The DCIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad V. NetVision Web Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2241/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63215 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Scheme of amalgamation
• Section: 143(3); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A BENCH: AH MEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JM AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) ITA NO.2241/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2007-08 THE D. C. I. T., CIRCLE-5, 2 ND FLOOR, C. U. SHAH CHAMBERS , ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380 009 VS M/S. NETVISIOIN WEB TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 401-402, S. K. HOUSE, OPP. DRIVE IN CINEMA, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD P. A. NO. AABCN 6164 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI Y. P. VERMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, AR DATE OF HEARING: 23--11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14-12-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)-XI, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. CIT (A)-XI/1130/342/09-10 D ATED 12-04-2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PASSED U/S 250 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S. NETVISIOIN WEB TE CHNOLOGIES LTD. AHMEDABAD. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN THIS APP EAL WHEREIN GROUND NO.2 AND 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. THE LONE GROUND SURVIVING FOR ADJUDIC ATION BEING GROUND NO.1 IS REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER FOR REFERENCE: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-XI, AHME DABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.90,21,444/- MADE BY DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL. ITA NO.2241/AHD/2010 (AY: 2007-08) DCIT, CIR-5, AHMEDABAD VS M/S.NETVISION WEB TECHNOL OGIES PVT. LTD. 2 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF COMPUTER EDUCATION, SO FTWARE DEVELOPMENT, SALES AND IMPORT THEREOF FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF IN COME ELECTRONICALLY ON 31-10-2007 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.43,53,990 /- ALONG WITH RETURN OF FRINGE BENEFITS SHOWING ITS TAXABLE VALUE AT RS.65, 440/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSMENT O RDER WAS PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO ON 21-12-2009 BY ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.51,98,460/- WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANTING DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL WAS DISALLOWED AN D ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,82,914/- WHICH INCLUDED DEPRECIATION OF RS.90,21,444/- ON GO ODWILL. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW-CAUSE WHY ITS CLAIM FOR DEPREC IATION ON GOODWILL SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INC OME. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT GOODWILL REFLE CTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMERCIAL RIGHTS ACQUIRED UNDER THE CONTRACT AND WAS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE-MARK, C OPYRIGHT, FRANCHISE, LICENSES ETC. AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIB LE FOR DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, THE LEARNED AO HAD, EXTENSIVELY QUOTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1), ANALYZING THE INTERPRETATION OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS, TAKING REFUGE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND ALSO DETAILING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISS IONS, OBSERVED IN PARA 3.2 AND 3.3 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: 3.2 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O FURNISHED THE IMPORTANT DETAILS REGARDING ITS CLAIM AND FAILED TO GIVE PROPER JUSTIFICATION AND EXPLANATION AS REGARD S ELIGIBILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON SUCH GOOD WILL. IT IS ALSO PERTI NENT TO ITA NO.2241/AHD/2010 (AY: 2007-08) DCIT, CIR-5, AHMEDABAD VS M/S.NETVISION WEB TECHNOL OGIES PVT. LTD. 3 MENTION HERE THAT THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS SPECIFIED I N SECTION 32 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRECIATION THE WORD GOODWILL IS NOT INCLUDED SPECIFICALLY. ACCORDINGLY, GOODWILL CANNOT BE TREATED AS ANY OTHER BUSINESS OF COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMIL AR NATURE. THEREFORE THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON GOODWILL IS R EQUIRED TO BE ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR DINGLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS.90,21,444/- BEING DEPRECIATION ON GOOD WILL IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 3.3 IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT IN THE CASE OF BHARATBH AI J. VYAS VS ITO (2005) 97 ITD 248, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT; IT SHALL BE PERTINENT HERE TO MENTION THAT THE LEG ISLATURE HAS INSERTED A FICTION, BY WHICH, SPECIFIED INTANGI BLE ASSETS, ARE HELD TO DEPRECIATE AND ALLOWANCE IS GIV EN THEREFORE, KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPY RIGHTS, TRADE MA RKS ETC. ARE SOMETIMES ASSIGNED DIFFERENT NAMES, THEREF ORE, BY USING THE WORK SIMILAR NATURE, THE LEGISLATURE H AS RESTRICTED THE SCOPE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS SIMILAR T O THE SPECIFIC ONE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOWHERE ESTABLISHED THAT IT HAS ACQUIRED ANY KNOW-HOW, PATENT, COPY RIGHTS, TRADE MARKS ETC. ..WHAT IS THE MATERIAL TO DECIDE THE CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER THE PAYMENT FOR GOODWILL WIT HOUT ACQUIRING ANY KNOW-HOW PATENTS, TRADE MARKS, COPYRI GHTS ETC. IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION IN FOUR CONCERNS OF SPECIFIC AMENDMENT TO SECTION 32(1) (II) ? IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE AMOUNT PAID BY ASSESSEES GOODWILL DOES NOT RESULT INTO ACQUISITION OF ANY KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPY RIGHTS, TRADE- MARKS ETC. AS PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF. CONSEQUENT LY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. 