ACIT Circle-1, V. S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd, Roorkee

ITA 2536/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9942 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHA RANI SINHA
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2536/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2536/DEL/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME M/S S.K. DYNAMICS PVT. LTD., TAX, CIRCLE DEHRADUN VS. B5/6, INDU STRIAL ESTATE, ROORKEE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : MS. ABHA RANI SINHA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI YOGESH JAGIA, ADVOCATE ORDER PER B.C. MEENA : AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), DEHRADUN DATED 30.4.2008 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 019/H RD/07-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(8A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHO UT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE CONCESSION IS FOR NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS A ND THE ASSESSEE IS AN UNDERTAKING EXISTING SINCE THE YEAR 1992. 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT ONCE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY I.E. SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA HAS GIVEN ITS APPROVAL TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN RESEARCH AND D EVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 80IB(8A), IT WAS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO QUESTION THE SAME. ITA NO. 2536/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN IGNORING THE TERMS OF THE APPROVAL WHICH STATES THAT THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IB(8A) OF THE I.T. ACT READ WITH GENERAL PROVISIO NS OF SEC. 80IB AND PROVISIONS OF RULE 18-D AND RULE 18DA OF INCOME TAX RULES AS A MENDED TIME TO TIME. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN HOLDING THAT THE UNDERTAKING WAS ESTABLISHED BY ACQUIRING NEW PLANT AND MACHINER Y AND EQUIPMENTS AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT AFTER EXHAUSTING THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80-O, THE ASSESSEE CHANGED THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF AVAILING THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80IB(8A) OTHERWISE THE UNDERT AKING HAS BEEN FORMED BY RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE SIN CE 1992. 5. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BE RESTORED AND THAT OF APPELLATE ORDER BE SET-ASIDE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS REGARDI NG THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB(8A). 3. AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING THE LD. AR SUBMI TTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE HONB LE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 3860/DEL/2007 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2004-0 5. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THIS VERY ISSUE WAS ALSO IDEN TICAL WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE ITAT G BENCH IN ITA NO. 3860/DEL/2007 IN ITS ORDER DATED 8.5.2009. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR WAS ALSO CONSENTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT CITED (SUPRA). ITA NO. 2536/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 3 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT CITED ( SUPRA). 6. THE HONBLE ITAT G BENCH IN ITS CITED ORDER (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE MAJOR CONTROVERSY IN THIS CASE IS- WHETHER, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECT ION 80-IB ARE APPLICABLE OR NOT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE? FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE WILL HAVE TO READ THE SECTION AS A WHOL E. SUB-SECTION (1) GRANTS DEDUCTION FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IF IT INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN Y BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTIONS (3) TO (11), (11A) AND (11B) , BEING THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THIS SECTION IS WORDED IN BROADER TERM AS IT USES THE EXPRESSION PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, AND NOT PROFITS AND GAINS FROM CERTAIN IN DUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OTHER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDERT AKING, AS USED IN THE HEADING. THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB-S ECTION (2) ARE APPLICABLE TO AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. SUB-S ECTIONS (3), (4) AND (5) DEAL WITH DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OF DIFFERENT KINDS. HOWEVER, SUB-SECTIONS (6), (7) , (7A), (7B), (8) AND (8A) DO NOT DEAL WITH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS BUT THAT THE BUSINESS OF A SHIP, A HOTEL, A MULTIPLEX, A CONVENTION CENTER, A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. SUB-SECTION ( 9) DEALS WITH AN UNDERTAKING CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF COMM ERCIAL PRODUCTION OR REFINING OF MINERAL OILS. THUS, VARIOUS S UB-SECTIONS OF THIS SECTION DEAL WITH UNDERTAKINGS WHICH CAN BE DESCRIBED AS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OR MERELY THE UNDERTAK INGS, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF INDUSTRIAL UND ERTAKING. SINCE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTIONS (6) ONWARD CONTAIN THE PRE- CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE RESPECTIVE UNDERT AKING, IT FOLLOWS ACCORDING TO US THAT THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION (2) ITA NO. 2536/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 4 REGARDING INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ARE NOT APPLI CABLE TO SUCH UNDERTAKINGS. IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY AMBIGUI TY IN THIS MATTER, ONE COULD TAKE RESORT TO THE HEADING OF THE SECTION. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH AMBIGUITY. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (8A) AND NOT SUB-SECTI ON (2) WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISS UE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80- IB OR NOT. 6.1 FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT FIRST THREE CONDITIONS REGA RDING THAT-(I) IT IS A COMPANY REGISTERED IN INDIA, (II) IT HAS MAIN OBJECT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL R&D, AND (III) IT IS FOR THE T IME BEING APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AT ANY TIME AFTER 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2000 BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 , ARE SATISFIED. COMING TO THE FOURTH CONDITION THAT IT FULFILLS SUCH OTHER CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRESCRIPTION UNDER THE SUB-SECTION HAS TO BE MADE BY THE CENT RAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT), WHICH IS A COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO FRAME RULES UNDER RESI DUARY CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB-SECTION (8A). THUS, THE RULES HAVE TO BE P RESCRIBED BY THE CBDT UNDER THE DELEGATED LEGISLATION. THE PR ESCRIBED AUTHORITY MENTIONED IN THE RULES SHALL NOT BE COMPETENT TO ABRIDGE OR ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF THE RULES FRAMED BY THE CBDT AS IT HAS NO AUTHORITY UNDER AFORESAID RESIDUARY CLAUSE. THEREFORE, TH E CONDITION IMPOSED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY THAT THE APPROVAL IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO OTHER GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80-IB WAS EXCESSIVE USE OF THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORI TY UNDER THE RULES, WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 6.2 IN SO FAR AS THE OBJECTION REGARDING VIOLA TION OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN RULE 18DA(1)(E) IS CONCERNE D, THE PRESCRIPTION IS THAT THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN S CIENTIFIC R & D ACTIVITIES LEADING TO TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, IMPROVEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPE D BY THEMSELVES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD DEVELO P THE TECHNOLOGY ETC. BY ITSELF AND NOT IN COLLABORATION WITH A NY OTHER ENTITY AND TRANSFER THE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED BY ITSELF. THE CASE OF THE LD. ITA NO. 2536/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 5 DR WAS THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH ADI SHOWS T HAT THE TECHNOLOGY WAS DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLLABORATION WITH THE ADI. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE MAIN PARAGRAPHS OF T HE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADI. WHILE THE DESIGNATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEVELOPER MAY ONLY BE INDICATIVE OF THE MATTER AND NOT CONCLUSIVE THEREOF, IT IS A FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK TO DEVELOP OR IMPROVE THE TECHNOLOGY AND TO TRAIN THE ADI OR STAFF OF THE ADI. IT ALSO UNDERTOOK TO IMPROVE THE TECHNOLOGY ON THE BASIS OF FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOME RS OF THE ADI. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADI JOI NTLY DEVELOPED AND IMPROVED THE TECHNOLOGY AS THE RESPONSIB ILITY OF DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGY RESTED ON THE ASSESSEE ALBEIT ALSO WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS OF THE ADI. THE ASSESSEE ALSO GRANTED EXCLUSIVE WORLDWI DE LICENSE TO PRODUCE AND SELL ETC. THE HARDWARE AND SOFTW ARE DEVELOPED BY IT AND EXCLUDED THE ASSESSEE THEREFROM EXCEPT WITHIN THE TERRITORIES OF INDIA WITH THE EXPRESS CONCERN OF THE ADI. THIS ALSO DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ADI JOINTLY DEVELOPED THE TECHNOLOGY WITH THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS MERELY A MARKETI NG ARRANGEMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CON DUCTING R&D ACTIVITIES ON ITS OWN. PARAGRAPH 7 REGARDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT BELONGING JOINTLY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADI IN CASE A PRODUCT IS JOINTLY INVENTED BY BOTH THE PARTIE S DOES NOT DEROGATE US FROM THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION. IN SUCH A CASE THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB. THIS FLOWS FROM THE AFOR ESAID CLAUSE (E), WHERE THE PRIMARY CONDITION IS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS EXCLUSIVELY ENGAGED IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, A FACT NOT QUESTIONED BY THE REVENUE. THUS, IN SO FAR AS INCOME FROM R&D UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT WILL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB. THERE MAY BE ALSO A SIT UATION WHERE THE TECHNOLOGY IS DEVELOPED JOINTLY WITH THE ADI. IN SUCH A CASE WHILE THE FIRST CONDITION OF SUB-CLAUSE (E) GETS SATISFIED, THE SECOND CONDITION REGARDING TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY D EVELOPED BY ITSELF WILL NOT BE SATISFIED. THEREFORE, SUCH INCOME WILL NOT BECOME SUBJECT MATTER OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB. IN OTHER WORD S, WE FIND THAT THE ITA NO. 2536/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 6 ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB IN RESPECT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED B Y ITSELF. 6.3 WE MAY ADD HERE THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF J.H. GOTLA (SUPRA) WAS T HAT IN INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTORY PROVISION, AN ATTEMPT SHOULD BE TO DISCOVER THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE FROM THE LANGUAGE USED THEREIN, WHICH AT BEST IS AN IMPERFECT INSTRUMENT FOR THE EX PRESSION OF HUMAN INTENTION. THEREFORE, THE WHOLE OF THE STATUTE SHOULD BE READ TO ARRIVE AT THE AFORESAID INTENTION. WHILE COM ING TO OUR AFORESAID CONCLUSION, WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 80IB AND THE RULES 8D AND 8DA AND ON READING THEREO F AS A WHOLE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT-(I) THE CONDITIONS MENTIO NED IN SUB-SECTION (2) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF AN R&D COMPANY AND (II) THE DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF TRANS FER OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED BY ASSESSEE ITSELF. THE AO SHALL COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION ACCORDINGLY. 6.4 ANOTHER ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS AN OLD COMPANY AND ITS UNDERTAKING STARTED ACTIVITIES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. THE ASS ESSEE HAD AVAILED OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-O FOR THE FULL PERIOD AND, T HUS, AMENDMENT IN ITS MOA WAS A DEVISE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTIO N U/S 80-IB FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. WE DO NOT FIND AN Y FORCE IN THIS ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT MAY HAPPEN THAT THE ASSESS EE MAY BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER ONE OR MORE OF TH E SECTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VI-A. THE ONLY CONDITION U/S 80-A IS THAT SUM TOTAL OF DEDUCTIONS UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARRANGED ITS AFFAIRS IN A MANNER THAT IT BECOMES ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80-I B AFTER EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-O, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH SUCH ARRANGEMENT, WHICH IN THIS CASE INVOLVED AMENDMENTS OF THE MOA. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT ALSO DOES NOT ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 2536/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 7 6.5 COMING TO THE ISSUE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL WAS THAT SUB-SECTION (8) AND SUB-SECTION (8A) CONTAIN THE ANALOGOUS LAW REGARDING THE DEDUCTION TO BE ALLOWED TO A COMP ANY ENGAGED IN R&D. SUB-SECTION (8) IS APPLICABLE WHERE THE C OMPANY IS APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AT ANY TIME BEFORE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 1999; WHILE SUB-SECTION (8A) APPLIES IN A CA SE WHERE IT IS APPROVED AT ANY TIME AFTER 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2000 AND BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2007. SUB-SECTION (8A) GRANTS DEDUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS WHILE SUB-SECTION (8) GRAN TED DEDUCTION FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS ONLY. THUS, THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SUB- SECTION (8A) IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO AN ASSES SEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION WAS IMPOSED UNDER TH IS SUB-SECTION THAT THE COMPANY FULFILS SUCH OTHER CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. SUB-SECTION (14) DEFINES THE EXPRESSION INI TIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTION (8), HOWEVER, THE RE IS NO DEFINITION FOR THIS EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECT ION (8A). THIS WAS AN OMISSION ONLY AS CAN BE SEEN FROM CIRCU LAR NO. 794 WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ACT PROVIDES TAX HOLI DAY FOR 10 CONSECUTIVE YEARS TO COMPANIES CARRYING ON SC IENTIFIC R&D. THE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS IS RECKONED FROM THE YEAR I N WHICH APPROVAL IS GIVEN BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. THIS CIRCUL AR, WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS EXPOSITION OF THE LAW BY THE CBDT, CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT THE PERIOD O 10 YEARS IS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE APPROVAL IS GIVEN BY THE PRE SCRIBED AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF THE DEFINITION OF THE AFORESAID EXPRESSION IN SUB-SECTION (14) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTIO N (8A), THE DEFINITION GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTION (8) HAS TO BE ADOPTED. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PADMA SUNDRARAO (SUPR A) WAS THAT CASUS OMISSUS SHOULD BE SUPPLIED ONLY IN THE CASE OF CLEAR NECESSITY AND NOT TO RE-WRITE THE STATUTE. WE HAVE CO NSIDERED THIS MATTER ALSO. IT IS CLEAR THAT SOME MEANING WILL HA VE TO BE GIVEN TO THE AFORESAID EXPRESSION. THE CASE OF THE LD. DR IS THAT THE MEANING TO BE GIVEN TO THIS EXPRESSION, IN ABSENCE OF DE FINITION, IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE COMPANY STARTED ITS OPERATIONS. TO O UR MIND SUCH AN ITA NO. 2536/DEL/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 8 INTERPRETATION WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUB-SECTION (8A) WAS INSERTED IN THE ACT AT LEAST IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIRCULAR OF THE BOARD, EVEN IN ABSENCE OF ANY DEFINITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTION (8A), HAS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 38.1 THAT THE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS IS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH THE APPROVAL IS GIVEN BY THE PRESCRIBED AU THORITY. LOOKING TO THE CONTENTS OF THE CIRCULAR, WHICH IS BIN DING ON THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, AND ALSO THE NECESSITY TO GIVE A REASONABLE MEANING TO THE AFORESAID EXPRESSION, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE DEFINITION GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTION (8) SHOULD ALSO BE APPLIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-SECTION (8A). THUS, THE IN ITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THIS CASE WILL BE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COOR DINATED BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE ALLOW THE DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80IA(8A) TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS RE JECTED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2009. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 11 TH AUGUST, 2009. SRB COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT(A) , DEHRADUN 4. CIT 5. THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR,ITAT // T RUE COPY //