ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2237/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0175 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: J P KHAITAN SR COUNS EL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Tax effect; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 32(1)(iia); 32; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI A T VARKEY, JM, & SHRI M.BAL AGANESH, AM] I.T.A NO. 2237/KOL/20 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-1 2 ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA -VS- TATA STEEL P ROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD. [PAN: AABCT 1029 L ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 2237/KOL/2016 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-1 2 TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD. -VS- AC IT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA [PAN: AABCT 1029 L ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR , ADDL. CIT SR. DR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI J.P. KHAITAN, SR. C OUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.12.2018 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTI ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS)-2, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD CIT(A)] IN APPEAL NO. 59/CIT(A)-2/16-17 DATED 08.09 .2016 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8, KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE 2 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 2 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 15. 03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. I.T.A. NO. 2237/KOL/2016 REVENUE APPEAL 2. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING ALLOWANCE OF REMAINING PORTIO N OF 50% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(I)(IIA) OF THE ACT ON ASSETS PUT TO USE FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTALLED CERTAIN PLANT AND MACHINERY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND HAD USED THE SAME FOR L ESS THAN 180 DAYS DURING THAT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 50% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ELIGIBLE DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE REMAINING 50% PORTION OF RS. 99,19,911 /- WAS CLAIMED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WAS SOUGHT TO BE DISALLOWED BY THE LD. AO O N THE GROUND THAT UNCLAIMED 50% OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO EARLIER A SSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS AN ALLOWANCE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A) ON PLACING RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGH COURTS DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWA NCE. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE FIND THIS ISSUE IS ALREADY SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 508/KOL/2016 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 24.08.2018 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 4.2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI T. P. TEXTILES PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 394 ITR 483 (MAD) W HEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 6.1. THEREFORE, THE ONLY ISSUE, WHICH AROSE FOR CO NSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS, WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION, IN THE SUM OF RS. 8,03,233/- COULD BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR, I.E., THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, IN RESPECT OF MACHINERY, W HICH WAS PURCHASED AND 3 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 3 USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS, IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, 2009-10 (I.E., THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11). 7. THE TRIBUNAL, RELYING UPON ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN T HE CASE OF FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD. V. DCIT, DATED 10.08.2016, PASSED IN I.T. A.NO.1373/MDS/2016 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.1. PERTINENTLY, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD. V. DCIT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF : CIT V. RITTAL INDIA (P .) LTD., [2016] 66 TAXMANN.COM 4 (KARNATAKA). 7.2. THE ISSUE, WHICH AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FRESH & HONEST CAFE LTD. V. DCIT, WAS ALSO, WHETHER THE ASS ESSEE COULD BE ALLOWED BALANCE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IN THE RELEVANT A.Y ., FOLLOWING THE A.Y., IN WHICH, THE MACHINERY HAD BEEN PURCHASED, AND PUT TO USE, ALBEIT, FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN 180 DAYS. 7.3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS, THUS, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, CONSIDERED, AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , AS PASSED, QUA THE ISSUE ENCAPSULATED ABOVE, ERRONEOUS AND/OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 7.4. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE ISSUE AT HAND, RELE VANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE IN THE A.Y. IN IS SUE, WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE NOTICED : ' SECTION 32 (1) IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF (I) BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE, BEING TAN GIBLE ASSETS; (II) KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENC ES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATU RE, BEING INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1 998, OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSES O F THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, THE FOLLOWING DEDUCTIONS SHALL BE ALLOW ED - (I) IN THE CASE OF ASSETS OF AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, SUCH PERCENTAGE ON THE A CTUAL COST THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; (II) IN THE CASE OF ANY BLOCK OF ASSETS, SUCH PERCE NTAGE ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE THEREOF AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE AN ASSET REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (II) OR CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSES SEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND IS PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSI ON FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN ONE 4 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 4 HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS IN THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR AN ASSET UNDER CLAUSE (I) OR CLAUSE (II) OR CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE: (IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (OT HER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2005, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTIO N OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING OR GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO TWENTY PER CENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II). (EMPHASIS IS OURS) 8. PERTINENTLY, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, IN A DECI SION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RITTAL INDIA (P .) LTD., [2016] 66 TAXMANN.COM 4 (KARNATAKA), HAS I NTERPRETED THE AFORESAID PROVISION, IN PARTICULAR, THE PROVISO INC ORPORATED THEREIN. THE KARNATAKE HIGH COURT, IN THE SAID CASE, HAS COME TO THE CONCL USION THAT ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION GRANTED UNDER CLAUSE (IIA) OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF AFFORDING BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEES AND, TO ENCOURAGE INDUSTR IALIZATION, EITHER BY SETTING UP A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT, OR, BY EXPANDING A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNIT, BY PURCHASING AND INSTALLING A NEW MACHINERY, OR, PLANT, AND PUTTING THE SAME TO U SE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. 8.1. THE COURT, WENT ON TO SAY, THAT WHILE, THE PRO VISO APPEARING IN SECTION 32(1) RESTRICTS THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO 50% OF THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR AN ASSET REFERRED TO IN C LAUSE (IIA), NOWHERE DOES IT RESTRICT ALLOWANCE OF THE BALANCE 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPR ECIATION, WHICH IN PERCENTAGE TERMS, WOULD BE 10% IN THE SUCCEEDING A.Y. 8.2. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RITTAL INDIA (P .) LTD., AS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 7, 8 AND 9 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A RE EXTRACTED HEREAFTER : '..... 7. CLAUSE (IIA) OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT, AS IT NOW STANDS, WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT , 2005, APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006. PRI OR TO THAT, A PROVISO TO THE SAID CLAUSE WAS THERE, WHICH PROVI DED FOR THE BENEFIT TO BE GIVEN ONLY TO A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, OR ONLY WHERE A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE DURING ANY YEAR PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8. THE AFORESAID TWO CONDITIONS, I.E., THE UNDERTAK ING ACQUIRING NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY SHOULD BE A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, O R THAT IT SHOULD BE CLAIMED IN ONE YEAR, HAVE BEEN DOWN AWAY BY SUBSTITUTING CL AUSE (IIA) WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006. THE GRANT OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION, U NDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION, IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITH THE PUR POSE OF ENCOURAGING 5 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 5 INDUSTRIALIZATION, BY EITHER SETTING UP A NEW INDUS TRIAL UNIT OR BY EXPANDING THE EXISTING UNIT BY PURCHASE OF NEW PLANT AND MACHINER Y, AND PUTTING IT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE (II) OF THE SAID SECTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ONLY 50% OF THE 20% WOULD BE ALLOWABLE, IF THE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY SO ACQUIRED IS PUT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 1 80 DAYS IN A FINANCIAL YEAR. HOWEVER, IF NOWHERE RESTRICTS THAT THE BALANCE 10% WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR . THE LANGUAGE USED IN CLAUSE (IIA) OF THE SAID SECTI ON CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT 'A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO 20% OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II)'. THE WORD ' SHALL' USED IN THE SAID CLAUSE IS VERY SIGNIFICANT. THE BENEFIT WHICH IS TO BE GRANTED IS 20% ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISO REFERRED TO ABOVE, ONLY 10% CAN BE CLAIMED IN ONE YEAR, IF PLANT AND MACHINERY IS PUT TO USE FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS IN THE SAID FINANCIAL YEAR. THIS WOULD NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE BALANCE 10% ADDITIONAL DEDUCTION CAN BE AVAILED IN THE SUBSEQUE NT ASSESSMENT YEAR, OTHERWISE THE VERY PURPOSE OF INSERTION OF CLAUSE ( IIA) WOULD BE DEFEATED BECAUSE IT PROVIDES FOR 20% DEDUCTION WHICH SHALL B E ALLOWED.....' 9. WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, PASSED IN CIT V. RITTAL INDIA (P .) LTD. (NO.1) 10. ACCORDING TO US, THESE ARE PROVISIONS INCLUDED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN THE STATUTE TO GIVE A FILLIP TO NEW INDUSTRIES AS ALSO TO EXISTING INDUSTRIES, WHICH SEEK TO EXPAND ITS SWAY, BY INVESTING IN AND MAKING USE OF NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY. 10.1. THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) READ ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISO WOULD HAVE US COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, THERE IS NO LIMITATION IN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THE BALANCE 10% OF ADDITIONAL DEP RECIATION IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 10.2. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2 016, THE AMBIGUITY, IF ANY, IN THIS REGARD, IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, STANDS REMOVED BY VIRTUE OF THE LEGISLATURE, INCORPORATING IN THE STATUTE, THE NECE SSARY CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENT. 10.3. THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN THE RELEVANT PROVISO OBTAINING IN SECTION 32 , READS AS FOLLOWS: 32. (1) ...... PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE AN ASSET REFERRED TO IN CL AUSE (IIA) OR THE FIRST PROVISO TO CLAUSE (IIA), AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS ACQ UIRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND IS PUT TO USE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS FOR A PERIOD OF LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DA YS IN THAT PREVIOUS 6 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 6 YEAR, AND THE DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IN R ESPECT OF SUCH ASSET IS RESTRICTED TO FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT CALCULAT ED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR AN ASSET UNDER CLAUSE (IIA)FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR, THEN, THE DEDUCTION FOR THE BALANCE FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AMO UNT CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE PRESCRIBED FOR SUCH ASSET UNDER CLAUSE ( IIA) SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDIN G PREVIOUS YEAR IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET: ..... (EMPHASIS IS OURS) 11. WE MAY ONLY INDICATE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE 'MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN FINANCIAL BILL, 2015', WHEREBY, THE AFOREMENTIONED AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT A BOUT. 11.1. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE MEMORANDUM IS EXTRAC TED HEREAFTER: '..... TO REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION IN THE MATTER O F ALLOWING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON PLANT OR MACHINERY USED FOR LESS TH AN 180 DAYS AND USED FOR 180 DAYS OR MORE, IT IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE THAT THE BA LANCE 50% OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON NEW PLANT OR MACHINERY ACQUIRED AND USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQU ISITION AND INSTALLATION OF SUCH PLANT AND MACHINERY, SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE I MMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING PREVIOUS YEAR. THIS AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 201 6 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 AN D SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS.' 11.2. A PERUSAL OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MEMORANDUM RE LIED UPON WOULD SHOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE RECOGNISED THE FACT THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE REVENUE CHOSE TO INTERPRET THE PROVISION, AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT W OULD LEAD TO DISCRIMINATION, IN RESPECT OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, WHICH WAS USED FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS, AS AGAINST THAT, WHICH WAS USED FOR 180 DAYS OR MORE. 11.3. IN OUR OPINION, AS INDICATED ABOVE, THE AMEND MENT IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND NOT PROSPECTIVE, AS IS SOUGHT TO BE CONTENDED BY TH E REVENUE. THE MEMORANDUM CANNOT BE READ IN THE MANNER, IN WHICH, THE REVENUE HAS SO UGHT TO READ IT, WHICH IS, THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN WOULD APPLY ONLY PROSPECTIVELY . 11.4. WE ARE, CLEARLY, OF THE VIEW THAT THE MEMORAN DUM, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE, ONLY CLARIFIES AS TO HOW THE U NAMENDED PROVISION HAD TO BE READ ALL ALONG. 11.5. IN ANY EVENT, IN SO FAR AS THE COURT IS CONCE RNED, IT HAS TO GO BY THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE UNAMENDED PROVISION, AND THEN, COME TO A CONCLUSION IN THE MATTER. AS ALLUDED TO ABOVE, OUR VIEW, IS THAT, UPON A PLAIN R EADING OF THE UNAMENDED PROVISION, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM BALANCE DEPRECIATION IN THE A.Y., 7 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 7 WHICH FOLLOWS THE A.Y., IN WHICH, THE MACHINERY HAD BEEN BOUGHT AND USED, ALBEIT, FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS. 12. THUS, HAVING REGARD TO THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGME NT OF THE TRIBUNAL. 13. THE APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF TH E HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WE ARE INCLINED TO GRANT RELIEF IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,43,24,748/- TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3(A) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DISMISS THE GRO UND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE REN TAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,26,000/-, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LEASE HOLD LAND AT JAMSHEDPUR FROM TATA STEEL LTD. TO OPERATE ITS BARA PLANT IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND AS PER AGREEMENT, IT HAD MADE UPFRONT PAYMENT OF RS. 2,05, 16,859/-. THE AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY LEASE RENT OF RS. 85,500/- PER MONTH AS LICENSE FEE TOTALING TO RS. 10,26,000/- ON YEARL Y BASIS, WHICH SHALL BE ADJUSTED/ SET OFF AGAINST THE UPFRONT PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 8-99. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING THE SUM OF R S. 10,26,000/- ON YEARLY BASIS AS AMORTIZATION OF UPFRONT PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME AS ALLOWABLE REVENUE EXPENDITURE OVER THE LEASE PERIOD IN RESPECT OF AMORTIZED PORTION OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,26,000/- IN CONSONANCE WITH T HE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS INDUST RIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 225 ITR 802 (SC). THE LD. AO HO WEVER OBSERVED THAT THE SIMILAR EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,26,000/- DEBITED BY THE ASSES SEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS 8 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 8 DISALLOWED BY HIS PREDECESSOR AND FOLLOWING THE SAM E THE SAME AMOUNT IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED IN THIS YEAR ALSO. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO IN THE SUM OF RS. 1 0,26,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS DELETED BY THE EARLIER LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR STATED THAT THE APPEAL S PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR THE EARLIER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2009-10 AND 2010-11 WERE DISMISSED DUE T O LOW TAX EFFECT FOLLOWING THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT. HENCE NO FINDING ON FACTS HAS BEEN RECORDED AS FAR AS THIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEA RS. HOWEVER HE STATED THAT VERY SAME SUM OF AMORTIZATION OF LICENSE FEE OF RS. 10,26,000 /- HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE COMMENCING FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ONWARDS TIL L ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY DEBITED IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT A SUM OF RS. 10,26,000/- REPRESENTING AMORT IZATION OF LICENSE FEE OVER THE LEASE PERIOD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS. 2,05,16,859/- AS AN UPFRONT PAYMENT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AS PER T HE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE ADJUSTED / SET OFF WITH THE LICENSE FEE PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE YEAR ON YEAR DURING THE TENURE OF THE LEASE. HENCE EFFECTIVELY THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A SUM OF RS. 10,26,000/- AS A DEDUCTION OVER THE PERIOD OF THE LEASE, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 225 ITR 802 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ORDINARILY, REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS MUST BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED. IT CANNOT BE SPREAD OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN IT OFF IN HIS BOOKS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. HOWEVER, THE FACTS MA Y JUSTIFY ON ASSESSEE WHO HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR TO SPREAD AND CLAIM IT OVER A PERIOD OF ENSUING YEARS. IN FACT, ALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDI TURE IN ONE YEAR MIGHT GIVE A VERY DISTORTED PICTURE OF THE PROFITS OF A PARTICULAR YE AR. 9 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 9 WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SIMILAR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WA S INDEED ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HENCE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIVERGENT STAND DURING TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASWAMI SATSANG REPORTED IN 193 ITR 321(SC). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,26,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, G ROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016- ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION 10. THE FIRST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CROSS OBJ ECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT DELETING THE DI SALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES UNDER THE NORMAL PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 11. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE DERIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 83,91,412/- AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED A SUM OF RS. 42,000/- AS DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A OF THE ACT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT HUGE INVESTMENT AS ON 01.04.2010 AND 31.03.2011 AND HAS HUGE BORROWINGS ON WHICH INTERE ST COST WAS PAID. ACCORDINGLY, HE PROCEEDED TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF T HE ACT IN THE COMPUTATION 10 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 10 MECHANISM PROVIDED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND RULE 8D (2)(III) AND ARRIVED ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 64,06,239/-. THE LD. AO AFTER R EDUCING THE AMOUNT ALREADY DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE SUM OF RS. 42,000/-, DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 63,64,239/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LD AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD CITA. AGGR IEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND TH AT THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS TO MAKE INVESTMENTS AND HENCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECOND LIMB OF RUL E 8D(2). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING OWN FUNDS OF RS. 30622.59 LACS REPRESENT ING SHARE CAPITAL, RESERVES AND SURPLUS, BORROWED FUNDS OF RS. 8455.57 LACS AND WHE REAS THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ONLY RS. 2757.30 LACS AS ON 31.03.201 1. HENCE FROM THE BARE PERUSAL OF THE AUDITED STATEMENT, IT IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS. MOREOVER, WE FIND FRO M THE INVESTMENT WAS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESS EE COMPANY ONLY IN DEBT FUND AND LIQUID MUTUAL FUND. BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. RASOI LIMITED IN G.A. NO. 6 33 OF 2016 ITAT NO. 109 OF 2016 DATED 15.02.2017 AND THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD. REPORTED IN 49 TAXMANN.COM 335 WE HOLD TH AT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECOND LIMB OF RULE 8D(2) COULD BE MADE IN THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WITH REGARD TO THIRD LIMB OF RULE 8D(2), WE HOLD THAT ON LY INVESTMENTS THAT HAD YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPO SE OF COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIRD LIMB OF RULE 8D(2), WHICH WOULD BE IN C ONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN REI AGRO LTD. REPORTED IN 144 ITD 141. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTION IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. 11 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 11 13. THE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE TOWARD S UNPAID LEAVE ENCASHMENT U/S 43B(F) OF THE ACT IN THE SUM OF RS. 9,41,661/-, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 14. WE FIND THIS ISSUE WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AD JUDICATION BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN I .T.A. NO. 508/KOL/2016 DATED 24.08.2018 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 2.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD VS U NION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 292 ITR 470 (CAL) HAD STRUCK DOWN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B(F) OF THE ACT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE REVENUE HAD CARRIED THE MATTE R FURTHER TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHICH INITIALLY IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C IVIL) CC 12060 / 2008 DATED 8.9.2008 HAD HELD AS UNDER:- THE PETITION WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING TODAY. UPON HEARING COUNSEL THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING O RDER. ISSUE NOTICE. IN THE MEANTIME, THERE SHALL BE STAY OF THE IMPUGNE D JUDGEMENT, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS. LATER THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO(S). CC 22889 / 2008 DATED 8.5.2009 HAD HELD AS UNDER:- THE PETITION WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING TODAY. UPON HEARING COUNSEL THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING O RDER DELAY CONDONED. LEAVE GRANTED. PENDING HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THE CIVIL APP EAL, DEPARTMENT IS RESTRAINED FROM RECOVERING PENALTY AND INTEREST WHICH HAS ACCR UED TILL DATE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS THE OUTSTANDING INTEREST DEMAN D AS OF DATE IS CONCERNED, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE DEPARTMENT TO RECOVER THAT AMO UNT IN CASE CIVIL APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED. WE FURTHER MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD, D URING THE PENDENCY OF THIS CIVIL APPEAL , PAY TAX AS IF SECTION 43B(F) IS ON THE STA TUTE BOOK BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MAKE A CLAIM IN ITS RETURNS. HENCE FROM THE AFORESAID SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT, I T COULD BE INFERRED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD NOT STAYED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT 12 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 12 DURING LEAVE PROCEEDINGS. BUT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD ONLY PASSED AN INTERIM ORDER ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE. HENCE WE DEEM IT FIT A ND APPROPRIATE , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, TO REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO TO PASS ORDERS BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THE MAIN APPEAL ON MERITS BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS STATED SUPRA. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUND NO. 2 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES BY RE MANDING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. AO TO PASS ORDERS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE MAIN APPEAL ON MERITS BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EXIDE INDUSTRIES SUPRA. 15. THE LAST ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THE CROSS OBJEC TION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN DISALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11 AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,75,732/-, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE. 16. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 8,75,732/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED WITHIN DUE TIME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WHICH IS NOT UNDISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS MADE U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT DATED 29.03.2013 WHEREIN NO MENTION WAS MADE BY THE LD. AO WITH REGA RD TO ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 8,75,732/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010-11 CLEARLY MENTIONED THIS SUM OF RS. 8,75,732/- REPRESENTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL L OSS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE LD. AO OBSERVED FROM THE FACTS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN RESPECT OF SALE OF EQUIT Y ORIENTED MUTUAL FUNDS ON WHICH SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX WAS PAID. ACCORDINGLY, IN HIS OPINION, THE SAID LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO SUBS EQUENT YEARS FOR FUTURE SET OFF. 13 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 13 ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE AN OBSERVATION IN HIS ORDER TH AT THE SAID LOSS OF RS. 8,75,732/- SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO SUBSE QUENT YEARS. THIS ACTION OF THE LD. AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSE E HAD PREFERRED CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUT SET, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY SET OFF OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANMOHAN DAS ( DECEASED) REPORTED IN 59 ITR 699 (SC) THAT THE ELIGIBILITY OF LOSS BROUGHT FORWA RD FROM EARLIER YEAR FOR SET OFF IS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD. AO ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SU CH LOSS IS SOUGHT TO BE SET OFF AGAINST ANY INCOME. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAI D ORDER OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: THE SECOND QUESTION PRESENTS LITTLE DIFFICULTY. IN MAKING HIS ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1950-51, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DECLARED THAT THE LOSS COMPUTED IN THAT YEAR COULD NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT YEAR UNDER SECTI ON 24(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, AS IT WAS NOT A BUSINESS LOSS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS UNDER SECTION 24(3) TO NOTIFY TO THE ASSESSEE THE AMOUNT OF LOSS AS COMPUTED BY HIM, IF IT IS ESTABLISHED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SUFFERED LOSS OF PROFITS. SECTION 24(2) CONFERS A STATUTORY RIGHT (SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT MATERIAL) UPON THE ASSESSEE WHO SUSTAINS A LOSS OF PROFITS IN ANY YEAR IN ANY BUSINESS, PROFESSION OR VOCATION TO CARRY FORWARD THE LOSS AS IS NOT SET OFF UNDER SUB-SECTION (L) TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR, AND TO SET IT OFF AGAINST HIS PROFI TS AND GAINS, IF ANY, FROM THE SAME BUSINESS, PROFESSION OR VOCATION FOR THAT YEAR. WHE THER THE LOSS OF PROFITS OR GAINS IN ANY YEAR MAY BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING YE AR AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE SAME BUSINESS, PROFESSION OR VOCAT ION UNDER SECTION 24(2) HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WHO DEALS WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IT IS FOR THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE LOSS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR MAY BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THAT YEAR. A DECISION RECORDED BY THE INCOME-TAX OF FICER WHO COMPUTES THE LOSS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER SECTION 24(3) THAT THE LOSS CAN NOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME .OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE E LIGIBILITY TO CLAIM SET OFF OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11 OF RS. 8,75,732/- SHOULD BE 14 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 14 LOOKED UPON BY THE LD. AO ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH DECISION SOUGHT TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSES SEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. TO SUM UP, I.T.A. & C.O NO. APPEAL BY ASSESSMENT YEAR RESULT 2237/KOL/2016 REVENUE 2011-12 DISMISSED 96/KOL/2016 ASSESSEE 2011-12 PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05.12.2 018 SD/- SD/- [A T VARKEY] [ M.BALAGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 05.12.2018 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQ UARE, KOLKATA-700069. 2. M/S TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS TATA RYERSON LIMITED), TATA CENTRE, 43, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, KOLK ATA-700071 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKA TA BENCHES 15 ITA NO.2237/KOL/2016 & C.O. NO. 96/KOL/2016 TATA STEEL PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION LTD. A.YR. 2011-12 15