The ITO, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Balaji Corporation, Ahmedabad

ITA 2437/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1249 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA WITH G M THAKOR
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO: 2436 TO 2438/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 TO 2008-09) I.T.O., WARD 9(2), AHMEDABAD V/S M/S. BALAJI CORPORATION 2, SHYAM SHIKHAR, 2 ND FLOOR ARTEX COMPOUND, BAPUNAGAR, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAGFB4882K APPELLANT BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. D.R . RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.M. MEHTA WITH G.M. THAKOR ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 05-10-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 -10-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)- XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 29.07.2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2008-09. ITA NOS. 243 6 TO 2438/AHD/2011 . A.YS. 2006-0 7 TO 2008-09 2 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE RELATES TO 3 DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL THE CASES ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AMOUNTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO COMMON FOR ALL THE APPEALS AND THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND PROCEED WITH THE FACTS IN A.Y. 2006-07 IN ITA NO. 2436/AHD/ 2011. 3. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT. AS SESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 12.12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 38,99,189/- U/S. 80 IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE A SSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2008 AN D THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 38,99,190/- INTERALIA BY DENYING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 2 9.07.2011 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIE VED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFOR E US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A)-XV, AHMEDABA D HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 38,99,189/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 801B(10) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A)-XV, AHMEDA BAD HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) EVEN WHEN THE LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF JAGNATH (SARASPUR) SHOPS AND HOUSING CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., WHICH IS A SEPERATE LEGAL E NTITY IN THE EYE OF LAW AND THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE PROJECT BY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SOCIETY. THE ITA NOS. 243 6 TO 2438/AHD/2011 . A.YS. 2006-0 7 TO 2008-09 3 ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY TO EXECUTE THE HOUSING PROJEC T AND ABIDE BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ITS APPROVAL RIGHT FROM THE INCEPTION OF THE PROJECT TILL ITS COMPLETION RESTS WITH THE SOCIETY. ASSESSEE WAS JUST A CONTRAC TOR OF THE LAND OWNERS CONSTRUCTING 144 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ('A' BLOCK) OF THE SCHEME TIT LED 'PRERNA BUNGALOWS' AND 107 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ('B' BLOCK) OF THE SCHEME TITLED 'PRARTHANA BUNGALOWS' AND NOT A DEVELOPER. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH REVENUE H AS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS, BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO GRANTING OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O NO TICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 38,99,189/- U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE A.O AS A. O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY LOCAL AUT HORITY IN THE NAME OF THE LAND OWNERS JAGNATH (SARASPUR) SHOPS & HOUSING CO.OP. SOCIETY LTD. AND THE B.U. PERMISSION WAS ALSO OBTAINED BY THE SO CIETY, THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY ACTED AS A CONTRACTOR AND WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED T O BE A DEVELOPER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT A ND ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ITA NOS. 243 6 TO 2438/AHD/2011 . A.YS. 2006-0 7 TO 2008-09 4 ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO V IDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2011 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 8. PERUSAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15.4. 2004 ENTERED BY THE APPELLANT WITH JAGNATH (SARASPUR) SHOPS AND COOPERATIVE HOUSING SO CIETY LTD. SHOWS THAT THE DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT . CLAUSE 7 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15.4.20 04 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AS PARTY OF ONE PART AN D JAY MAHAKALI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. AND BALAJI CORPORATION AS THE SAID FIRMS A S PARTY OF THE OTHER PART STATES AS UNDER: '7. IT HAS BEEN DECIDED TO GIVE ALL POWERS AND AUTH ORITY AS PER THE DETAILS MENTIONED ABOVE TO THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART FOR DOING ALL THE PROCEDURES INCLUDING UPTO THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF THE SCHEME AND GIVING POSSESSIONS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SCHEME