8.14. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DE PRECIATION ON GOODWILL OF RS.1,46,50,834/- IS DISALLOWED.. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL CLAIMED AT RS.90,21,444/- IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA NO.2241/AHD/2010 (AY: 2007-08) DCIT, CIR-5, AHMEDABAD VS M/S.NETVISION WEB TECHNOL OGIES PVT. LTD. 4 4. AGITATED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE, WITH T HE LEARNED CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. AFTER DULY ANALYZING THE ASSESSEES CO NTENTIONS COUPLED WITH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAD RECORDED THE REASONS IN AN ELABORATE AND ILLUST RATIVE MANNER IN HIS FINDINGS WHICH ARE, FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EXTR ACTED AS UNDER: 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A. R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BRIEFLY STATE THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION APPRO VED BY THE ORDER DATED 22-06-2001 OF HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, NE T VISION WEB TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD. (NVWTPL) GOT AMALGAMATED WITH INDOTECH CAPITAL MARKET LIMITED (ICML) W. E. F. 01- 04-2000. NVWTPL WAS A PROFIT MAKING COMPANY, OWNING BUNDLE O F RIGHTS IN THE FORM OF TRADE-MARK, COPY-RIGHT, FRANCHISE, L ICENSE ETC. ICML, A LOSS-MAKING COMPANY ACQUIRED THESE RIGHTS C ONSEQUENT ON AMALGAMATION AND CHANGED ITS NAME TO NET VISION WEB TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (NVWTL), THE APPELLANT. THE DEPRE CIATION CLAIMED IS ON THE AMOUNT OF GOODWILL PAID TO ACQUIR E THE ABOVE- MENTIONED RIGHTS. AS SEEN FROM THE CHART FURNISHED BY THE A. R. (REPRODUCED AT PAGE -5 OF THE ORDER), THE FORTUNES OF THE RESULTANT COMPANY TOOK A HUGE POSITIVE SWING, IN THE SENSE TH AT THE LOSSES TURNED INTO SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS. 3.2.1 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION, A.OS OBSERVATION THAT IT IS NOT PROVED THAT THE APPELLAN T GOT BENEFITED BY ACQUIRING THE BUNDLE OF RIGHTS TURNS OUT TO BE F ACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE A. O., (97 ITD 248), AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL HELD THAT SINCE THE GOODWILL PAI D DID NOT RESULT IN ACQUISITION OF ANY KNOW-HOW, PATENT, COPY RIGHTS, TRADE- MARKS ETC., DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. IN CONT RAST, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED WERE PRECISELY THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS MENTIONED IN SEC. 32(1) (II) VIZ TRADE-MARK, PATENT, COPY RIGHTS ETC. THUS, THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN FACT, GIVEN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SAID DECI SION STRENGTHENS THE APPELLANTS CLAIM. 3.2.2. FURTHER, THE LEARNED A.RS CONTENTION THAT THE NOMENCLATURE GOOD WILL IS NOT IMPORTANT AND W HAT IS TO BE SEEN IS THE NATURE OF RIGHTS ACQUIRED STANDS TO REA SON. IN THE CASE OF SKYLINE CATERERS (P) LTD. VS ITO (116 ITD 348), SMC< MUMBAI ITA NO.2241/AHD/2010 (AY: 2007-08) DCIT, CIR-5, AHMEDABAD VS M/S.NETVISION WEB TECHNOL OGIES PVT. LTD. 5 HELD THAT THE RIGHTS OF CATERING AT CANTEEN, A TOOL TO CARRY ON BUSINESS, IS INTANGIBLE ASSET, ENTITLED TO DEPRECIA TION. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION IN THE EARLIER YEARS ON THESE INTANGIBLE ASSETS. 3.2.3. THEREFORE, HAVING GIVEN MY CAREFUL CONSIDER ATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CASE-LAWS RELIED ON B Y THE A. O. AND A. R., I HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE APPELL ANT IS ENTITLED TO THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIAT ION OF RS.90,21,444/- IS ALLOWED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRES ENT APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE REASONING OF THE LEARNED AO IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND FOUND FAULT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A ). THE LEARNED DR ALSO PUT STRONG STRESS ON THE WORDINGS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1) AND ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOWHERE ESTABLISHED TH AT IT HAD ACQUIRED ANY KNOW-HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK ETC., T O MATCH WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT TO ENTITLE I T TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON ALLEGED GOODWILL. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT T HE STAND OF THE LD.AO WHICH HAS THE BACKING OF SOUND JUDICIAL VIEWS REQUI RES TO BE SUSTAINED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR REITERATED MOR E OR LESS WHAT WAS PORTRAYED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, HE HAD FURNISHED COPY OF ALL RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE F ORM OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 001 TO 376. HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SMIFS SECURITIES LTD., [2012] 252 CTR (SC) 233 AND ALSO R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD B BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CIR-5 VS NET 4 NUTS LTD. IN ITA NO.1186/AHD/2011 ETC. FOR AY 2003-04 TO 2008 -09 DATED 21-09- 2012 ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD C BENCH IN ITA NO.1312/AHD/2011 DATED 28-02-2012 IN THE CASE OF DC IT CIR-1, VS M/S. ITA NO.2241/AHD/2010 (AY: 2007-08) DCIT, CIR-5, AHMEDABAD VS M/S.NETVISION WEB TECHNOL OGIES PVT. LTD. 6 BHAGWATI BANQUETS AND HOTELS LTD. HE FURTHER, SUBMI TTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECI SIONS OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES AND FINALLY PLEADED THAT THE FIND INGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DESERVE TO BE SUSTAINED. 7 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S, DULY PERUSED THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE LEARNED AR. 8. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT ITAT AHM EDABAD B BENCH HAS RECENTLY DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE WHILE ADJUDICATING REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1186/AHD/2011 ETC. IN THE CASE OF NET 4 NUT LTD. DATED 21-09-2012 . THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IS EXTRACTED HEREIN UNDER FOR REFERENCE: 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CATEGORICAL FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,87,81,830/- ON DEVELOP MENT OF AVTAAR AND THE SAID SOFTWARE WAS REGISTERED AS T RADE MARK UNDER THE TRADE-MARK ACT,1999 IN THE NAME OF THE AS SESSEE AND THE SAME WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPO SE OF HIS BUSINESS AND IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, DEPRECIATION ON THIS SOFTWARE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. FURTHER, SECTION 32 OF THE ACT C LEARLY SPECIFIES THAT DEPRECIATION SHALL BE ALLOWABLE ON ANY INTANGI BLE ASSETS. THE LEARNED AR HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD A BENCH IN THE CASE OF DICT VS M/S. BHA GAWATI BANGUETS AND HOTELS LTD. IN ITA NO.1312/AHD/2002 FO R AY 2007-08 ORDER DATED 28-02-2012. IN THIS CASE THE TRIBUNAL H AD DECIDED THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLE ASSET IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT PORT ION OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED HEREI N BELOW: 5.7. IN A NUT-SHELL, THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT INTANGIB LE ASSETS IN THE SHAPE OF RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENT OF COMMERCIAL R IGHTS OF THE ERSTWHILE ENTITIES, WOULD NOT HAVE PROSPERED OR IN A POSITION TO ITA NO.2241/AHD/2010 (AY: 2007-08) DCIT, CIR-5, AHMEDABAD VS M/S.NETVISION WEB TECHNOL OGIES PVT. LTD. 7 CARRY ON THE CATERING BUSINESS ONLY BY ACQUIRING TA NGIBLE ASSETS. BY ACQUIRING TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE ASSET S OF THE ERSTWHILE CONCERNS CITED SUPRA, THE ASSESSEE HAD PR OSPERED IN ITS BUSINESS BY POSTING SUBSTANTIAL TURNOVER AND PROFITS WHICH IMPLICITLY EXHIBITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, IN FACT, ACQUIRED INTANGIBLE ASSETS [BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL RIGHTS] IN THE FORM OF GOODWILL. IN ESSENCE, THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS WERE IN THE NATURE OF VALUABLE COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS R IGHTS WHICH WERE TO BE USED IN EXPANDING THE ASSESSEES B USINESS, RESULTING IN, HUGE TURNOVER AND PROFITS AS POINTED OUT SUPRA. 5.9. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE ISSUE AS DELIBERATED UPON IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS AND A LSO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULING OF VARIOUS JUDICIARIES, CHIEFLY, THE RULING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REFERRED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT (A) WAS JUS TIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIA TION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQUIRED BY IT. IT IS ORDERED AC CORDINGLY. WE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THIS ABO VE CONCLUSION FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS THE VALUA TION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN SUCCESSFULL Y CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSACT ION TO BE SHAM. THEREFORE, WE CONSIDER THE PAYMENT MADE ON AC COUNT OF GOODWILL IS GENUINE AND REASONABLE SINCE IT IS A RRIVED BASED ON A REASONABLE VALUATION AND COMPUTATION. 5.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF T HE LEARNED AR BY ANY COGENT MATERIAL EVIDENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIAT ION ON GOOD WILL AMOUNTING TO RS.90,21,444/- AND HIS ORDER REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE BY US. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2241/AHD/2010 (AY: 2007-08) DCIT, CIR-5, AHMEDABAD VS M/S.NETVISION WEB TECHNOL OGIES PVT. LTD. 8 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14-12-2012 SD/- SD/- (D. K. TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANTA AA A DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: COVERED MATTER NO DICTATION 06-11-12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER: 07-11-12 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. /P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: