Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Ichalkranji Circle , Ichalkranji V. Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat (HUF), Kolhapur

ITA 2743/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4114 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A M MAHADEVAN KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Salary income; Audit objection; Source of fund; Question of law
• Section: 80HHC; 80IA; 119; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM . / I TA NO S . 2738 TO 2741 & 2743 /PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2010 - 11 TO 2013 - 14 & 2014 - 15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT, SUSHREYA, YASHWANT CO - OP. SOCIETY, A/P. JAYSINGPUR, TAL. SHIROL DIST. KOLHAPUR - 416 101 PAN : ADLPG5040N / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 2742/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT (HUF) , SUSHREYA, YASHWANT CO - OP. SOCIETY, A/P. JAYSINGPUR, TAL. SHIROL DIST. KOLHAPUR - 416 4 01 PAN : A AEHS6340B / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI A.M MAHADEVAN KRISHNAN A SSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHOR B. PHADKE 2 ITA NOS. 2738 TO 2743/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 / DATE OF HEARING : 05 . 10 .2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 . 10 .2021 / ORDER PER BENCH : THESE BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE SEPARATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) - 2, KOLHAPUR DATED 03.10.2017 & 04.10.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 AS PER THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD: 1 . THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4)(IV) ON GROSS TOTAL INCOME WHICH IN ASSESSEE'S CASE INCLU DES INCOME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHEREAS AS PER SEC. 80IA(1), THE SAID DEDUCTION IS ENVISAGED OUT OF PROFIT AND GAINS FRO M THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS ONLY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLU DING THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCLUDES ALSO INCOME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE NON - OBSTEN TE CLAUSE APPEARING IN SECTION 80IA(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH SUPERSEDES ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, AL TER, AMEND, MODIFY ANY OF ABOVE GROUND(S) OR RAISE, ANY OTHER GROUND(S) AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON. TRIBUNAL WHICH MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED. 2. SINCE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL AR E COMMON IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED FOR ALL THE APPEALS BEFORE US, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN APPEAL MEMO FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR EACH OF THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS, BROADLY THE GRIEVANCE OF THE 3 ITA NOS. 2738 TO 2743/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 REVENUE IS IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ON GROSS TOTAL INCOME BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL), WHICH IN ASSESSEE'S CASE INCLU DES INCOME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHEREAS AS PER SECTION 80IA(1) OF THE ACT , THE SAID DEDUCTION IS ENVISAGED OUT OF PROFIT AND GAINS FRO M THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS ONLY. 4. FOR ILLUSTRATING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION AND RELATED FACTS THEREIN, WE WOULD TAKE UP ITA NO.2738/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AS LEAD CASE FOR ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.2738/PUN/2017 A.Y.2010 - 11 5. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT ON PERUSAL O F THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT, IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.6,05,76,652/ - WHICH INCLUDED INCOME FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RESPECTIVELY OF RS.20,40,000/ - AND OF RS.1,80,33,292/ - . IN THIS BACKDROP, CONSEQUENT UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DATED 01.01.2013 U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMININ G TOTAL INCOME AT RS.42,38,227/ - , ERRONEOUSLY, GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUSIVE OF INCOME FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RESPECTIVELY RS.20,40,000/ - AND RS.1,80,33,292/ - HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.80 IA OF THE ACT. 5.1 THE REFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION FROM LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE, THIS QUANTUM OF INCOME OF ( RS.20,40,000/ - + RS.1,80,33,292/ - ) = RS.2,00,73,292/ - COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND 4 ITA NOS. 2738 TO 2743/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 HENCE, EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,00,73,292/ - AND THEREFORE, THE EXCESS DEDUCTION OF THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,73,292/ - HAS BEEN ALLOWED WHICH IS ACTUALLY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDINGS U/S.147/148 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. 5.2 THE ISSUE OF RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SEPARATELY DEALT WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE INSTA NT APPEAL BEFORE US IS ON THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT OF RS.5,63,38,425/ - AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOW ED DEDUCTION OF THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT AND THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER THE COMPUTATION IS AT RS.6,05,76,652/ - . THAT AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION, THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.42,38,227/ - AS PER COMPUTATION. THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,05,76,652/ - INCLUDES INCOME FROM SALARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RESPECTIVELY OF RS.20,40,000/ - AND RS.1,80,33,292/ - TOTALING TO RS.2,00,73,292/ - . 5.3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS TO BE RESTRICTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS PER SECTION 80IA (5) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE RESTRI CTED TO RS.3,62,65,133/ - INSTEAD OF RS.5,63,38,425/ - ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH IS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 15.1 OF HIS ORDER GOES ON TO ANALYZE SECTION 80IA AND OPINED THAT IT IS PATENTLY CLEAR THAT THE DEDUCTION IN QUESTION HAS TO BE 5 ITA NOS. 2738 TO 2743/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 RESTRICTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS IS CLARIFIED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. THUS , TH E PART INVOLVING SALARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES I.E. RS.20,40,000/ - AND RS.1,80,33,292/ - RESPECTIVELY TOTALING RS. 2,00,73,292/ - WAS THEREFORE, NOT HELD TO BE DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND SUCH EXCESS DEDUCTION TO THE SAID EXTENT DOES NOT QUALIF Y FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT AT RS.3,62,65,133/ - AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS DEDUCTION U/S.80IA AT RS.5,63,38,425/ - / - . 6. THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEAL), IN THE DET AILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TRIDOSS LABORATORIES LTD., 328 ITR 448 ( BOM.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA TO RESTRICT THE EXPRESSION TO TOTAL INCOME DERIVED FROM AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS NOTED ABOVE, THE SUBMISSION URGED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT ACCEPTED. IN THIS SCENARIO, IT WAS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) PLACING RELIANCE ON THE REFERRED DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS FOLLOWS : 5.THE APPELLANT CLAIMED BEFORE ME THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN HIS CASE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TRIDOSS LABORATOREIS LTD. 328 ITR 448 ( BOM.). IT HAS BEEN HELD IN TRIDOSS AS UNDER: SECTION 80IA PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (4) (THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS), THERE SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, BE ALLOWED, IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCT ION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS D E RIVED FROM SUCH BUSINESS FOR TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SECTION CONTEMPLATES A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT REPRESENTING HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE E LIGIBLE BUSINESS IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPRESSION GROSS TOTAL INCOME IS DEFINED BY SECTION 80B(5), FOR THE PURPOSES OF 6 ITA NOS. 2738 TO 2743/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 CHAPTER VIA., TO MEAN THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BEFORE MAKING A NY DEDUCTION UNDER THE CHAPTER. THE EXPRESSION TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SECTION 2(45) TO MEAN THAT TOTAL AMOUNT OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION (5), COMPUTED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN THE ACT. SECTION 5(1) ENUNCIATES THAT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT, THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR OF A PERSON WHO IS A RESIDENT, INCLUDES ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO BASIS IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA TO RESTRICT THE EXPRESSI ON TO TOTAL INCOME DERIVED FROM AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS NOTED ABOVE, THE SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN URGED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. IN SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ASSESSING OFFICER [2002] 254 ITR 608/[2001] 119 TAXMAN 503, BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME MUST BE DETERMINED BY SETTING OFF AGAINST THE INCOME, THE BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS BEFORE ALLOWING A DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI - A AND IF THE RESULTANT INCOME IS NIL, THEN THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT CLAIM A DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI - A. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AFTER SETTING OFF THE LOSSES FROM ALL OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME IS RS.14 .57 LAKHS , WHILE THE PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNIT WAS CO MPUTED AT RS.98.43 LA KH S. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME, NAMELY, RS.14.57 LAKHS. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL DOES NOT RAI SE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5.1 I ALSO FIND THAT THERE IS A LATEST DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE AT HAND IN THE CASE OF V M SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD. (2017) 81 TAXMANN.COM 357. THEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER : WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO BE A SUM OF RS.19,92,39,981 BUT RESTRICTED SUCH AMOUNT TO RS.17,40,33,719 WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS, IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE THE INCOME HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 80HHC (3), THE QUESTION OF RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION I N TERMS OF SECTION 80AB WOULD NOT ARISE. THIS IS SO IN TERMS OF SECTION 80AB AS THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS ON ITS EXPORT PROFITS ALONE, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN COMPUTING ITS GROSS TOTAL INCOME. SECTION 80HHC(3) WAS INTRODUCED WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AB WERE ALREADY ON THE STATUTE. EVEN UPON READING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80AB, THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT AS PROVIDED THEREIN WOULD HAVE TO BE EFFECTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTIONS UNDER EACH OF THE RESPECTIVE SECTIONS SPE CIFIED IN PART C. AS SUCH, WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHB, 80 HHC, 80 HHD, 80 - IA AND 80 IB ETC. ONCE WOULD HAVE TO APPLY SECTION 80AB. IN TERMS OF SECTION 80AB(2), THE RESTRICTION OF THE DEDUCTION IS ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RESTRICTION ON THE TOTAL PROFIT OF BUSINESS IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION ON TOTAL PROFITS OF BUSINESS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. BOTH THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAVE HELD THE SAME AND COVER THE ISSUE SQUARELY IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE DECISION OF V M SALGAOCAR IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE AT HAND AS SECTION 80HHC IS PARI MATERIAL WITH SECTION 80IA. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE DECISIONS CITED SUPRA, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U /S.80IA TO THE APPELLANT ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND NOT RESTRICT IT TO 7 ITA NOS. 2738 TO 2743/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ALONE. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE SUCCEEDS ON MERITS OF THIS CASE. THE AO WILL HOWEVER RESTRICT THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA TO THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME IN EACH YEAR. 7. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS ALSO REFERRED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V M SALGAOCAR & BROTHERS (P) LTD. 81 TAXMANN.COM 357 WHEREIN IT WAS QUESTION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WHICH IS PARI MATERIAL WITH SECTION 80IA AND IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE THOUGH WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION A SUM OF RS.19,92,39,981/ - U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT, IT WAS RESTRICTED BY THE REVENUE AT RS.17,40,33,719/ - . IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE I NCOME HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 80HHC (3), THE QUESTION OF RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 80AB WOULD NOT ARISE. THAT SECTION 80AB(2) OF THE ACT, THE RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION IS ON GROSS TOTAL INCO ME AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, RESTRICTION ON THE TOTAL PROFIT OF BUSINESS WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT SQUARELY COVERS THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW THEREOF, THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS PROVIDED REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THAT EVEN BEFORE US, THE LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT (SUPRA.) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES HEREIN, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) AND RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2738/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IS DISMISSED. 8 ITA NOS. 2738 TO 2743/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 ITA N OS. 2739 TO 27 43/PUN/2017 A.YS. 2011 - 12 TO 2014 - 15 10. SINCE PARTIES HEREIN HAVE AGREED THAT IN ITA NOS.2739 TO 2743 /PUN/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 TO 2014 - 15, THE FACTS ARE ABSOLUTELY SIMILAR, ISSUES COMMON AS WITH THE FACTS AND ISSUES APPEARING IN ITA NO.2738/PUN/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THEREFORE, OUR DECISION RENDERED IN ITA NO.2738/PUN/2017 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS - MUTANDIS TO ITA NOS.2739 TO 2743/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 TO 2014 - 15. I N THESE APPEALS ALSO, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA N OS. 2739 TO 2743/PUN/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 1 2 TO 2014 - 15 ARE DISMISSED. 12 . IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 06 TH DAY OF OCTO BER , 20 2 1 . SD/ - SD/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 06 TH OCTOBE R , 202 1 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEAL) - 2, KOLHAPUR. 4. THE PR. CIT - 2, KOLHAPUR. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 9 ITA NOS. 2738 TO 2743/PUN/2017 A.Y. 2010 - 11 TO 2014 - 15 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 05 . 10 .2021 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 0 6 .10 .202 1 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER