Saswat Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Bhubaneswar V. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

ITA 26/CTK/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5416 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SHETH
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Assessment record
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 SASWAT INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., PLOT NO.627, SAHEED NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. PAN/GIR NO. AAKCS 3668 P (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.K.SHETH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 01 /08 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 /08 / 2017 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - BERHAMPUR CAMP: BHUBANESWAR , DATED 27.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT FOR RS.31,60,090/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED PROFIT OF RS.31,60,090/ - FROM BUSINESS AND HAS CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE CLAIM OF NIL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN ANY LAND NOR HAS DEVELOPED ANY PROPERTY SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE 2 ITA NO.26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT AND, ACCORDINGLY, BROUGHT TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS.31,60,090/ - . 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: FIRST, THE ASSESSEE IN INSTANT CASE WAS ONLY A CONSTRUCTOR/BUILDER AND NOT A DEVELOPER OR OTHERWISE . THE ASSESSEE HAD HIGHL IGHTED AND ADMITTED IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF APARTMENTS AS A SALE RECEIPT. AFTER EXECUTION OF IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 28 NOVEMBER 2005 THE LAND OWNER HAD TRANSFERRED THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND ENTIRE PROPERTY OF ONE ACRE TO THE APPELLANT THROUGH A POWER OF ATTO RNEY AND, THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO DEVELOP THE PROJ ECT EVEN THOUGH THE APPROVAL WAS TO BE TAKEN FORMALLY IN THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF THE LAND . NOW IT WAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER FOR CLAIMING SUCH A DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND OR NOT. IN THE BOOK OF SAMPATH IYENGAR LAW OF I NCOME TAX, VOL.4.10 EDITION AT PAGE 5784 IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED - T IS TRUE THAT AN ENTREPRENEUR UNDERTAKING DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION IN A HOUSING PROJECT, MAY NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST IN LAND. BUT THE SUB - SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT HE SHOULD BE THE OWN ER OF THE LAND. A PROMOTER SHOULD QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION BECAUSE HE RUNS AN UNDERTAKING FOR DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING A HOUSING PROJECT, SO THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR RELIEF ARE SATISFIED. IF HE WERE NOT THE OWNER, PLAN APPROVAL ALSO MAY NOT BE IN HIS OWN NA ME, SINCE LOCAL GOVERNMENT USUALLY INSISTS ON GRANTING SUCH APPROVAL ONLY TO THE TITLE HOLDER . THIS BY ITSELF DOES NOT GIVE RIGHT TO OWNER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 - IB(10) NOR DOES IT FORFEIT THE RIGHT OF THE DEVELOPER TO IT'. AS PER THE OXFORD A DVANCE LEARNER'S DICTIONARY, A DEVELOPER IS A PERSON OR COMPANY THAT BUYS LAND OR BUILDING IN ORDER TO BUILD NEW HOUSES, SHOPS/STORES, ETC. OR IMPROVES THE OLD ONES AND MAKES A PROFIT FROM DOING THIS. AS PER MOZLEY & WHITELY 'S LAW DICTIONARY, 'DEVELOPMENT' MEANS 'WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, THE CARRYING OUT OF BUILDING, ENGINEERING, MINING OR OTHER OPERATIONS IN, ON, OVER OR UNDER LAND, OR THE MAKING OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE USE OF ANY BUILDINGS OR OTHER LAND'. [PARA 6] F ROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS A BENEFICIAL OWNER OR TO PUT IT IN A LEGAL TERM IF HE IS A DE FACTO OWNER OF THE LAND, ANY DEVELOPER BECOM ES ELIGIBLE FOR THIS DEDUCTION. IT IS NOT AT ALL NECESSARY THAT THE DEVELOPER SH OULD BE A DE JURE OWNER OF THE/AND. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY WITH CONSENT OF THE OWNER . I T TRANSPIRES FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DE FACTOR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHEN THE ENTIRE ALLOTMENT PROCEDURE WAS EXECUTED BY HIM ONLY. IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO INCURRED ALL THE EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT FROM FILING APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION AND PAYING NECESSARY FEES FOR THE SAME. THE MARKETING OF THE SITE WAS ALSO DONE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH] 3 ITA NO.26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 ADVERTISEMENT, ETC. THUS, FROM THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT! DOCUMENT, IT WAS APPARENT THAT INSTANT CASE WAS NOT A CASE OF WORKS - CONTRACT. [PARA 7] FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT BECOMES EVIDENTLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE THE OWNER ON RECORD FOR CLAIMING SUCH A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 - IB(10). INSOFAR AS EXECUTION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY BY THE LAND OWNER AFTER THE RECEIPT OF FULL CONSIDERATION AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE LAND A ND DEVELOPED THE SAME WAS CONCERNED, HE FULFILS ALL THE CONDITIO NS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80 - IB(10 ) AND EXPLANATION APPENDED THERETO. [PARA 10] '(EMPHASIS BY UNDERLINING SUPPLIED) 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE APPELLANT MADE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN U/S.80IA. WHEN BEING ASKED BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM, THE APPELLANT CHANGED ITS CLAIM TO SECTION 80IB(10). SECTION 80IB(10) IS AVAILABLE TO AN UNDERTAKING WHICH IS DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FIRST TWO LINES OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION EXTRACTED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT A DEVELOPER . GIVEN SUCH CLEAR ADMISSION OF THE STATUS OF THE APPELLANT, THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE APP ELLANT SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). HOWEVER, MORE THAN THE ADMISSION BY THE APPELLANT, I AM INCLINED TO SUSTAIN THE ACTION OF THE AO BASED ON THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPELLANT DOES NOT OWN ANY LAND. IT HAD MERELY PRODUCED AN AGREEMENT TO SALE BEFORE THE AO. AN AGREEMENT TO SALE IS NOT EQUIV ALENT TO A SALE DEED AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT IS OWNER OF LAND ON WHICH HOUSES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED. SECONDLY, EVEN IF THE APPELLANT IS NOT THE OWNER, IT PERHAPS WOULD HAVE GOT THE BENEFIT HAD IT ENTERED INTO ANY DEVELOPM ENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LAND OWNER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ONLY DOCUMENT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE ME IS A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY BY THE LAND OWNER WHO ALSO HAS GOT THE PLAN SANCTIONED IN ITS NAME. THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTOR NEY AUTHORIZES THE APPELLANT TO DEAL ON BEHALF OF THE LAND OWNER. AT BEST, THIS IS AN AGREEMENT WHERE THE APPELLANT BECOMES AN AGENT OF THE L AND OWNER. BY VIRTUE OF THIS AGREEMENT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT TAKE ANY DEVELOPMENT RISK. FROM THE COPIES OF THE AGR EEMENT WITH VARIOUS CUSTOMERS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE/ APPELLANT HAS TAKEN UP CONSTRUCTION WORK LIKE A CONTRACTOR . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S.80IB. THE GR OUND IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 4 ITA NO.26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 6. BEFORE ME, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 OF RS.3,14,359/ - AND RS.4,53,461/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 AND THE SA ME WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT ON THE VERY SAME SET OF FACTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT . HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE GROUND OF CONSISTENCY DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A DEVELOPER WHICH FACT WILL BE EVIDENT FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSSE WHER E IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIPTS FOR SALE OF APARTMENTS AS ITS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. AS REGARDS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS, 341 ITR 403 (GUJ), WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 80 - IB OF THE ACT REQUIRES INVOLVEMENT OF AN UNDERTAKING IN DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE PROVISIONS NOWHERE REQUIRED THAT ON LY THOSE DEVELOPERS WHO THEMSELVES OWN THE LAND WOULD RECEIVE THE DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80 - IB(10) OF THE ACT. NEITHER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80 - IB NOR ANY OTHER PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN OTHER RELATED STATUTES DEMONSTRATE THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WOULD BE A CON DITION PRECEDENT FOR DEVELOPING THE HOUSING PROJECT. S UCH REQUIREMENT MUST BE READ INTO THE STATUTE. T HERE IS NOTHING UNDER S. 80 - IB(10) OF THE ACT REQUIRING THAT OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND MUST VEST IN THE DEVELOPER TO BE 5 ITA NO.26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 ABLE TO QUALIFY FOR SUCH DEDUCTION. H ENCE, HE PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE DELETED. 7. LD D.R. RELIED ON ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR RS.31,60,090/ - U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND HAS NOT DEVELOPED ANY PROPERTY SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. 9. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A DEVELOPER. 10. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE WAS A DEVELOPER INASMUCH AS HE HAD TAKEN THE RISK FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY HIM AND WAS LIABLE FOR LOSS OR PROFIT FROM THE SAID PROJECT. FOR THIS HE HAD SUBMIT TED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF APARTMENTS IN THE PROJECT WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS SALE RECEIPTS IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS (SUPRA), WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND WAS 6 ITA NO.26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 NOT NECESSARY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT AND IT WAS SUFFICE IF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT. FURTHER, DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008 - 09 FOR RS.3,14,35 9/ - AND RS.4,53,461/ - IN ASSESSMENT YE A R 2009 - 2010 ON THE VERY SAME PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH RES - JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS BUT IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 193 ITR 321 (SC) THAT WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, CONSISTENCY SHOULD B E MAINTAINED IN THE PRESENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. FURTHER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) HELD THAT A CONSISTENT VIEW HAD BEEN TAKEN IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON THE QUESTION RAISED, THERE WAS NO REA SON FOR THE COURT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW UNLESS THERE WERE CONVINCING REASONS. AS NO MATERIAL WAS B ROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE DIFFERENT TO THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 ALSO IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG(SUPRA) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. 358 ITR 295(SC), WE HOLD THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IS NOT NECE SSARY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION 7 ITA NO.26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND WOUL D SUFFICE IF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE DEVELOPER OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IN QUESTION . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF THE FLAT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DEVELOPER. IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION THAT TO ASCERTAIN THE ACTUAL CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION, SUBSTANCE WILL PREVAIL OVER THE FORM . 11. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE STATED DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT NO CHANGE IN FACTS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND VACATE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT OF RS.31,60,090/ - AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT OF RS.3,41,050 UNDER THE HEAD WATCH AND WARD EXPENSES, RS.80,000/ - UNDER THE HEAD ADVERTISEMENT AND RS.8,18,500/ - UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION EXPENSES. 13. IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPE AL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON - DEDUCTION 8 ITA NO.26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 OF TDS U/S.194C OF THE ACT TO THE SUPPLY OF BROACHERS AND LEAFLETS FOR RS.80,000/ - . 14. IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.57,110/ - U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT. 15. IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS, LD A.R. SUBMITTE D THAT THESE ARE GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE ABOVE HEADS IS SUSTAINED THEN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE HOUSE PROJECT WILL INCREASE TO THAT EXTENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION FOR THE SAME U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 16. LD D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF ENHANCED PROFIT U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES MADE UNDER THE ABOVE HEADS. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 /08 /2017. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 23 /08 /2017 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 9 ITA NO.26/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010 - 2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : SASWAT INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., PLOT NO.627, SAHEED NAGAR, BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2), BHUBANESWAR 3. THE CIT(A) BERHAMPUR. 4. PR.CIT , BHUBANESWAR 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//