Ulhas Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2364/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5836 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANTONY PARIATH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Earning of tax free income; Question of law
• Section: 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

, . . , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2364/AHD/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) ULHAS SECURITIES PVT.LTD. Q-202, CORAL PARSHWANATH ATLANTIS PARK, NR.AGORA MALL S.P. RING ROAD AHMEDABAD-382 424 / VS. THE ITO WARD-4(1) AHMEDABAD # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACU 6130 E ( #& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '#& / RESPONDENT ) #&( / APPELLANT BY : MS.URVASHI SHODHAN, AR '#&)( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANTONY PARIATH, SR.DR *+), / DATE OF HEARING 07/03/2018 -./0), / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/ 03 /2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-8, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 11/07/2016 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF T HE INCOME TAX ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') D ATED 03/03/2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUND S OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE A PPELLANTS CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITIO N OF RS.25,61,008/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 14A OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE APPELLANT IS CARRYIN G ON SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY AS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANTS CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.25,61,008/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WHILE C OMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. THE LD.CIT(A)IS NOT JUSTIFYING BY UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN SECTION 115JB BY PRESUMING SUCH EXPENDITURE ON NOTIONAL BASIS AS REL ATING TO INCOME EXEMPT U/S.10 OF THE ACT. 3. THE FIRST CHALLENGE CONCERNS ADDITION OF RS.25,6 1,008/- MADE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES AND BONDS AS W ELL AS INVESTMENT IN SHARES. FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSE SSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING LOSS OF RS.2,20,259/-. THE CASE W AS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS ACCOUNTED ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - RS.78,67,227/- TOWARDS DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED FRO M EQUITY INVESTMENTS WHICH IS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT INCOME. THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEN SES INCURRED IN RELATION TO TAX-FREE INCOME AS MANDATED UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT R.W.RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE AO ACCORDING LY INVOKED SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AND COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,16 2,792/- AS PER FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D OF THE I.T.RULES. CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE ALSO WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PRO FIT AS PER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE CIT(A) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF AND REDUCED TH E DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A TO RS.25,61,008/- OWING TO SOME CALCULA TION ERROR BY THE AO. THUS, THE CIT(A) APPROVED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN PRINCIPLE. CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN THE BOOK PROFIT F OR THE PURPOSES OF 115JB OF THE ACT WAS ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY UPHELD AT THE REVISED FIGURE. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) MISDIRECTED THEMSELVES IN LAW IN INV OKING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD.A R REFERRED TO THE ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR AS WELL AS THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONT END THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME (TAX-FREE) FROM EQUITY SHARES HELD BY IT, THE EQUITY SHARES WERE HOWEVER, HELD IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AS TRADING ASSET WHICH CAN BE VOUCHED F ROM THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME ARISING ON SALE OF SHARES WERE DECLARED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE REVENUE . ON A QUERY POSED BY THE BENCH, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES F OR TRADING PURPOSES WERE WRONGLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL IN VESTMENTS IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME VAIN, T HE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES HAVE EX CLUSIVELY RETURNED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME NOTWITHSTANDING A WRONG DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS CAPITAL ASSET IN STEAD OF TRADING ASSET. THE LD.AR NEXT CONTENDED THAT THE QUESTION THEREFOR E ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A O F THE ACT CAN BE MADE TOWARDS EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO TAX- FREE DIVIDEND INCOME ARISING FROM SHARES ESSENTIALLY HELD AS STOCK-IN-TR ADE. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CCI LTD. VS. JT.CIT 20 TAXAMANN.COM 196 (KAR.) AND PR.CIT VS. STATE BANK OF PATIALA 391 ITR 298 (P&H), THE DIVIDEND ARISING ON SHARES HELD AS TRADING ASSETS CANNOT BE RECKONED FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT . THE LD.AR VEHEMENTLY REITERATED THAT THE AO HAVING ADMITTED T HE INCOME ARISING ON ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 5 - SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME HAS NO MANDATE TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE LAW EVOLVE D BY THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED ABOVE. 8.1. AS REGARD ADJUSTMENTS IN BOOK PROFIT TOWARDS D ISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT, THE LD.AR RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENT(P) LTD. 165 ITD 27 (DELHI)[SB] AND DCIT VS. RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES 166 ITD 385 (MUM.). 8.2. THE LD.AR THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES REQUIRE TO BE SET ASIDE IN RESPECT OF T HE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, REFERRED TO THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FIN DING THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DENY EXPENSES MADE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME A ND THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES, 1962 CANNOT BE FAULTED. THE LD.DR ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT THE BENEFIT OF NETTING OFF OF INTEREST ETC HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE CIT(A) WHILE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION TOWARDS MAINTAINABIL ITY OF DISALLOWANCE. ADVERTING TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER S .115JB OF THE ACT HAVING REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A, THE LD.DR REFERRED TO CLAUSE(F) OF EXPLANATION BELOW 115JB(2) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT IN ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 6 - VIEW OF THE EXPRESS STATUTORY MANDATE, THE ADDITION TO BOOK PROFIT TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER S.14A DERIVED ON A RATIONAL BASIS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN CONCLUSION, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, CASE-LAWS CITE D AND MATERIAL RELIED UPON IN TERMS OF RULE-18(6) OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 . 11. THE FIRST ISSUE CONCERNS MAINTAINABILITY OF DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT TOWARDS EXEMPT INCOME EARNED FROM EQUITY SHARES. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME DERIVED FR OM SALE OF EQUITY SHARES HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, SECTI ON 14A CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE DIVIDEND INCOME. WE FAIL TO UNDERST AND THE RATIONALE FOR SUCH PLEA. WE TAKE NOTE FROM THE PLEADINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN TR ADING IN SHARES AS ALSO IN INVESTMENT IN SHARES. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN A SSESSEE CAN PARALLELLY MAINTAIN TWO PORTFOLIOS; ONE TOWARDS CAPITAL INVEST MENTS AND OTHER TOWARDS TRADING INVESTMENTS. THERE IS A QUALITATIV E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROFITS ARISING FROM SALE OF CAPITAL ASSETS AND THA T OF TRADING ASSETS UNDER THE ACT. CAPITAL ASSETS AND TRADING ASSETS OR STOC K IN TRADE ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. THEY BEAR DIFFERENT CHARACTERS ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 7 - AND CANNOT BE COMPARED ON PAR WITH EACH OTHER AS A SIMILAR CLASS OF ASSETS. THE CAPITAL ASSETS, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS ENJOY CONCESSIONAL TAX TREATMENT. THEREFORE, SHARES AND SECURITIES TREATE D AS CAPITAL ASSETS IN THE BOOKS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT CANNOT BE GIVEN DIFF ERENT MANIFESTATIONS CASUALLY ON ORAL UTTERANCES DISOWNING FINANCIAL STA TEMENT SHOWING THE POSITION TAKEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THIS REGARD. ON FACTS, WE NOTE FROM THE AUDITED BALANCE-SHEET OF THE COMPANY APPROVED B Y THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS WELL AS THE STATUTORY AUDITORS THAT TH E SHARES WERE HELD AT THE BEGINNING AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR ARE IN THE NAT URE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENTS (NON-CURRENT INVESTMENTS). SUCH DECLAR ATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE ORDINARILY SEEN AS SACROSANCT UN LESS THERE IS A COMPELLING REASON TO DEVIATE THEREFROM. WE DO NOT SEE ANY SUCH REASON. THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS ADMITTEDLY TAX-FREE INCOME A ND THEREFORE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIVIDEND INCOME CALLS F OR DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 12. BESIDES, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO EST ABLISH THAT HUGE DIVIDEND INCOME HAS ARISEN FROM SHARES ALREADY SOLD , THE INCOME WHEREFROM HAS BEEN SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT AN ASSESSEE MAY ENJOY DIVIDEND FROM SHARE HELD AS C APITAL ASSETS WHILE DOING BUSINESS IN OTHER ITEMS OF EQUITY SIMULTANEOU SLY. THUS, MERELY BECAUSE A STREAM OF INCOME FROM TRADING IN SHARES H AS BEEN RETURNED UNDER HEAD BUSINESS INCOME DOES NOT GIVE ANY INFE RENCE THAT THE SHARES ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 8 - HELD IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO BEAR THE A TTRIBUTES OF TRADING ASSET. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF PERTINENT FAC TS TO SUPPORT THE PLEA, WE DO NOT FIND ANY WARRANT FOR EXAMINING THE ISSUE WIT H REFERENCE TO THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLAR ED INVESTMENTS IN SHARES ETC. AS CAPITAL ASSET AND NO DISALLOWANCE HA S BEEN MADE SUO MOTU TOWARDS EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHT TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W.RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES, 1962. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS INDULGENCE AND CORRECTED THE ARITHMETICAL FORMULA AS SUGGESTE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE F ORMULA UNDER RULE 8D IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE INVESTMENTS HELD AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THE BUSINESS INCOME. THUS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT. 13. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. NOW WE SHALL TURN TO GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL CONCERNING THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN BOOK PROFIT COMPUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 9 - 15. WE STRAIGHT AWAY REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ARVIND LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1816/AHD/2011 ORDER DATED 08/03/2018 WHERE IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE FOR ADJUDICATION (ONE OF US IS A PARTY TO THE DECISION). THE RELEVANT OP ERATIVE PARA ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO SEVERAL J UDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE LIMITED CONTROVERSY AS TO WHETHER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UN DER S.115JB, THE AO IS ENTITLED TO INCREASE BOOK PROFIT BY THE EQUIVALEN T AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES AS FOUND ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME UNDER NORMAL PR OVISIONS OR NOT. WHILE IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF LONG LI NE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, SUCH ADJUSTMENT IN BOOK PROFIT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE, IT IS THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF CODIFIED LAW IN THIS REGARD, THE BOOK PROF IT UNDER 115JB HAS BEEN RIGHTLY INCREASED BY THE REVENUE. 6. WE NOTICE THAT ISSUE IS EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED BY CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. WE FIND AT THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ON THE POINT AS TO WHETHER ADJUSTMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER S. 14A OF THE CAN BE SIMILARLY MADE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER S.115JB OF THE ACT WAS ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO TAKE NOTE OF DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH RENDERED IN ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENT PVT.LTD. & ANR. 165 ITD 27 (DELHI )[SB] WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT ENTITLED TO TINKER WITH BOOK PR OFITS CONTEMPLATED UNDER S.115JB TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER S.14A OF TH E ACT. WE SIMILARLY FIND THAT JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BENGAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD. IN ITA NO.337 OF 2013 ORDER DA TED 10/02/2015 ALSO COMPLEMENTS THE ISSUE. THUS, SEEN ON THE ANVIL OF THE JUDICIAL FIAT AVAILABLE SQUARELY ON THE ISSUE, WE ARE DISPOSED TO ASSIGN ME RITS TO THE CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE PAUSE TO NOTE THE CONCERN OF ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 10 - REVENUE SEEKING TO PLEAD POSSIBLE REDUNDANCY OF CLA USE(F) TO EXPLANATION TO S.115JB IN THE EVENT OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THE ACTIO N OF AO. WE ARE ALIVE TO SUCH CONCERNS. HOWEVER, AS NOTED, WE ARE GOVERNED BY THE SUPERIOR WISDOM AVAILABLE IN THIS REGARD. HENCE, REMEDY TO REVENUE , IF ANY, PERHAPS LIES ELSEWHERE. ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS GOVERNING THE FIELD, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADJUSTMENTS M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE DETERMINED UNDER S.14A OF THE ACT WHIL E COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. 16. IN VIEW OF THE POSITION NOTED ABOVE, WE FIND ME RIT IN THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUSTMENTS IN THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER S.115JB OF THE ACT QUA 14A DISALLOWANCE. 17. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20 / 0 3 /201 8 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/ 03 /2018 4 ..*,.*../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.2364/AHD /2016 ULHAS SECURITIES P.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 11 - !'#' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #& / THE APPELLANT 2. '#& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567, 8, / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8, ( ) / THE CIT(A)-8, AHMEDABAD 5. 9:;,*67 , 670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<+ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '9 ,, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 8.3.18 (DICTATION-PAD 22-PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.3.18 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.20.3.18 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20.3.18 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER