DCIT, Circle - 3, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Yogrup Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2256/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9531 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 10AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2666 / KOL / 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. 103/24/1, BINANI METAL COMPOUND, FORESHORE ROAD, HOWRAH-711 102 [ PAN NO.AAFCM 0353 G ] V/S . ITO WARD-1(3), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA-700 069 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT NONE /DATE OF HEARING 15-11-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18-01-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIV, KOLKATA DATED 28.12.2011 . ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ITO WARD-1(3), KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 02.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS NOTICED THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED. HENCE, WE HA VE TAKEN UP THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF REVENUE. SHRI SUBASH AGAR WAL, LD. ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2666/KO/2013 A.Y.2009-10 M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(3), K OL. PAGE 2 3. SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY DIS ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 10AA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TRADING, WAREHOUSING AND CONSULTANCY INCOME. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PRES ENT CASE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPO RT AND EXPORT OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS, CNF AGENT, TRADING OF ALL TYPES O F FMCG PRODUCTS ALCOHOLIC AND NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DATED 11.06.2010 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.58,769/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA OF T HE ACT FOR 60,04,827/-. THEREAFTER CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTIC E U/S. 143(2)/142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED UPON ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT A TOTAL INCOME OF 60,90,498/- AFTER DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT. 4.1 THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS SHOWN INTER ALIA THE INCOME FROM (I) TRADING ACTIVITIES (II) WAREHOUSING ACTIVITIES AND (III) CONSULTANCY ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED ALL THE AFORESAID INCOME FROM ITS UNITS LOCATED AT FALTA SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME FROM TRADIN G ACTIVITY IS NOT ELIGIBLE. IT IS BECAUSE AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10AA OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING / PRODUCING ARTICLES OR THINGS OR PROVIDING SERVICES. SIMILARLY, FOR WAREHOUSING SERVICE INCOME THE AO OB SERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS IMPORTED GOODS WHICH WERE RECORDED AS PURCHASE IN I TS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH QUANTITATIVE DETAILS. BUT ON LATER DATE THE SAME GOODS WERE RETURNED TO THE PARTIES FROM WHICH THE GOODS WERE I MPORTED BUT THE ASSESSEE RAISED INVOICE FOR PROVIDING WAREHOUSING FACILITIES TO SUCH PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE BILL RAISED TO THE PART Y IS NOT RELATED WAREHOUSING SERVICES AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER OBS ERVED FOR THE ITA NO.2666/KO/2013 A.Y.2009-10 M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(3), K OL. PAGE 3 WAREHOUSING INCOME THAT THE GOODS SHOULD BE STORED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS GO- DOWN ON BEHALF OF SOME PARTY AND THE SAME SHOULD BE RELEASED AT THE INSTRUCTION OF THE PARTY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF GOODS AND THEREAFTER PURCHASED RETURN I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND P URCHASE RETURN HAS SHOWN WAREHOUSING CHARGES INCOME IN ITS BOOKS. SO I T WAS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE WAREHOUSING SERVICES. 4.2 BESIDES THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CLEARING AND FORWARDIN G AGENCY BUSINESS OR STORING THE GOODS AS AGENT OF THE PARTY. SIMILARLY, THE BANK RELEASING CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE NA TURE OF THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CONSULTANCY INCOME SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSE E U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF ASSE SSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D. CIT(A) WHEREAS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS RAISED NO DISPUTE WI TH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 10AA OF THE ACT IN RELATIO N TO SERVICE INCOME. AS PER THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE ACT AND ITS RULES, 2002 S ERVICE INCLUDED TRADING ACTIVITY BY VIRTUE OF ITS RULE 76 UNDER CHAPTER VII I OF SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES RULES 2006. THE VIEW OF AO THAT THE DEFINITION OF T HE TERM SERVICE AS SPECIFIED IN SEZ ACT CANNOT BE IMPORTED IN THE INCO ME TAX PROCEEDINGS IS WRONG. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRAD ING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD ELIGIBLE U/S 10AA OF THE ACT IN ITS OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO WAREHOUSING INCOME HAS SUBMITTED THAT SAME WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S GALLAHER LTD., OF UNITED KING DOM AS WAREHOUSING AND HANDLING CHARGES FOR STORING ITS GOODS WHICH WERE E VENTUALLY RETURNED TO THE ITA NO.2666/KO/2013 A.Y.2009-10 M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(3), K OL. PAGE 4 PARTY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRC CERTIFIC ATES WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AS SAME WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSES SEE AT THAT RELEVANT TIME. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO CONSULTANCY INCOME SUBMITTED THAT IT RECEIVED SUCH INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARKETING A CTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF OVERSEAS CUSTOMERS. THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES ARE INT RINSICALLY LINKED WITH NORMAL IMPORT-EXPORT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY ASSESS EE FROM ITS SEZ UNITS. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CLAIM OF ASSESS EE AFTER OBSERVING THAT DEFINITION PROVIDED UNDER THE SEZ RULES, 2006 WHICH IS INCLUDED TRADING ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SERVICE CANNOT A PPLIED IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WAREHOUSING INCOME FR OM STORING ITS OWN GOODS WHICH CANNOT BE REGARDED AS SERVICE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES CLAIMED BY ASSES SEE WERE NOT TREATED AS SERVICE AND ACCORDINGLY THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT WAS DENIED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS, ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED PAPER BOO K WHICH IS RUNNING PAGES FROM 1 TO 158 AND REITERATED SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO PRODUCED LEDGER COPY OF THE PARTIES ALONG WITH FIRC WHICH ARE PLACED ON PAGES 28 TO 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AFORESAID INCOME RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. AR AND ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS JUDGMENTS RELIED U PON BEFORE US. FROM THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM THE TRADING ACTIVITY, WAREHOUSE AND CONSULTANCY SERVICE S. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT TO THE AFORESAID INCOMES CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 10AA OF THE ACT. THE AO DENIED THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10AA OF T HE ACT FOR ALL THE ITA NO.2666/KO/2013 A.Y.2009-10 M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(3), K OL. PAGE 5 AFORESAID INCOMES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT TRADING ACT IVITY IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10AA OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF WAREHOUSING AND CO NSULTANCY INCOME. SIMILARLY THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THE REASONS ALREADY ADVERTED IN THE PARA ABOVE AND THE SAME IS NOT BEIN G REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SEZ, 2005 CANNOT OVERRIDE THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT ,1961. THE CRUX OF THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS WHETHER ASSESSEE IN THE PR ESENT CASE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10AA OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO TRADING AND WAREHOUSING & CONSULTANCY INCOME. 7.1 FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF TRADING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE IMPORT AND EXPORT OF THE GOODS WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADING ACTIVITIES. AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT THE TRADING ACTIVITY IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10AA O F THE ACT. HOWEVER THE SEZ RULES 2006 ELABORATE THE SERVICE IN ITS RULE 76 WHICH SAYS THAT THE SERVICE INCLUDES TRADING ACTIVITIES IF IT RELATES T O THE IMPORT OF THE GOODS FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXPORT IN TERMS OF ITS EXPLANATION TO R ULE 76 OF 2006. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT IS SO IMPORTANT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVA NT PROVISIONS OF SEZ RULES 2006 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 76. THE SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSES OF [1] [CLAUSE] (Z) OF SECTION 2 SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY:- TRADING, WAREHOUSING, RE SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, COMPUTER SOFTWARE SERVICES, I NCLUDING INFORMATION ENABLED SERVICES SUCH AS BACK-OFFICE OP ERATIONS, CALL CENTRES, CONTENT DEVELOPMENT OR ANIMATION, DATA PRO CESSING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, GRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICES, HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES, INSURANCE CLAIM PROCESSING, LEG AL DATA BASES, MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION, PAYROLL, REMOTE MAINTENANCE, REVENUE ACCOUNTING, SUPPORT CENTRES AND WEB-SITE SERVICES, OFF-SHORE BA NKING SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (EXCLUDING LEGAL SERVICES AND ACCOUNTING) RENTAL/LEASING SERVICES WITHOUT OPERATORS, OTHER BU SINESS SERVICES, COURIER SERVICES, AUDIO-VISUAL SERVICES, CONSTRUCTI ON AND RELATED SERVICES, DISTRIBUTION SERVICES (EXCLUDING RETAIL SERVICES), EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, FINANCIAL SERVICE S, HOSPITAL SERVICES, OTHER HUMAN HEALTH SERVICES, TOURISM AND TRAVEL REL ATED SERVICES, RECREATIONAL, CULTURAL AND SPORTING SERVICES, ENTER TAINMENT SERVICES, ITA NO.2666/KO/2013 A.Y.2009-10 M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(3), K OL. PAGE 6 TRANSPORT SERVICES, SERVICES AUXILIARY TO ALL MODES OF TRANSPORT, PIPELINES TRANSPORT. [1] [EXPLANATION: THE EXPRESSION TRADING , FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SECOND SCHEDULE OF THE ACT, SHALL MEAN IMPORT FOR T HE PURPOSES OF RE- EXPORT.] FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT SERVICE INCL UDES TRADING ACTIVITY IF IT RELATED TO THE IMPORT OF THE GOODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPORT. NOW THE NEXT QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WILL PREVAIL OVER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SPECIAL ECO NOMIC ZONES ACT, 2005. AT THIS POINT IT IS RELEVANT TO REFER THE RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 51 OF SEZ ACT 2005 WHICH IS GIVEN BELOW:- 51.(1) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL HAVE ACT T O HAVE EFFECT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING INCONSISTENT OVERRIDING EF FECT, THEREWITH CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FO RCE OR IN ANY INSTRUMENT HAVING EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF ANY LAW OTHER THAN THIS ACT. 7.2 FROM THE READING OF THE PROVISIONS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES ACT, 200 5 WOULD HAVE OVERRIDING EFFECT ON THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE SAME VIEW HAS ALS O BEEN HELD IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO.30/KOL/2012 FOR THE AY 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 13/11/2013. THE RELEVANT E XTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10AA OF THE ACT IS LOST WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED SOLELY IN TRADING ACTIVITIES. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED ABOVE THAT SECTION 10AA(1) ALLOWS BENEFITS, INTER ALIA, FOR TH E PROVISIONS OF ANY SERVICES BY AN ELIGIBLE ENTERPRISE. OBVIOUSLY, TH E ERSTWHILE PARTNERSHIP FIRM I.E., M/S MIDAS INTERNATIONAL WAS PERMITTED TO DO TRADING BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE FIRM GOT CONVERTED INTO AS SESSEE COMPANY AND CONTINUED THE SAME BUSINESS WITH THE PRIOR PERM ISSION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE SEZ ACT. THE DEFINITI ON OF SERVICE IN THE SEZ ACT INCLUDES TRADING ACTIVITY. IN THAT VIEW O F THE MATTER, IT BECOMES MANIFEST THAT THE TRADING ACTIVITY HAS BEEN PERMITT ED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE SEZ ACT. AS SUCH, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF DENIAL OF EXCEPTION US/S 10AA OF THE ACT. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF AN ORDER PA SSED BY THE JAIPUR BENCH IN DCIT VS. GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELLERS LTD . IT APPEAL NO. ITA NO.2666/KO/2013 A.Y.2009-10 M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(3), K OL. PAGE 7 509(JP) OF 2011 2012(050)-SOT-0307-TJAI IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TRADING OF THE ELIGIBLE GOODS ENTITLES THE SE TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10AA OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE COPY OF ANOTHER ORD ER PASSED BY MUMBAI BENCH IN M/S GITANJALI EXPORTS CORPORATION LIMITED VS. ADCIT IN ITA NO. 6947 & 6948/MUM/2011 DATED 08-05-2013 HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON RECORD IN WHICH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE JAIPUR BENCH HAS BEEN REITERATED. NO CONTRARY PRECEDENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. DR. IN VIEW OF THE TWO TRIBUNALS ORDERS AVAILAB LE ON THE POINT ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S. 10AA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT TO TRADING ACTIVITIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO EXCEPTION CAN BE TAKEN TO THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN GRANTING THE EX EMPTION. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION IN R ESPECT OF WAREHOUSING AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED FIRC, LEDGERS, INVOICES FOR CONSULTANCY AND WAREHOUSING CHARGES WH ICH ARE PLACED ON PAGES 28-43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS WE FIND THAT THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXEMPTION ON WAREHOUSING CHARGES BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY SHOWN THE IMPORT OF THE GOODS AS PURCHASES AND THEREAFTER SHOWS AS PURCHASE RETURN. ON SUCH TRANSACTION OF PU RCHASE AND PURCHASE RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WAREHOUSE INCOME FOR RS.23,06,539/-. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT EARN WAREHOUSING CHARGE S ON SUCH TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE SUCH INCOME IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMP TION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE BI LL FOR THE WAREHOUSING CHARGES AND THE PAYMENT WAS ALSO RECEIVED FOR THE S AME. THE FIRC IS ALSO PLACED IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT. INDEED THE ASSESS EE HAS RECORDED THE TRANSACTION AS PURCHASE AND PURCHASE RETURN ALONG W ITH QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE GOODS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NOW THE QUESTIO N ARISES WHETHER THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES CAN CHANGE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION. INDEED THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE INVOICE FOR THE WAREHOUSING AND HANDLING CHARGES AS EVIDENT FROM THE INVOICE PLACED ON PAGE 29 OF THE P APER BOOK. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY DEFECT IN THE BILL , PAYMENT OF THE BILL AND THE FIRC IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT. HENCE IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES CANNOT FORM THE BASIS FOR DENYING THE EXEMP TIONS ON ACCOUNT OF WAREHOUSING CHARGES TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 1 0AA OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2666/KO/2013 A.Y.2009-10 M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. VS. ITO WD-1(3), K OL. PAGE 8 7.3 SIMILARLY THE EXEMPTION WAS DENIED ON THE CONSU LTANCY CHARGES DUE TO NON-PRODUCTION OF THE NECESSARY DETAILS. HOWEVER TH E ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE BILLS ALONG WITH FIRC BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO CALLED FOR WHICH ARE PLACED ON THE RECORD AND NO DEFECT HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE LEARNED DR REGARDING THIS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE WERE INCLINED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 18/ 01/2017 SD/- SD/- ( !') (!') (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S $!% &- 18 / 01 /201 7 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-M/S MIDAS DFS (P) LTD. 103/24/1, BINANI METAL COMPOUND, FORESHORE ROAD, HOWRAH-711 102 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD-1(3),P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOL-69 3.%.%/01 1 2 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 1 1 2- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5.567 /0, 1 /0 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6.7:;<= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ 1!, /TRUE COPY/ / % 1 /0 ,