THE TABLE IN APPENDIX I TO THESE RULES ON THE WRITTEN D OWN VALUE OF SUCH BLOCK OF ASSETS AS ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME DURING THE P REVIOUS YEAR. ' ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS: THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS, ST ATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID IS A C APITAL EXPENDITURE AND THAT' THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED TH AT THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID IS NOTHING BUT A RENT FOR THE PREMISES AND IT IS NEITHER A RIGHT NOR AN INTANGIBLE ASSET AND SAME SHALL BE AMO RTIZED FOR A PERIOD OF 33 YEARS STARTING FROM THE AY 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN TREATING TH E PREMIUM AS RENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLAN T PAYS LEASE RENT ANNUALLY IN ADDITION TO THE PREMIUM. NOWHERE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, IS IT SPECIFIED THAT LEASE PREMIUM IS REQUIRED TO B E AMORTIZED OVER THE PERIOD OF LEASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ACCE PTING THE CONTENTIONS OF YOUR APPELLANT, TREATED THE LEASE PR EMIUM AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 86,06,701/- I.E. (RS.1,03,80,339 - RS.17,73,638 [ANNUAL AMORTIZ ED AMOUNT]) HAVING ACCEPTED THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CONTRARI LY CONCLUDED THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM IS NORMAL RENT I.E, IT IS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS TO BE AMORTIZED OVER A PERIOD OF LEASE. CONSIDERING THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DEED, THE ENTIRE LEASE PREMIUM IS PAID BEFORE ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT WHICH ITSEL F SHOWED THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ACQUIRING THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS. IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A REN T AS IT IS A ONETIME PREMIUM AND ADDITIONAL ANNUAL RENTALS ARE ALSO BEIN G DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE DEED AS A WH OLE, SUCH PREMIUM PAID IS NOTHING BUT A PRICE FOR OBTAINING THE LEASE HOLD RIGHTS AND IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE PREMIUM IN QUESTION IS CAPITA L IN NATURE AND NOT REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE LUMP SUM PREMIUM PAID IS A COMMERCIAL RIGHT ACQ UIRED BY THE APPELLANT TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. COMMERCIAL RIGHTS CONFER CERTAIN RIGHTS UPON THE APPELLANT TO CARRY O N ITS BUSINESS IN ORDER TO EARN MORE PROFIT. THE APPELLANT GOT COMMER CIAL BENEFITS FOR A PERIOD OF 33 YEARS ON PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM AND THEREFORE ANY ITA NO. 2182/HYD/2017 :- 5 -: AMOUNT INCURRED IN ACQUIRING SUCH COMMERCIAL RIGHT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION U/S.32 OF INCOME TAX: ACT, 1961. 5.3 THE DECISION: 5.3.1 THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LA WS: I. GOBIND SUGAR MILLS LTD. 1998J 232 ITR 319 (SC) II. TIRUMAL MUSIC CENTRE (P.) LTD. [2013] 39 TAXMANN.CO M 196 BUT IN THESE CASES IT WAS NOT HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR ACQUISITION OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IS CAPITAL IN NATUR E AND THE SAME ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION U/S 32. IN GOBIND SUGAR M ILLS LTD (SUPRA) CASE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ONLY HELD THAT 'EXPE NDITURE INCURRED BY ASSESSEE FOR ACQUISITION OF LEASEHOLD RIGHT FOR SETTING UP OF LEASEHOLD RIGHT FOR SETTING UP OF SUGAR FACTORY WAS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE'. BUT ALL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IS NOT EN TITLED FOR DEPRECIATION. IN TIRUMAL MUSIC CENTRE THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. 5.3.2 THE LAND IS A NON-DEPRECIABLE ASSET. SO DEPRE CIATION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON ANY LEASED RIGHT ON LAND AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN INCOME TAX ACT, IN CASE OF LEASE, SINCE OWNERSHIP HAS NOT TRANSFERRED, DEPRECIATION ON DEPRECIABLE ASSET WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE LESSOR. SINCE LAND IS NOT A DEPRECIABLE ASSET DEPRE CIATION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. 5.3.3 ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS FALL WITHIN THE TERM AND SCOPE OF EXPRESSION 'INTANGIBLE ASSET' AS DEFINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 32(1)(II) O F THE ACT. I HAVE TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER LEASEHOLD RIGHTS PARTAKE CHARACT ER OF LAND OR INTANGIBLE ASSET. INTANGIBLE ASSET HAS 'BEEN DEFINE D IN THE SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THE TERM 'INTANGIBLE ASSETS' HAS BEEN DEFINED BEING KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPY RIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENS E, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE. OBVIOUSLY, LEASEHOLD RIGHTS ON LAND DO NOT FALL IN THE CATEGOR Y OF ABOVE CATEGORIES. IT DOES NOT FALL EVEN IN RESIDUARY CATE GORY OF ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE. BE CAUSE THE TERM 'RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE' QUALIFIES THAT EVEN TO F ALL UNDER RESIDUARY CLAUSE, IT SHOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF ABOVE KNOW-HO W, PATENTS, COPY- RIGHTS, TRADE MARKS LICENSE OR FRANCHISE. APPLYING THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS EVEN TO FALL WITHIN THE RESIDUARY CATEGORY IT SHOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF RIGHTS ENUMERATED ABOVE. FURTHER, DEFINIT ION OF THE TERM 'IMMOVABLE PROPERTY' IS GIVEN IN SEC. 3(26) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT AND IT IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: 'IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SHALL INCLUDE LAND, BENEFITS TO ARISE OUT OF LAND AND THINGS ATTACHED TO THE EARTH OR PERMANENTLY FAS TENED TO ANYTHING ATTACHED TO EARTH' RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY UNDER A LE ASE IS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING GIVEN IN SEC. 103 OF TH E TRANSFER OF ITA NO. 2182/HYD/2017 :- 6 -: PROPERTY ACT. UNDER SEC. 105 OF THE TRANSFER OF PRO PERTY ACT, A LEASE CREATES A RIGHT OR AN INTEREST IN THE ENJOYMENT OF THE LAND PROPERTY [JASWANTSINGH MATHURASINH V. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CO RPORATION [1992] 5 SCC 12]. IN THE IMPUGNED CASE, BY VIRTUE OF LEASE ONLY AN IN TEREST IN LAND IS CREATED. HENCE, IT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR ALLOWANCE O F DEPRECIATION. [CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD. [2016] 71 TAXMANN.COM 210 (BANGALORE - TRIB.)/[2016] 159 ITD 648 (BANGALO RE - TRIB.)/[2016] 181 TTJ 556 (BANGALORE - TRIB.] FOLLOWED]. IT WAS H ELD AS UNDER: '7.2 HAVING REFERRED TO THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, W E HOLD THAT BY VIRTUE OF LEASE ONLY AN INTEREST IN LAND IS CREA TED WHICH DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION' 5.3.4 THE APEX COURT (SC), IN MOTHER HOSPITAL (P.) LTD [2017] 79 TAXMANN.COM 375 (SC)/[2017] 247 TAXMAN 12 (SC)/[201 7] 392 ITR 628 (SC) /[2017] 294 CTR 25 (SC) HELD THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE (LESSEE) HAD NOT BECOME THE OWNER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE TAXPAYER AS PER SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE TITLE I N THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE PASSED FROM LESSOR WHEN ITS V ALUE WAS MORE THAN INR 100, UNLESS IT WAS EXECUTED ON A PROPER ST AMP PAPER AND WAS DULY REGISTERED WITH. THE SUB-REGISTRAR. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF,_THE TAXPAYER COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE THE O WNER, OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE AL LOWED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. ON THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OF CLAIM ING DEPRECIATION UNDER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 32, THE SC HELD THAT THE LESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY HIM BY WAY OF RENOVATION, EXTENSION OR IMPROVEMENT TO THE BUILDING AND NOT ON THE CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE OWNER, THE C OST OF WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REIMBURSED BY THE LESSEE. 5. THE REVENUES VEHEMENT CONTENTION IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAV E AMORTIZED THE SAME U/S.35 OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO MERI T IN THE INSTANT CONTENTION PER SE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NEITHER THERE IS ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE ACT NOR IS ANY CBDT CIRCULAR TO THIS EFFECT. HON'BLE APEX COURTS RECENT DECISION IN TA PARIA TOOLS LTD. VS. JCIT (2015) [372 ITR 605] (SC) RATHER HOLDS THAT THE CLAIM OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS NOT TO BE DENIE D MERELY BECAUSE THE SAME COULD ALSO BE SPLIT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS . ITA NO. 2182/HYD/2017 :- 7 -: COUPLED WITH THIS, THIS TRIBUNALS SPECIAL BENCH IN A CIT VS. PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., (2018) 92 TAXMANN.C OM 104 (HYD) DECIDES THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR THAT A RIGHT TO OPERATE ANY ASSET FORMS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET U/S.32(1)(I I) OF THE ACT ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THIS STAGE SOUG HT TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE H AS TAKEN LAND ON LEASE TO SET UP AN SEZ AND THEREFORE, THE SAME OUGHT NOT TO BE TAKEN AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. WE F IND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE INSTANT LAST PLEA AS WELL AS THE ASSESSE E HAS CLAIMED THE IMPUGNED RELIEF QUA LEASE PREMIUM OF RS.5,85,30,062/- THAN REGARDING ACQUISITION OF THE LA ND ALONG WITH ITS TITLE. WE THEREFORE DISTINGUISH THE REVENUES ARGUMENTS BASED ON CASE LAW M/S.MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD ITA NO.73/CTK/2012, DT.03-01-2018 AND M/S.CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD. VS. DCIT, ITA NO.1549/BANG/2012, DT.30-06-2016 IN LIGHT OF THE FOREG OING SPECIAL BENCH DECISION (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEES INS TANT SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHALL FRAME HIS CONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTATION AS P ER LAW. 7. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH AUGUST, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 17-08-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 2182/HYD/2017 :- 8 -: COPY TO : 1.VASANT CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., C/O.RAJU & PRASAD CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 401, DIAMOND HOUSE, ADJ.AMRU THA HILLS, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-5, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-5, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.