Arvind Limited., Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2292/AHD/2018

AI Insights

The case involves cross appeals by the Department and Arvind Limited against the order of the CIT(A) concerning various disallowances and adjustments made during the assessment year 2008-09. The main issues revolved around the classification of expenditures (capital vs. revenue), disallowances related to foreign exchange derivatives, and the application of transfer pricing adjustments on loans to associated enterprises. The Tribunal examined each issue in light of the relevant facts, legal provisions, and precedents, ultimately deciding in favor of the assessee on several grounds while dismissing the Department's appeal on others.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125709 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Adani Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT, Heavy Metals and Tubes Ltd. vs. DCIT, Flite Core Tech. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Amadeus India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd. vs. DCIT, Addlife Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Asian Granito India Ltd. vs. DCIT, Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs. DCIT, Gujarat State Road Transportation Corporation vs. DCIT, Suzlon Energy Ltd. vs. DCIT, IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs. DCIT, Bhansali & Co. vs. DCIT, Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. vs. DCIT, Soma Textiles & Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Additional evidence; Non-deduction of tax; Notional interest; Revenue expenditure; TDS; Rule 8D
• Section: 43B; 14A; 115JB; 40(a)(ia); 133(6); 250; 208; 113; 43; 72; 13; 22; 92CA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . N o . 23 47 /A h d /2 01 8 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 08- 0 9 ) DC I T C ri c l e- 1 ( 1 )( 1 ) , Ah me da bad V s. A r v in d Li mi te d N ar od a R o ad , A h m e da ba d [P AN N o.A A BC A 2 3 9 8D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I .T .A . N o . 22 92 /A h d /2 01 8 ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 08- 0 9 ) Ar v in d Li m i te d Ar v in d Mi ll P re mi s e s, N a r o d a Ro ad , Ah me da bad - 3 80 00 6 V s. D C IT C ir cl e 1 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) , A h m e da ba d [ P AN N o. A A BC A 2 3 9 8D ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Drunal Bhatt, A.Rs. Respondent by: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 04.05.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 26.05.2023 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are the cross appeals filed by the Department and assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”) Ahmedabad, in Appeal No. CIT(A)-1/DCIT Circle 1(1)(1)/157/2011-12 vide order dated 26.09.2018 passed for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:- ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 2 - “1) (1) The Ld CIT(A) has erred In law and on facts in restricting the addition made on account of disallowance of capitalisation of repairs and maintenance expenditure in respect of Plant & Machinery from Rs. 16,32,65,319/- to Rs. 14,82,65,61J9/- 2) The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,56,27,620/- made on account of loss accrued on foreign exchange derivatives entered into by the Appellant for the purpose of hedging risk 3) That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,02,44,443/- made on account of expenses claimed in respect of turnkey project. 4) That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the disallowance made u/s 14A from Rs 3,60,59,592/- to Rs. 1 6,86,651/- 5) That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the addition from Rs.3,60,59,592/- to Rs.16,86,651/- made u/s 115JB of the Act 6) That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition Rs.72,65,752/-made u/s 41(1) of the IT Act as deemed income of the assessee. 7) That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.25,02,811/- u/s.40(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 3 - 8) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 9) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining an addition or Rs.14,82,65,319 from out of the total expenditure incurred by the appellant company of Rs.34,68,75,000 with regard to repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining disallowance to the extent of Rs.16,85,561/- u/s. 14A of the Income-tax Act from out of the total disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.3,60,65,592 by applying arithmetical formula of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.23,50,843 made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 92CA of the Income-tax Act on the basis of the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer u/s. 92CA(3) of the Income-tax Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.25,12,910 ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 4 - made by the Assessing Officer in respect of late payment of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESI. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. We shall first take up the Department’s appeal and the cross appeal filed by the assessee, wherever applicable. Ground No.1 of Department’s appeal and Ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal. 5. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 37.50 crores on account of machinery repairs and debited the same to the Profit & Loss Account. Broadly speaking, the aforesaid expenditure comprised of plant repairs and maintenance (Rs. 16.33 crores) and machinery repairs – consumption of spares (Rs. 21.10 crores). The Assessing Officer held that the entire expenditure of Rs. 37.50 crores resulted in complete makeover, which gives an enduring advantage to the assessee. Accordingly, the expenditure does not amount to “current repairs” and the Assessing Officer should have been capitalized. He further observed that payment of Rs. 1.5 cores made to NUOVO PIGNONE cannot be treated as revenue expenditure, since it was for renovation purposes. The Assessing Officer further contended that the assessee failed to produce bills and supporting vouchers in support of the claim and disallowed sum of Rs. 37.50 crores and added the same to the ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 5 - income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer, however, allowed depreciation of Rs. 2,81,25,000/- and arrived at net disallowance of Rs. 34,36,75,000/-. 6. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(Appeals) and submitted sample copies of invoices as additional evidence. The CIT(Appeals) called for the remand report and on the basis of observations made therein, he allowed the assessee’s claim of consumption of spares for Rs. 21.11 crores on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not brought out any evidence to prove that any item debited under the head “stores” are having enduring nature and was required to be capitalized. Accordingly, CIT(A) held that expenditure of Rs. 21.10 crores incurred by the assessee towards consumption of spares is allowable as revenue expenditure. Further, he also allowed the payment of Rs. 1.50 corres made to NUOVO PIGNONE as revenue expenditure by following the order of CIT(Appeals) for A.Y. 2011- 12 dated 26.05.2016, wherein the CIT(Appeals) in assessee’s own case held that payment made to NUOVO PIGNONE cannot be held as capital expenditure. However, with respect to balance expenditure on plant repairs and maintenance amounting to Rs. 14.82 crores, the CIT(Appeals) held that the said expenditure is capital in nature on the ground that the assessee has not provided any cogent evidences to prove that expenditure is revenue in nature. 7. Both the Department and the assessee are in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us, the Ld. D.R. submitted that looking into nature of expenses, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that expenditure on spares and payment to NUOVO PIGNONE was ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 6 - revenue in nature. He placed reliance on observations made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. In response, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in his own remand report, has not brought anything on record to show that expenditure debited to “stores” needs to be capitalized. Accordingly, CIT(Appeals) has correctly observed that the same is allowable as revenue expenditure. Regarding the expenditure on plant repairs and maintenance, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Page 21 of the Paper Book and submitted that even in the immediately preceding assessment year the figure of machinery repairs was Rs. 37.01 crores as against the figure of Rs. 37.44 crores during the impugned assessment year. He further submitted that in the Tax Audit Report, the auditors have also not qualified the expenses as capital expenses. He further submitted that the party wise details of repairs and maintenance expenses have been furnished from Page 114-138 of Paper Book and on perusal of the same, it can be seen that most of the expenses are below Rs. 25,000/-. He further submitted that the Department in the remand report has itself admitted that the expenses for repairs and maintenance are revenue in nature. He further submitted that, on comparison of plant repairs and maintenance as a percentage of Gross Block of Plant and Machinery is 2.48% during the impugned assessment year, as compared to 2.63% for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2.62% for A.Y. 2007-08. Accordingly, in percentage terms there has been a decline from the past years and even otherwise, relatively machinery repairs constitutes only a small percentage of Gross Block of Plant and Machinery. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 21.10 crores is revenue in nature. ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 7 - 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. With respect to machinery repairs – consumption of spares (21.10 crores), we are of the view that even the Assessing Officer in the remand report has not given any specific findings as to how the said expenditure has given any enduring benefit to the assessee. In fact, the Assessing Officer has observed “further, considering the frequency, and units consumed in the entire year, it is inferred that the tools are required more often for the tally and proper financing of machines. However, few of them may have an enduring benefit but, considering the units and frequencies, the same steam to be required to restore the tally financing of the machines”. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) while holding that machinery repairs / consumption of spares amounting to Rs. 21.10 crores qualifies as revenue expenditure. Further, with respect to payment to NUOVO PIGNONE, in our view, Ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that the same does not qualify as capital expenditure and further, on perusal of the details of expenditure, it is seen that these are annual maintenance charges paid by the assessee company and hence they are not on capital account. Finally, with respect to plant repairs and maintenance expenditure expenses amounting to Rs. 14.82 crores, it is seen that majority of the expenses are below 25,000/-. Further, even Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given any specific finding as to why the aforesaid expenditure should be treated on capital account and what enduring benefit has accrued to the assessee by way of the aforesaid expenditure. We further observe that the aforesaid expenditure towards plant repairs and maintenance constitutes only 2.48% of the Gross Block of Plant and Machinery and further this percentage is lower as compared to the previous two assessment years i.e. Assessment ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 8 - Year 2006-07 (2.63%) and Assessment Year 2007-08 (2.62%). Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure. 9. In the result, Ground No. 1of the Department’s appeal is dismissed and Ground No.1 of assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground No. 2 of Department’s appeal:- CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 12,56,27,620/- made on account of loss accrued on foreign exchange derivatives. 10. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the assessee entered into contracts to convert its export realization in Euro into USD to pay for its imports in USD. On this basis, it calculated notional gain / loss of Rs. 12.56 crores. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer held that losses of foreign exchange derivatives on outstanding contracts are “notional and contingent” in nature and cannot be allowed as per Instruction No. 2/2020 issued by CBDT on 23.03.2010. 11. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition following Ahmedabad ITAT decision in the case Adani Enterprises Ltd. (55 taxmann.com 375) and Heavy Metals and Tubes Ltd. in ITA No. 1951/Ahd/2011 vide order dated 30.06.2014. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that CBDT Circular No. 3/2010 relied upon by the Assessing Officer had been issued at the time of filing of the return of income by the assessee and therefore, the said Circular cannot be made applicable for impugned A.Y. 2008-09. ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 9 - 12. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12 by the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad. A copy of the aforesaid order has been placed on record before us for our perusal. 13. We observe that this issue is directly covered in favour of the assessee by order of ITAT Ahmedabad in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 in ITA Nos. 249/Ahd/2016 & 09 others wherein the ITAT has allowed the assessee’s appeal on this issue with the following observations:- “46. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee entered into contracts for hedging its USA dollar export by taking USD-INR forward contracts and total market to market loss was debited at Rs. 89.22 crores. The dispute is pertained to market to market loss of Rs. 16.8 crores as outstanding contract as on 31st March, 2009. The Assessing Officer was of the view that such market to market losses was notional and contingent in nature and same cannot be allowed as per Instruction No. 3/2010 issued by CBDT on 23rd March, 2010. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition after following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Ahmedabad in the case of Adani Enterprises Ltd. (55 taxman.com 375), case of Heavy Metal Tubes Ltd. vide ITA No. 1951/Ahd/2011 dated 30th June, 2014 and decision of DCIT vs. Flite Core Tech. Pvt. Ltd. In the light of the above facts and finding reported in the ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 10 - order of ld. CIT(A) as elaborated above and after considering the decision of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT Ahmedabad cited in the order of ld. CIT(A) on similar issue and facts, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” Respectfully following the aforesaid decision by ITAT in assessee’s own case, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 14. In the result, Ground No. 2 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 3 of Department’s appeal:- CIT Appeals has erred in deleting disallowance of Rs. 2,02,44,443/- made on account of expenses claimed in respect of turnkey project. 15. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the assessee, through its separate division is engaged in the business of providing multidisciplinary services in the field of water management, solid waste management etc. on turnkey and BOOT basis. Accordingly, the assessee claimed expenses of Rs. 2.02 crores as against income of Rs. 3.78 crores. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer held that the expenditure incurred on projects, the completion of which is spread over a number of years, which cannot be treated as revenue and should have been capitalized. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has followed percentage completion method and has not capitalized the expenditure. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has only claimed the expenses on an estimated basis on “percentage of completion” of project and therefore, ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 11 - the said expenses were required to be capitalized since the assessee is following project completion method. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the expenditure of Rs. 2,02,44,443/- is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act, being capital in nature. 16. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that Firstly , that the assessee has offered the income from projects, which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer as taxable and therefore, the corresponding expenditure cannot be disallowed by the Assessing Officer, Secondly, this method of accounting has been regularly followed by the assessee and Thirdly, the Assessing Officer has not doubted the veracity of the expenditure. 17. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). On going through the contents of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) we find no infirmity in the order, so as to call for any interference with respect to this ground appeal. It is observed that the Assessing Officer has not doubted the veracity of expenses incurred. The assessee has been consistently following the percentage completion method in earlier assessment years and also in the subsequent assessment years, and no defects have been pointed out in such method of accounting. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has given complete details regarding income earned from such project and which was also accepted by Assessing Officer as taxable income on current year basis upon method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee. Accordingly, considering the facts of the instant case we are of the ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 12 - considered view that CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in holding that the aforesaid expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure. 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4 of the Department’s appeal and Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal:- Disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 19. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that during the impugned year under consideration, the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 16,86,651/- and made a suo moto disallowance of Rs. 80,936/- in the return of income. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D and made a disallowance of Rs. 3,60,65,592/- by applying the arithmetical formula of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 20. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), he restricted disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 16,86,651/- i.e. to the extent of exempt dividend income earned by the assessee. While restricting the disallowance, the CIT(Appeals) observed that in the instant facts, the interest income earned of Rs. 14.24 crores is more than the interest expenditure of Rs. 5.79 crores and accordingly, he applied the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Nirma Credit and Capital Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 85 taxmann.com 72 which has held that if interest income is sufficient to cover up interest expenditure, no disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D can be made. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) restricted the disallowance under Rule ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 13 - 8D(2)(iii) to the amount of exempt dividend income of Rs. 16,86,651/- by following the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in the case of Ashwin Kantilal Rawal vs. ITO in ITA No. 314/Ahd/2016 vide order dated 23.04.2018 and on the case of Ausom International Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2614/Ahd/2012 dated 06.04.2016. 21. Before us, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee has fairly conceded that the disallowance may be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration. It is a well-settled law on the subject that no disallowance can be made under section 14A in case the assessee has not earned any exempt income/ the disallowance has to be restricted to the amount of exempt income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala [2018] 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC) held that where High Court took a view that amount of disallowance under section 14A could be restricted to amount of exempt income only, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd.[2018] 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC)dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. The Gujarat High Court in the case of Dipesh Lalchand Shah [2022] 143 taxmann.com 419 (Gujarat) held that where in relevant assessment year, assessee-individual earned profits from partnership firm and made investments in shares of a company, since its income from partnership was negative and no exempt income was earned, in such case disallowance ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 14 - under section 14A could not be made. In the case of Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 116 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where assessee did not make any claim for exemption of any income from payment of tax, disallowance under section 14A could not be made. The Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. [2022] 144 taxmann.com 80 (Delhi) held that section 14A would not be applicable if no exempt income was received or receivable during relevant previous year. The Delhi High Court in the case of Amadeus India (P.) Ltd.[2022] 145 taxmann.com 311 (Delhi), held that section 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income which is not includible in total income; hence, section 14A will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during relevant previous year. The Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd. [2021] 124 taxmann.com 361 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) held that disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with rule 8D could not exceed amount of exempted income. The Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Addlife Investments (P.) Ltd.[2021] 124 taxmann.com 572 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) held that disallowances made under section 14A read with rule 8D could not exceed amount of exempt income earned by assessee during year. In the case of Asian Grantio India Ltd [2020] 113 taxmann.com 445 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the Ahmedabad ITAT held that Disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with rule 8D of 1962 Rules cannot be made in absence of exempt income. 22. In view of the above decisions, and the facts of the assessee’s case, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 15 - in law in restricting the addition made under section 14A of the Act to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. 23. In the result, Ground No. 4 of the Department’s appeal and Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal are dismissed. Ground No. 5 of Department’s appeal:- CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting addition from Rs. 3,60,59,592/- to Rs. 16,86,651/- made under Section 115JB of the Act. 24. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure computed under Section 14A while calculating book profit under Section 115JB. In the assessment order, there is no discussion on this issue and the Assessing Officer has reduced the loss under Section 115JB to the extent of 14A disallowance. There is no finding on this issue in the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). However, it is noted that the book profit as per return of income is a loss. In our view, it is a well settled principle that the amounts disallowed under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D cannot be added to net profit while computing books profits under Section 115JB of the Act. Recently, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Atria Power Corporation Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 413 (SC) dismissed the SLP of the Department against High Court ruling that disallowance made under section 14A could not be added in assessee-company's income for purpose of computation of income under section 115JB of the Act. The Karnataka High Court in the case of J.J. Glastronics (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 375 (Karnataka) held that amounts disallowed under ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 16 - section 14A could not be added to net profit while computing book profit under section 115JB of the Act. The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Vishal Export Overseas Ltd [2022] 143 taxmann.com 305 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) held that disallowances made under section 14A read with rule 8D could not be applied to provision of section 115JB of the Act. The Delhi ITAT in the case of Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB) held that computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section 14A read with rule 8D. In view of the consistent position of law on this issue, we are hereby dismissing Department's appeal with respect to Ground No. 5. 25. In the result, Ground No. 5 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 6 of Department’s appeal:- Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 72,65,752/- made under Section 41(1) of the Act as deemed income of the assessee. 26. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings observed that certain sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 72,65,752/- have been outstanding in the assessee’s books for more than 3 years. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee, by invoking the provision of Section 41(1) of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observation:- ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 17 - “7.4. On careful consideration of observation of Assessing Officer and contention of appellant, I observe that the outstanding balance is creditors account are shown as liability in its books of account and such amount is not written back in Profit & Loss Account hence applying provisions of section 41(1), no such addition can be even though debt is time barred or outstanding for more than three years/On identical facts, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. BhogilalRamjibhaiAtara (2014) 43 taxmann.com 55 has held as under:- "Section 41(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Remission or cessation of trading liability (Cessation of liability) - Assessment Year 2007-08 - in return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08, assessee had shown a certain amount by way of his debts. He supplied details of 27 different creditors. Assessing Officer undertook exercise to verify records of so called creditors and found that creditors had no dealing with assessee. Assessing Officer further having found that debts were outstanding since several years applied section 41(1) and added above amount in income of assessee as deemed income. There was nothing on record to suggest that there was remission or cessation of liability that too during previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2007-08. Whether in peculiar facts of case amount in question could not be added back in income of assessee as deemed income under section 41(1). Held, yes (para 8) (in favour of assessee)". ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 18 - Further, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Nitin S. Garg 208 taxman 16 has also held as under: "Section 41(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Remission or cessation of trading liability (Cessation of liability) - Assessment Year 2001-02 to 2003-04 and 2006-07 - in course of assessment, Assessing Officer noticed from balance sheet that various creditors were very old and no interest had been paid on those various loans - Assessing Officer gave various opportunities to assessee to furnish details of such creditors viz., confirmation as well as creditworthiness but assessee failed to produce necessary information and details in that regard of aforesaid liabilities. On further appeal, Tribunal deleted addition on ground that assessee had continued to show admitted amounts as liabilities in its balance sheet and thus it could not be treated as a case of cessation of liabilities. Whether merely because liabilities were outstanding for last many years, it could not be inferred that said liabilities had ceased to exist. Held, yes, whether even otherwise, since assessee had continued to show admitted amounts as liabilities in its balance sheet, Tribunal was justified in deleting impugned addition made by Assessing Officer - Held yes (in favour of assessee)". It is observed that similar disallowance was deleted by undersigned in appellate order for A.Y.2009-10, dated 30th July, 2018 and A.Y.2013-14, dated 22nd November, 2017. Following the decisions of ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 19 - Hon'ble Gujarat High Court referred supra, disallowance made Assessing Officer u/s.41(1) for Rs.72,65,752/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 27. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Page 241 of the Paper Book wherein, it has been pointed out that the amounts which have been disallowed by the Assessing Officer have been settled in the subsequent years. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that is a well settled proposition that simply because the amount is outstanding for more than 3 years and the creditors are barred by law of limitation from recovering the aforesaid amounts, it cannot be presumed that the liability of the company to pay the debt ceases to exist after three years. Accordingly, the assessee placed reliance on the observation of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. In response, the D.R. has submitted that the Assessing Officer has observed in the assessment order that the creditors are not traceable and further, as per provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, the liability of the assessee company to pay debt ceases to exist after three years. Accordingly, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. 28. We observe that a perusal of Paper Book shows that the aforesaid debts have been repaid back by the assessee in the subsequent years. Further, it is also observed that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by ITAT, Ahmedabad in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 vide order dated 30.09.2021 in ITA no. 249/Ahd/ 2016 & ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 20 - 09 others. While allowing the assessee’s appeal the ITAT made the following observations: “20. During assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs. 506.16 crores. On perusal of the detail filed, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has shown sundry creditors in respect of six parties as on 31st March, 2009, 31st March, 2010, 31st March, 2011, 28th Feb, 2015 to the amount of Rs. 14,06,339/-. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee that why this liability should not be presumed to be ceased in view of the fact that till date the amount due to such parties has not been paid. The assessee explained that this liability is still existed and the same has not to be ceased. The Assessing Officer has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and disallowed the amount of Rs. 14,06,339/- as deemed income of the assessee as per provision of section 41(1) of the Act. 21. The assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made by the assessee. 22. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that assessee has not written back the aforesaid liability and it is still shown in the books of account as payable. Therefore, considering the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Bogilal Kamjibhai Atara (2014) 43 taxman.com 55, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A) ld. CIT(A) since there was noting on record to indicate ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 21 - that there was cessation of liability during the year under consideration. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” Accordingly, respectfully following the ITAT, Ahmedabad decision in assessee’s own case we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals). 29. In the result, Ground No. 6 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No.7 of the Department’s appeal:- Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 25,02,811/- under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 30. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the Assessing Officer made disallowance in respect of sales commission expenses (Rs.19,85,510/-) and recruitment expenses (Rs. 5,70,301/-) on the ground that assessee has not deducted TDS on the aforesaid payments. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has made sales commission expenses amounting to Rs. 19.85 lakh and no application has been filed under Section 195(2) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not filed any submission with respect to recruitment expenses. Accordingly, the aforesaid expenses were disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has failed to deduct TDS on the aforesaid payments. 31. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleted the aforesaid disallowance on the ground that so far as sales commission is concerned, there was no ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 22 - requirement to deduct TDS since the services have not been rendered in India and the income in the hands of non-resident agents cannot be considered to have been received or deemed to have been received in India. Further, with respect to recruitment expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) held that since the same are towards “reimbursement” of travelling expenses of the person who were called for interview by the assessee, there was no requirement to deduct TDS on the aforesaid payments. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief granted by Ld. CIT(Appeals). 32. We observe that with respect to payments towards recruitment charges of Rs. 5,17,301/-, similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, in assessee’s own case by ITAT Ahmedabad for A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 vide order dated 30.09.2021 in ITA no. 249/Ahd/ 2016 & 09 others. It would useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the ruling for ready reference:- “51. During assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has made payment of Rs. 1,14,741/- as recruitment expenses to Perfect Connection Ltd. without deducting tax on the aforesaid payment. These expenses was disallowed as per provision of section 40(a)(ia). In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of expenses holding that same was of the nature of reimbursement of expenditure which does not require deduction of tax. The relevant part of decision of ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “10.3 I have carefully considered the Assessment Order and submission filed by the Appellant. The Appellant has made ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 23 - payment of Rs. 1,14,741/- as Recruitment Expenses of Perfect Connection Limited. The AO has observed that as payment is in nature of contract, Assesses need to have deducted TDS on such payment hence he made disallowance of Rs.1,14,741/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, on careful consideration of ledger account submitted by Appellant which was also part of submission during Assessment Proceedings that Appellant has reimbursed travelling tickets of candidates which does not involve any contractual payment as observed by AO. This expenditure is purely reimbursement of expenditure which does not require deduction of TDS hence the addition made by the AO for Rs.1,14,741/- is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed. 52. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the facts as above, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A), since the Assessing Officer has not disproved the fact that assessee has made payment on account of reimbursement of expenditure on which no TDS is deductable. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.” 33. Accordingly, respectfully following the aforesaid decision in assessee’s own case, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in holding that no TDS was required to be deducted on payments made towards reimbursement of recruitment charges amounting to Rs. 5,17,301/-. With respect to payment of Rs. 19,85,510/- the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has given a specific finding that the assessee has paid ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 24 - commission to various parties for services carried out outside of India and is related to earning of income outside of India and hence, such payment falls within the Exceptions provided in Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. We observe that the Ld. D.R. has not brought anything to controvert the findings given by Ld. CIT(Appeals). It is a well settled law that sales commission paid to agents outside of India, who are having no permanent establishment in India, in respect of services rendered outside of India and related to earning of income outside of India by the assessee cannot be subject to TDS under the Act. Accordingly, looking into facts of the case, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in deleting the aforesaid addition. 34. In the result, Ground No. 7 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed. 35. Now we shall discuss the assessee’s grounds of appeal . 36. Ground No. 1 & 2 of the assessee have been discussed in the earlier parts of the order and hence the same are not been reproduced again. Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal:- CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 23,50,843/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 92CA of the Act. 37. The brief facts in relation to this ground of appeal are that the assessee had granted loans to various Associated Enterprises and assessee had calculated arms’ length interest of LIBOR plus 2.5% i.e. 7.69% in USD terms and notional interest income was offered to tax. However, this benchmarking was not accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 25 - the ground that Guarantees fees was not considered while determining arms’ length rate of interest. The TPO also observed that the associated enterprises of the assessee are having poor financial standing and the loans have been granted without any collateral and hence the assessee has undertaken extra risk in advancing the loan to its financially weak subsidiary. The Assessing Officer held that if the assessee had advanced such amount to outside party, it would have been remunerated for the extra risk undertaken by it for advancing loan to a financially weak company and that too without any collateral. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee has calculated arms’ length rate of interest of LIBOR (5.19%) Plus 2.5% i.e. 7.69%, but the assessee has not given any basis for charging of notional interest at LIBOR Plus 2.5% and hence such benchmarking cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 23,50,843/- under Section 92CA of the Act. 38. In Appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations: “10.4. During the course of appellate hearing, the Appellant has also argued that rate of interest should not be increased by TPO as transfer pricing adjustment considered by Appellant in return of income is quite higher than normal rate prevailing for interest in USD terms. During the course of transfer pricing proceedings the TPO has also obtained various information regarding average yield on long term instruments through information collected under Section 133(6) of the Act. On the basis of above details and considering the financial capacity of AE, the TPO has considered ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 26 - average rating of BBB+ even though as per his opinion AEs would fall much below this level considering cash losses from operation in current year. On this basis the TPO has arrived at arm's length interest rate of LIBOR + 0.5% margin plus 3.72% risk rate and considering the spread of 4.22% he worked out interest at the rate 9.41 %. The AO has also considered interest rate in the public domain prevailing for US prime rate for the period 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008 and worked out average interest rate of 7.5% and after adding guarantee fee rate of 2%, he worked out average interest rate at 9.5% and on this basis he has rejected Appellant's contention that interest charged by it is more than US Prime rate. This contention of TPO is not rebutted by Appellant hence contention of Appellant that it is charging interest at substantially higher rate cannot be accepted. It is observed that TPO was correct in adopting interest rate to be charged from AEs at 9.41% based upon LIBIOR + 0.5% margin plus 3.75% risk rate. The method adopted by TPO is based upon evidences whereas Appellant has not brought any comparable evidence for rate of interest considered by it. Considering these facts, addition made by TPO for Rs.23,50,843/- is confirmed. In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 39. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us the counsel for the assessee submitted that in various decisions, it has been held in various judicial precedents that upward adjustment should be calculated at LIBOR without any mark-up. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer may be directed to restrict ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 27 - the notional addition at LIBOR plus mark-up of 2.5% as done by the assessee in the return of income. The second contention of the counsel for the assessee is that the risk related mark-up of 3.72% computed by the Assessing Officer is nearly 72% of LIBOR and hence it is exorbitant and the 2.5% rate adopted by the assessee has adequately factored in all the risks and therefore, may be accepted. Accordingly, the rate adopted by the assessee is at arms’ length price and no upward adjustment is called for. The Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 6293/Del/2017 vide order dated 05.01.2021. 40. In response, the Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders. 41. Before deciding ground of appeal, it would be useful to discuss some judicial precedents which have analyzed this issue before us. In the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd.146 taxmann.com 28 (Mumbai - Trib.) , the Mumbai ITAT held that where assessee-company had given interest Free loans to its AEs, since loan was given in foreign jurisdiction, LIBOR +200 points was correct benchmarking for interest. In the case of Bhansali & Co. 54 taxmann.com 131 (Mumbai - Trib.), the Mumbai ITAT held that interest charged as LIBOR plus 200 basis points on foreign currency loan given abroad is most correct benchmark. In the case of Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. 58 taxmann.com 38 (Delhi - Trib.), the Delhi ITAT held that where TPO made addition to assessee's ALP in respect of interest on loan given to its AE, since interest rate charged by assessee from its AE was higher than LIBOR rate in the year under consideration, impugned addition ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 28 - was to be set aside. In the case of Soma Textiles & Industries Ltd.149 taxmann.com 163 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the Ahmedabad ITAT held that ALP adjustment of interest on loan given to AE was to be benchmarked at LIBOR + 2 per cent. We observe that in the instant facts, the assessee has computed the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has upheld the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer on the Ground that the assessee has not given the comparable basis for arriving at the aforesaid rate. However, in our view, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to appreciate various judicial precedents which have held that LIBOR plus 2% is a reasonable margin to compute ALP of loan given to subsidiaries. In the instant case, the assessee has worked out the ALP at LIBOR plus 2.5%. Further, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has also not appreciated the fact that the mark-up of 3.72% computed by the TPO works out to nearly 72% of LIBOR which in our view, is quite excessive. Accordingly, looking into the instant facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that the assessee is justified in computing the ALP at 7.69% (i.e. at LIBOR plus 2.5%) and the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to this Ground of Appeal. 42. In the result, Ground Number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. 25,12,910/- in respect of late payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. 43. We observe that the position on this issue has now been unambiguously clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to all assessment years prior to AY 2021-22in the case of Checkmate Services ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 29 - (P.) Ltd. [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22, non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x), thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. The Supreme Court observed that there is a marked difference between nature and character of assessee-employer's contribution and amounts retained by assessee from out of employee's income by way of deduction wherein one is liability to be paid by employer and second is deemed income as per section 2(24)(x) which is held in trust by assessee- employer, thus, said marked difference was to be borne while interpreting obligation of assessee-employer under section 43B of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme held that the non obstante clause under section 43B could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee's contribution which were deducted from their income and was not part of assessee-employer's income, thus, said clause would not absolve assessee- employer from its liability to deposit employee's contribution on or before due date as a condition for deduction. Again the Supreme Court in the case of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 608 (SC) , dismissed the SLP of the Department against order of High Court that where assessee-company failed to pay employees’ contribution towards EPF and ESI within due date prescribed in respective Acts, deduction under section 36(1)(va) was not allowable. Further, we note that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee by the Jurisdictional High Court ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 30 - decision in case of Gujarat State Road Transportation Corporation (2014) 41 taxman.com 100, wherein it was held that where assessee did not deposit employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund before due date prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va), no deduction would be admissible even though he deposits same before due date under section 43B of the Act. Again, the Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2020] 115 taxmann.com 340 (Gujarat) held that where assessee had not deposited employees' contributions towards PF and ESI amounting Rs. 15.20 lakhs within prescribed period in law and Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) made addition of aforesaid amount to income of assessee, impugned addition made to income of assessee was justified. Respectfully following the above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional Gujarat High Court, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). 44. We accordingly dismiss Ground Number 4 of the appeal of the assessee. 45. In the combined result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 26/05/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 26/05/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY ITA Nos. 2347&2292/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. Arvind Ltd.& Arvind Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2008-09 - 31 - आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 23.05.2023 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 24.05.2023 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 25.05.2023 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .05.2023 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 26.05.2023 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 26.05.2023 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order..........................................