Shri Kashyap Anilbhai Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 267/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7744 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T P HEMANI
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 142(1); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. I.T.A. NO.2266/AHD/2013 AY 2009-10 2. I.T.A. NO.267/AHD/2014 AY 2010-11 SHRI KASHYAP ANILBHAI SHAH THE FREIGHT CENTRE A-4-1, BASEMENT,ANISON COMPLEX SWASTIK SOCIETY, SBS LANE, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD VS. THE ASST.CIT CIRCLE-10 AHMEDABAD [PAN NO. ABIPS 0586 J] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.P.HEMANI, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 04/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/ 09 /2018 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE US AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 08.08.2013 & 16.12.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD [LD.CIT(A) IN SHORT] FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2009-10 & 2010-11 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS DATED 12.12.2011 & 30.11.2012 RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-10, AH MEDABAD. 2. SINCE BOTH THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS IDENTICAL, THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FO R THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.2266/AHD/2013 AY 2009-10 - 2 - ITA NOS.2266/AHD/2013 & 267/AHD/2014 KASHYAP ANILBHAI SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 3. THE MOOT POINT INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,41,159/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE INTERNATIONAL CARGO HANDLING BUSINESS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.01.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S.39,25,300/-. UPON SCRUTINY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 30.08.2011 FOLLO WED BY ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 27.07.2012 REQUESTING FOR S UBMISSION OF DETAILS AND INFORMATION UPON THE ASSESSEE. FACT REMAINS THAT DURING THE AS SESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.18,50,249/- ON ACCOUNT OF CLEARING A ND FORWARDING CHARGES ON WHICH TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OF TH E ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY SUCH AMOUN T ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS WOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(A) OF THE ACT SINCE HE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO C&F AGENTS UN DER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 5. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 194 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE SINCE THE CONTRACT E NTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENT IS NOT A WORK CONTRACT. FURTHER THAT, IT IS A REIMBURSEMENT EXPENDITURE WHICH THE ASSESSEE PAID A ND, THUS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APP RECIATE THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.715 DA TED 08.08.1995 REJECTED THE CLAIM HOLDING HIM LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON AMOUN T PAID TO THE C&F AGENT INCLUDING REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.18,50,249/- UNDER SECTI ON 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED RS.1,67,734 TOWARDS PAYMENT MADE TO THE CONTRACTOR BELOW THE THRESHOLD LIMITS AND RS.2,41,356/- WHICH WAS PAID T O TWO PARTIES WHO PROVIDED NO TDS CERTIFICATE FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE AOS. HENCE, NO TDS WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). HE, HOWEVER, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF - 3 - ITA NOS.2266/AHD/2013 & 267/AHD/2014 KASHYAP ANILBHAI SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.14,41,159/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE L D. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE BUS INESS MODULE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE C&F AGENTS D O NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT FOR WORK A S DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION-III OF SECTION 194C AS APPLICABLE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT . THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TDS IS ALSO NOT REQUIRED ON REIMBURSEMENT TO C&F AG ENTS. THE LD. REPRESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER MADE AN ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT SUBMI TTING THAT IN THE EVENT THE C&F AGENTS HAVE DECLINED AGENCY CHARGES AS INCOME AND PAID T AX THEREON DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS NOT WARRANTED. RELIANCE HAS BEEN MAD E ON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF M/S.OM SATYA EXIM PVT.LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1335/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2007-08 PASSED ON 13.05.20 11. 6.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES APPEARIN G FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS . WE FIND THE MODE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE CUSTOMERS DESIROUS OF SENDING THEIR ITEMS TO FOR EIGN COUNTRIES USED TO APPROACH THE ASSESSEE, HE THEN COLLECTS CARGO FROM THE CUSTOMERS AND RAISES INVOICE ON THE CUSTOMER ALONG WITH AIRWAY BILL ON THE BASIS OF GROSS WEIGHT OF CARGO. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER SENDS SUCH CARGO TO CLEARING & FORWARDIN G AGENTS (C&F AGENTS) FOR SENDING THE SAME TO THE CONCERNED FOREIGN COMPANY AS DIRECT ED BY THE CUSTOMER. THE C&F AGENTS ALSO INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENSES SUCH AS, PORT TRUST FEES, INSURANCE PREMIUM, - 4 - ITA NOS.2266/AHD/2013 & 267/AHD/2014 KASHYAP ANILBHAI SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 LOADING/UNLOADING CUSTOMS DOCUMENTATION CHARGES, ET C. WHERE UPON THE C&F AGENTS RAISE INVOICES ON THE ASSESSEE BROADLY SPECIFYING T WO ITEMS; ONE BEING THE AGENCY CHARGES AND THE OTHER IS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF DIRECT EXPENS ES. THE ASSESSEE MAKES PAYMENTS TO SUCH AGENTS AND THE TRANSACTION THEREBY IS COMPLETE D. THE SAMPLE BILLS RECEIVED FROM MANGALA IMPEX AGENCY AS ANNEXED AT PAGE NS.19 & 20 OF THE PAPER-BOOK REVEALS THE AMOUNT OF REIMBURSEMENT HAS SEPARATELY BEEN MENTION ED ALONG WITH ITS BREAK-UP. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO C&F AGENTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE CONCERNED C&F AGENTS AND THEREFORE TDS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE COMPONENT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF C&F AGENTS. THE CASE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE DIFFERENT BENCHES INCLUDING CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS LD.TRIB UNAL AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE RELEVANT JUDGMENT(S) AS CITED BY THE LD .AR IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW : (I). DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S.OM SATYA EXIM PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1335/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2007-08 ORDER DATED 13.05.2 011 (CO-ORDINATE BENCH) 6. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF DR. WILMAR SCHWABE INDIA P. LTD., (SUPRA), CBDT CIRCULAR XO.715 DATED 8-8-1975 WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE BILL FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES WERE SEPARATELY RAISED. TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE FROM SUCH REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, SEPARATE BILL WAS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT REGARDING REIMBURSEM ENT OF EXPENSES AND HENCE, TDS IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. REGARDING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF AP LTD., (S UPRA), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT, THE TRIBUNAL H AS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF MODICON NETWORK P. LTD.,(SU PRA). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF GRANDPRIX FAB PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), SIMILAR ISSUE WAS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE THAT THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF INCOME EMBEDDED IN REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE, IMPUGNED PAYMENT REGARDI NG REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE WOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) . AS AGAINST THIS, THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND THE BOARD CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8-8- 1975. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO QUESTION NO.30 IN THE CIRCULAR WHERE IT WAS ANSWERED THAT REIMBURSEMENT CANNOT BE DEDUCTED OUT OF THE BILL AM OUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TDS. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMEN T CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED BOARD CIRCULAR DA TED 8-8-1975, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN - 5 - ITA NOS.2266/AHD/2013 & 267/AHD/2014 KASHYAP ANILBHAI SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE COMMISSION AGENT HAS RAI SED SEPARATE BILLS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES. WITH ALL THESE FACTS, WHEN WE CONSIDER TH E BOARD CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8-8-1995, WE FIND THAT THIS BOARD CIRCULAR CANNOT BE MADE APPLIC ABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO COMPOSITE BILL RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT AND AS PER THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE, SEPARATE BILL WAS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTRADICT TH IS SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO C ONSIDERED THE BOARD CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8- 8-1975 IN THE CASE OF DR. WILLMAR SCHWABE INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE BILL FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES HAS BEEN SEPARAT ELY RAISED BY THE CONSULTANT, SECTION 194J IS NOT APPLICABLE. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH IS TRIBUNAL DECISION, WE HOLD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, SINCE BILLS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT SEPARATELY, TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED T O BE DEDUCTED FROM SUCH REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE WITH REGARD TO SUCH PAYMENTS. OTHER TRIBUNAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEA RNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MODICON NETWORK P. LTD., AND GRANDPRIX FAB P. LT D. (SUPRA) ALSO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ALL T HE ABOVE TRIBUNAL DECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR WHICH SEPARATE BILLS WERE RAISED BY THE COMMISSION AGENT AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH PAYMENTS. THERE FORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE DELETED. 8. IN RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. (II). JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT-III VS. GUJARAT NARMADA VALLEY FERTILIZERS CO.LTD. IN TAX A PPEAL NO.315 OF 2013 ORDER DATED 25/06/2013. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF RS.6,93,372/- TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF CHA CHARGES PAID TO C & F AGENT AN D RS.76,00,509/- TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS CONSIGNMENT AGENTS. THE AFORESA ID EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED THE TDS ON THE AFORESAID ACCOUNTS. IN AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) ALLOWED SUCH DEDUCTIONS OBSERVING THAT SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,93,372/- IS CONCE RNED AS SUCH THE AGENT HAD ALREADY DEDUCTED THE TDS AND DEPOSITED IN THE GOVERNMENT AND, THEREF ORE, THERE WAS NO FURTHER LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THE TDS. WITH RESPECT TO RS.76,0 0,509/-, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TOWARDS THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSE S TO THE CONSIGNMENT AGENT, WHICH WAS IN FACT INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE W AS NO PROFIT ELEMENT. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT THE TDS ON SUCH REIMBURSEMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE A BOVE DISALLOWANCE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. BEING AGGRIEVED AND DISSATISFIED W ITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT-REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL B EFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND - 6 - ITA NOS.2266/AHD/2013 & 267/AHD/2014 KASHYAP ANILBHAI SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED THE CIT(A). IT IS REQUIRED TO BE NOTED THAT WHILE CONFI RMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN FACT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE AGENT ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER CHARGES, WHICH HAS BEEN SPELT OUT IN THE BILL ITSEL F INCLUDING THE COMMISSION TO THE AGENT. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE RELATION BE TWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AGENT IS PRINCIPAL AND AN AGENT. THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED TH AT SO FAR AS THE OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES AND OT HER CHARGES IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WAS COMPLIED WITH BY THE AGENT, WHO HAD MADE PAYMENT ON IT'S BEHALF. ON THE AFORESAID FACTS THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE CIRCULAR RE LIED UPON BY THE REVENUE THAT IT IS THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE AS PRINCIPAL AGENT TO DEDUCT THE TD S WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE AND THE SAID CIRCULAR WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR PAYMENT MADE TO PRINCIPAL T O PRINCIPAL. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE LEARNED TRI BUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,93,372/-AND RS.76,00,509/- CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFER E WITH THE SAME. NO ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE CIT(A), NO QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, ARISES IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL. HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE MATTER AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENTS CITED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION T HAT THE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.18,50,249/- IS NOT LIABLE TO BE DIS ALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA) AS TDS IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED SINCE SEPARATE BILLS ARE RA ISED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2266 /AHD/2013 FOR AY 2009-10 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.267/AHD/2014 - AY 2010-11 11. BOTH THE SIDES CONSENTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL TOO. THUS, FOR PARITY OF REASONS NOTED ABOVE, OUR VIEW IN ITA NO.2266/AHD/2013 FOR AY 2009-10 ABOVE SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 CAPTIONED ABOVE. AS A - 7 - ITA NOS.2266/AHD/2013 & 267/AHD/2014 KASHYAP ANILBHAI SHAH VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.267/AH D/2014 FOR AY 2010-11 IS ALSO ALLOWED . 12. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/ 09 /2018 SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/ 09 /2018 .., . ../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. !'# , $ , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. #() *+ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ! //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 8.8.18 (DICTATION-PAD 9+P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.8.18/27.9.18 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.27.9.18 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 27.9.18 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