TO BE DEVELOPED UPON THE SAID LAND OF THE PARTY OF THE ON E PART AND AS PER THE MUTUAL DECISION TAKEN BY AND BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES HERETO, JAY M AKAHALI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. HAS WILLINGLY ACCEPTED THE WORK OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE S AID PROPERTY INCLUDING COMPLETING THE WHOLE SCHEMES CONSISTING OF COMMERCIAL OFFICES, SHO PS, ETC. IN 'PRASIDDHI COMPLEX-1' AND 'PRASIDDHI COMPLEX-2' ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY OF THE ONE PART, SIMILARLY M/S. BALAJI CORPORATION HAS WILLINGLY ACCEPTED THE WORK OF DEVE LOPMENT OF THE SAID PROPERTY INCLUDING COMPLETING THE WHILE SCHEMES CONSISTING O F RESIDENTIAL UNITS ETC. IN 'PRARTHANA BUNGALOWS' AND 'PRERNA BUNGALOWS' ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY OF THE ONE PART AND IN CONTEXT TO THE SAME THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HAVE B EEN MUTUALLY DECIDED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTY OF THE ONE PART AND PARTY OF THE OTHER PA RT AS DETAILED IN CONDITIONS-A AND CONDITIONS-B HERETO.' 9. CLAUSE 3(B), 3(C) AND 3(D) OF THE CONDITIONS LIS TED FOR M/S. BALAJI CORPORATION FOR DEVELOPING PRARTHANA BUNGALOWS AND PRERNA BUNGALOWS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15.4.2004 ARE AS UNDER : ' CLAUSE 3(B): FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SAID PROJECT IT WILL BEEN TITLED TO GIVE SUBCONTRACT LABOUR CONTRACT ETC AS PER ITS OWN REQUIREMENT AND WISH BUT AT THE TIME OF GIVING SUCH APPOINTMENTS IT WILL HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLANNING, CONSTRUCTION AND DEVEL OPMENT OF THE SAID PROJECT WILL REST UPON IT I.E. THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART. ITA NOS. 243 6 TO 2438/AHD/2011 . A.YS. 2006-0 7 TO 2008-09 5 CLAUSE 3(C): ONLY UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARTY OF THE OT HER PART THE PERSONS INTENDING TO BECOME MEMBER IN THE SAID SCHEME SHALL BEEN ROLLED AS THE MEMBERS IN THE SAID SCHEME AND THE SOCIETY SHALL ISSUE SHARE CERTI FICATES TO SUCH ENROLLED MEMBERS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PARTY OF TH E OTHER PART. CLAUSE 3(D): THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT MON EY TOWARDS THE SHARE FOR THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTION FROM THE PERSONS ENROLLED IN THE PROJECT. OUT OF SUCH MONIES RECEIVED BY THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART IT WILL HAV E PAY TO THE SOCIETY SUCH AMOUNT TOWARDS LAND CONTRIBUTION AS MAY BE DECIDED BY THE SOCIETY. SAVE AND EXCEPT THIS AMOUNT THE PARTY OF THE ONE PART SHALL HAVE NO OTHER RIGHT OVER ANY MONIES COLLECTED BY THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. BUT IT WILL BE THE TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART TO DEVELOP ALL THE AMENITIE S AND COMMON FACILITIES UPON THE LAND OF THE PARTY OF THE ONE PART AS PER THE AGREEMENT ARRI VED AT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE PARTY OF THE ONE PART WILLINGLY ACCEPTS THIS RESPON SIBILITY. ' CLAUSE 7 OF THE CONDITIONS ENTERED BY THE SOCIETY W ITH BALAJI CORPORATION IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.4.2004 STATES: '7. PARTY OF THE OTHER PART SHALL HOLD THE PHY SICAL POSSESSION WITH IT OF THE LAND AS WELL AS WHATEVER CONSTRUCTION IS PUT UP ON THE SAID LAND , TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND FURTHER TILL THE AGREEMENT FOR THE LAND AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION UPON IT IS NOT COMPLETELY EXECUTED, THE CONTRACTUAL LIEN OF THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART WILL CONTINUE.' CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONDITIONS ENTERED BY THE SOCIETY WITH BALA JI CORPORATION IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.4.2004 STATES: ' IN THIS MANNER THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART SHALL DECIDE, COLLECT AND RECOVER SUCH AMOUNT TOWARDS LAND AND CONSTRUCTION ON IT, FROM THE MEMBE RS OF 'PRARTHANA BUNGALOWS' SCHEME. ON GETTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT FROM THE MEMBER ENROLLED IN THE SOCIETY THE PARTY OF THE OTHER PART WILL GIVE ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE SOCIETY FOR ISSUING TO THE MEMBER THE SHARE CERTIFICATE TOWARDS SUCH LAND AND CONSTRUCTIO N ON IT AND THEREUPON THE PARTY OF THE ONE PART WILL ISSUE SUCH A CERTIFICATE TO SUCH MEMB ER FOR ENROLLING HIM AS A MEMBER.' 10. THUS THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE ITAT 'A' BE NCH, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION STAND FULFILLED THAT THE APPELLANT SHOU LD HAVE PRACTICALLY PURCHASED THE LAND (IN THIS CASE LAND COST WAS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO TH E SOCIETY AS PER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -CLAUSE 3(D) AND LAND COST HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, ALL OF WHICH WAS ITA NOS. 243 6 TO 2438/AHD/2011 . A.YS. 2006-0 7 TO 2008-09 6 INFORMED TO THE AO AS WELL) AND THE APPELLANT SHOUL D HAVE ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL AS OBVIOUS FROM THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15.4.2004 REPRODUCED ABOVE. THE ENTIRE RISK AND CONTROL OVER THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF THE TWO SCHEMES PRARTHANA BUNGALOWS AND PRERNA BUNGALOWS - DEVELOPED BY THE APPELLANT - IS THAT OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE THE APPELLANT CANN OT BE BARRED FROM AVAILING ITSELF FROM THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) JUST BECAUSE THE APPROVA LS FOR CONSTRUCTION ETC. WERE ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN THE NAME OF THE COOPERATI VE HOUSING SOCIETY. 11. THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT REC EIVED FIXED CONSIDERATION IS TOTALLY MISPLACED BECAUSE THE WORDS 'REMUNERATION' AND '5 P ER CENT' HAVE BEEN PICKED UP FROM CLAUSE 15 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 15.4.2 004 BY THE AO. BUT THIS CLAUSE 15 HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ARGUED BY THE ID.ARS PERTAINS NOT TO THE APPELLANT BUT TO THAT PART OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH HAS BEEN ENTERED BY THE COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY WITH JAY MAHAKALI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. WHO WAS ENTRUSTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRASIDDHI COMPLEX-1 AND PRASIDDHI COMPLEX-2. . 23. THUS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT IS COVERED BY HON'BLE IT AT BENCH 'A' AHMEDABAD DECISION DATED 7.11.2008 IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION B ARODA IN AY 2005-06 (ITA NO.1503/AHD/2008) AND IS FOUND HAVING INVESTED IN C OST OF LAND AND HAVING ACQUIRED DOMINANT CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT BEARING THE ENTIR E COST AND RISK OF EXECUTION. WITH RESPECT TO BUILT-UP AREA LIMIT OF SOME UNITS EXCEED ING 1500 SQ.FT.LIMIT BECAUSE VERANDA / BALCONY IS INCLUDED IN THEM WHILE CALCULATING BUILT -UP AREA LIMIT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS COVERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI DECISION IN T HE CASE OF SHETH DEVELOPERS 33 SOT 277 (MUM ITAT) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT VERAND A / BALCONY WAS INCLUDED IN THE BUILT-UP AREA LIMIT OF THE PROJECTS APPROVED PRIOR TO 1.4.2005 BUT THE PROJECT OF THE APPELLANT WAS APPROVED LATER THAN 1.4.2005 THEREFOR E MERELY BECAUSE FOUR OR FIVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT-UP AREA LIMIT GETS EXCEEDED THAN 1500 SQ.FT. LIMIT BECAUSE VERANDA / BALCONY IS INCLUDED SHOULD NOT BAR THE APPELLANT FR OM THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN FOUND INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT AND NO OTHER CONDITION HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO, THEREFORE BO TH ON LAW AND FACTS THE APPELLANT IS FOUND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). THE AO I S DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. ITA NOS. 243 6 TO 2438/AHD/2011 . A.YS. 2006-0 7 TO 2008-09 7 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REV ENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT OBTAIN THE COMMENTS OF A.O ON THE DV O REPORT CALLED BY HER. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS R IGHTLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R . ON THE OTHER HAND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND LD.C IT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PLAN WAS AP PROVED ON 17.05.2004 AND THEREFORE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 80IB(10) WHICH INTRO DUCED THE COMMERCIAL SPACE RESTRICTIONS BY WAY OF CLAUSE (D) TO HOUSING PROJECTS WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SARKAR BUILDERS REPORTED IN (2015) 57 TAXMA N.COM 313 (SC). HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DEC ISION. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, A.O HAD DENIED THE DEDUCTION OF C LAIM U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT ACCORDING TO THE A.O , ASSESSEE WAS A DEVELOPER BUT A CONTRACTOR. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT( A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE LAND C OST WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ENTIRE RISK AND CONTROL OVER THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT OF THE TWO SCHEMES DEVELOPED BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHAKTI CORPORATION TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) STAND FULFILLED IN TH E CASE OF ASSESSEE. WITH ITA NOS. 243 6 TO 2438/AHD/2011 . A.YS. 2006-0 7 TO 2008-09 8 RESPECT TO THE AREA IN CASE OF CERTAIN FLATS WHERE IT WAS HELD BY DVO TO BE IN EXCESS OF 1500 SQ. FT., LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FIND ING THAT IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF BUILT UP AREA, THE AREAS OF THE FLA TS DID NOT EXCEED THE AREA OF 1500 SQ. FT. BECAUSE BALCONY/VERANDA COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQ. FT. PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. SHE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THESE AFORE SAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AN D THUS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE IN AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF A.Y 2006-07, WE THEREFORE FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE WHILE DECIDING T HE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 IN ITA NO. 2436/AHD/2011 (SUPRA) AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09 - 10 - 2015. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY