The ACIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. Shree Rama Multi Tech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 240/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50768 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR SRAR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD , .. '#$, % BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L.GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /(ITA NO. 240/AHD/2008 & 1039/AHD/2007 & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 1999- 00 & 2000-01 DATE OF HEARING:14.10.11 DRAFTED:20.10.11 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) CIRCLE-8, 4 TH FLOOR, AJANTA COM. CENTRE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD. 603, SHIKHAR BUILDING, NR. VADILAL HOUSE, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AAABS0322F / V/S . / V/S . SHREE RAMA MULTITECH LTD., 603, SHIKHAR BUILDING NR. VADILAL HOUSE, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD )*/ APPELLANT .. +,)*/ RESPONDENT BY ASSESSEE SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, SR-AR BY REVENUE SHRI S.K. GUPTA, CIT-DR -. / $0% / DATE OF HEARING 14/10/.2011 1#' / $0% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10/2011 / / / / ORDER . . '#$, % /PER A.L.GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- ITA NO.240/A/08 & 1039/A/07 A.YS. 99-00 & 00-01 ACIT CIR-4 ABD V. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD. PAGE 2 THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REV. THE ASSESSMENT INVOL VED IN THIS APPEAL IS 1999- 00. THE APPEAL IS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD, DATED 01-10-2007. GROUND REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(*A)-XIV, AHM EDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SHARE ISSUE EXPENSES OF RS.23,23,312/- U/S35D OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XIV, AHMED ABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEFERR ED REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF RS.31,97,153/- 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-XIV, AHMED ABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND IF PAYMENTS WERE MADE WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD, IF SHOU LD BE ALLOWED. 2. THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUND ARE DELETION OF RS. 23,23,312/- U/S. 35D AND RS.31,97,153/- IN DELETING THE DEFERRED REVENUE EXP ENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE ISSUE EXPENSES. 3. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTY SUBMITTED TH AT FIRST ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND NO.7 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN A.Y 1998-99 IN ITA NO.3297/AHD/2003 AND GROUND NO.2 ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.667/AHD/2005 FOR A.Y. 2001-02. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THE IDENTICAL IS SUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT IN A.Y. 1998-99 IN ITA NO.3297/AHD/2003 VIDE PARA-14 TO 16 ORDER EVEN DATED, THE FINDING OF ITAT IS REPRODUCED FROM PARA-16 AS UNDER:- 16. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR WHO SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS RELIED UPON THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT EXPENSES RELATED TO S HARES EXPENSES IS NOT ALLOWABLE HOWEVER IN RESPECT OF DEBENTURE ISSUE EXP ENSES AND DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO CO VERED BY PARA-7 AND OTHERS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01 (SUPRA). ADMITTEDLY THE SHARE ISSUE EXPENSES ARE NO T ALLOWABLE AND BIFURCATION OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.54,71,162 RELATING TO SHARE I SSUE EXPENSES ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, BIFURCATION IS NECESSARY A FTER VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD, WE, THEREFORE, FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND BACK THI S ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO BIFURCATE THE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF SHARES AND DEBENTURE EXPENSES AND DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES AND DECIDE T HE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASST. YEAR 2000-01. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL, WE THEREFORE FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF ITAT. THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY . ITA NO.240/A/08 & 1039/A/07 A.YS. 99-00 & 00-01 ACIT CIR-4 ABD V. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD. PAGE 3 5. GROUND NO.3 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI OF RS.97,711/-. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALOM EXTRUSIMS LTD. 319 ITR 306 (SC). 6. AFTER HEARING LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI BEFORE DUE DA TE FILING OF RETURN, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE PAYMENT AND ALLOW ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. COMING TO ITA NO.1039/AHD/2007 BY ASSESSEE. 8. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMEN T INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS 2000-01. THE APPEAL IS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD, DATED 05-05-2007. GROUND REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.1 47 OF THE I.T. ACT. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ACTION OF REOPENING IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT PERMISSIBLE EITHER IN LAW OR O N FACTS. THE PRESENT REOPENING PROCEEDINGS MAY THEREFORE, KINDLY BE QUAS HED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE CONSIDERING VAR IOUS SUBMISSIONS, EVIDENCES AND SUPPORTING PLACED ON RECORD DURING TH E COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER ERRED IN NOT ISSUING SPECIF IC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR BEFORE MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES A ND FURTHER ERRED IN LAW IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING VARIOUS FACTS AND LAW IN THEIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT ADMITTING AND ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRE CIATION ON ASSETS IN THE SUM OF RS.37,09,868/-. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME F ROM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.1,71,30,212/- AGAINST PUBLIC ISSUE EXPENSES. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 35D OF TH E ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.9,94,421/-. 6. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF RS.49,72,106/- OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE U/S.37 OF THE ACT. 7. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE RS.9,94,421/ - OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED U/S 37 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.240/A/08 & 1039/A/07 A.YS. 99-00 & 00-01 ACIT CIR-4 ABD V. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD. PAGE 4 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT ON OTHER INCOME OF RS.6,86,96,665/-. 9. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ONLY NET O THER INCOME AND NOT THE GROSS MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED TO BE TAKEN OUT FROM TH E CALCULATIONS OF THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. 10. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT AND MADE A LARGER DI SALLOWANCE, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE AC T ON OTHER INCOME OF RS.6,86,96,665/-. 12. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE ONLY NET O THER INCOME AND NOT THE GROSS MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED TO BE TAKEN OUT FROM TH E CALCULATIONS OF THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. 13. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.6 0,36,713/-. 14. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE SAID P ROVISION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE U/S.37 OF THE ACT. 15. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING RS.12,40,050/- BEING THE PART OF THE SHARES AND DEBENTURE ISSUE EXPENSES AND DEFERRED REVENUE EXPEN DITURE. 16. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING AND CONSIDERING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, E VIDENCES AND SUPPORTING PLACED ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AND NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING VARIOUS FACTS AND LAW IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND FURTHER ERRED IN PASSING ORDERS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 17. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE L EVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A/B/C OF THE ACT. 18. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO IN INITIATING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT RECORDING MANDATORY SATISFACTION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE AC T. 9. GROUND NO.1, 2 & 3 HAVE NOT BEEN PRESSED BY LD. AR THEREFORE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.240/A/08 & 1039/A/07 A.YS. 99-00 & 00-01 ACIT CIR-4 ABD V. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD. PAGE 5 10. GROUND NO.4 IS IN RESPECT OF NOT ALLOWING SET O F INTEREST INCOME FROM SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.1,71,30,212/- AGAINST PUBLI C ISSUE EXPENSES. 11. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO.315 OF 2010 , WHEREIN THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD:- 11. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE MA9Y REITERATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO KEEP SHARE APP LICATION MONEY IN THE SEPARATE ACCOUNT TILL THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES WAS C OMPLETED. INTEREST EARNED ON SUCH SEPARATELY KEPT AMOUNT WAS ADJUSTED TOWARDS EXPENDITURE FOR RAISING SHARE CAPITAL. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THA T INTEREST EARNED WAS INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH REQUIREMENT OF COMPANY TO RAISE SHARE CAPITAL AND WAS THUS ADJUSTABLE TOWARDS THE EXPENDITURES INVOLV ED FOR THE SHARE ISSUE. LINE OF DECISIONS OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BOKARO STEEL LTD. (SUPRA), KARNAL CO-OPRATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (SUPRA), WOULD CLOSELY MATCH WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE. WE DO NOT FIND THAT TRIBUNAL COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN CONFIRMING THE VIEW OF CIT(APPEALS) WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE RELEVAN T FACTS AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ABOVE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 12. GROUND NO.5 TO 7 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,94,421/- U/S.35D. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THIS I SSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT IN ITA NO.1481/AHD/2004 & ITA NO.1685/AHD/2004 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2000-01 ORDER DATED 03-12-2004. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY ITAT IN ITA NO.667/AHD/2005 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND RELEVANT PARA-21 IS REPRODUCE D BELOW:- 21. THE SECOND IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS .9,94,421/- BEING 1/5 TH OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON PUBLIC ISSUE OF EXPENSES INCU RRED ON PUBLIC ISSUE U/S 35D OF THE ACT OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIME D 1/5 TH IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWED HIS OR DER FOR A.Y 2000-01 AND CONFIRMED THE CONDITION SUBJECT TO REMARK IF THE A SSESSEES CLAIM IS ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN EARLIER YEAR FOR WHICH THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ENTITLE TO APPROACH BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOR RECTIFICATION. AT THE OUT SET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN A.Y 2000-01 IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE REPORTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMA MULTI TECH LTD. V. ACIT (2005 ) 92 TTJ 568 (AHD), WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS SENT BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FIL E OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTION. IDENTICAL GROUND HAS ALSO DECIDE D IN A.Y. 1998-99 IN PARA NO.10 TO 10.6 SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN A.Y 2000-01 AND WE ARE ALSO SENDING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTION. ITA NO.240/A/08 & 1039/A/07 A.YS. 99-00 & 00-01 ACIT CIR-4 ABD V. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD. PAGE 6 WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ABOVE ORDER OF ITAT. SIN CE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, WE ALSO SEND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 13. GROUND NO.8 & 9 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE O F DEDUCTION U/S.80IA ON OTHER INCOME. THE DETAIL OF OTHER INCOME POINTED OUT BY LD. AR IS AS UNDER:- (I) INTEREST INCOME RS.5,91,30,485/- (II) DIVIDEND INCOME RS. 15,726/- (III) OTHER INCOME (A) EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE RS.13,37,569/- (B)EXCISE CREDIT RS. 2,61,759/- KASAR / VATAV RS. 5,687/- (D) EXCESS PROVISION OF WRITTEN BACK OF BONUS RS.2,85,809/- RS.18,90,824/- (IV) EXPORT INCENTIVES (DEPB) RS.74,50,143/- (V) SUNDRY BALANCES RS. 2,09,507/- TOTAL RS.6,86,96,685/- LD. AR HAS NOT PRESSED FOR DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.15 ,726/-, EXPORT INCENTIVE DEPB OF RS.74,50,143/- AND SUNDRY BALANCE OF RS.2,09,507 /- FOR WANT OF DETAILED. SINCE LD. AR HAS NOT PRESSED THESE ITEMS, THEREFORE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. AS REGARDS TO INTEREST INCOME, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE I S ONLY IN RESPECT OF NETTING. 14. AFTER HEARING LD.DR WE SENT BACK THIS ISSUE REG ARDING OF INTEREST INCOME TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE NEXUS A ND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING LATEST AVAILABLE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. AS REGARDS TO EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION EXCESS CREDIT PUBLIC ISSUE AND EXCESS PROVISIONS OF WRITTEN BACK BONUS ARE RELATED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IN OTHER WARDS, THE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS AND BUSINESS INCOME WE THEREFORE ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT ON THESE ITEMS. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 15. GROUND NO.10 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF D EDUCTION U/S.80HHC. LD. AR HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND THEREFORE SAME IS DISMI SSED AS NOT PRESSED. 16. GROUND NO.11 & 12 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE REQUIRE S NO FINDING. 17. GROUNDS NO.13 & 14 ARE ALSO NOT PRESSED BY LD. AR HENCE BOTH ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.240/A/08 & 1039/A/07 A.YS. 99-00 & 00-01 ACIT CIR-4 ABD V. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD. PAGE 7 18. GROUND NO.15 IS RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 2.40,050/- BEING PART OF THE SHARE DEBENTURES ISSUE EXPENSES. 19. AFTER HEARING LD. REPRESENTATIVES WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL GROUND HAS BEEN DECIDED IN A.Y 1998-99 IN ITA NO.3297/AHD/2003 ORDER EVEN DATED IN PARA NO.14 TO 16 OF THAT ORDER. THE DISCUSSION IS ALSO MADE WHILE DECIDING REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1999-00 IN ITA NO.240/AHD/2008 IN PARA 2 TO 4 OF THIS ORDER. THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDING. 20. GROUND NO.16, 17 & 18 ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATU RE HENCE REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY FINDING. 21. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. IN THE COMBINE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE AND THAT O F ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 2 / 1#' 3 4 21/10 /2011 # %- 8 / '. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21/10/ 2011 . SD/- SD/- ( ) (% ) (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L.GEHLOT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, 21/10/2011 *DKP / // / +$ +$ +$ +$; ;; ; <;'$ <;'$ <;'$ <;'$ / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. )* / APPELLANT 2. +,)* / RESPONDENT 3. $ -> / CONCERNED CIT 4. ->- / CIT (A) 5. ;' +$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 'C& D2 / GUARD FILE. /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER/ , E/ F , ITA NO.240/A/08 & 1039/A/07 A.YS. 99-00 & 00-01 ACIT CIR-4 ABD V. SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD. PAGE 8