Transpek Silox Industry Ltd., Baroda V. The Addl. CIT.,Range-4, Baroda

ITA 3021/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9150 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET BAKSHI
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 3021/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) TRANSPEK SILOX INDUSTRY LTD. KALALI ROAD, ATLADRA, BARODA-390012 V/S ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4, BARODA-390007 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACT3739J APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANKET BAKSHI, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHISH POPHARE, SR. D. R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 27 -02-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 -02-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III, BARODA DATED 18.10.2013 PERT AINING TO A.Y. 2010-11. 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 3021 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-11 2 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ALLOCATING MANAGERIAL COMMISSION OF RS. 1,22,08,800 /- AND SALARY, WAGES & BONUS OF RS. 3,77,46,150/- IN THE RATIO OF TURNOVER TO THE SILVASSA UNIT II AND THEREBY REDUCING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ALLOCATING MANAGERIAL COMMISSION OF RS. 1,22,08,800 /- IN THE RATIO OF TURNOVER TO THE SILVASSA UNIT II DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMOU NT OF MANAGERIAL COMMISSION WAS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SAL ARY, WAGES & BONUS OF RS. 3,77,46,150/- AND THEREBY CONFIRMING DOUBLE ADJUSTM ENT MADE BY THE AO. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 IN ITA NOS. 1086 & 1087/AHD/2013. 4. THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT BRING ANY DISTINGUISHING DEC ISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. A PERUS AL OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHOWS THAT HE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN THE APPELLANTS CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN APPEAL NO. CAB /III-214/2011-12. THE MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNA L IN ITA NO. 1086 & 1087/AHD/2013 FOR A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 HAD CONSI DERED SIMILAR ISSUES AND HELD AS UNDER:- 18. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE ALLOCA TION OF EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN EXHIBITED ELSEWHERE. IN OUR CONSIDERED ITA NO. 3021 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-11 3 OPINION, ONLY THOSE EXPENSES WHICH HAVE DIRECT NEXU S WITH CARRYING ON ACTIVITY OF UNDERTAKING HAS TO BE REDUCED FOR DETER MINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION AND THOSE EXPENSES WHICH HAVE INDIRECT OR REMOTE NEXUS SHOULD NOT BE DEDUCTED. FOR THIS PROPO SITION, WE DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DELHI IN THE CASE OF CATVISION PRODUCTS LTD. 142 TAXMANN.COM 104 IN I TA NO. 4436 AND 4590/DEL/1996. 19. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO. 219 OF 2006 AN D 267, 269, 270,273 & 274 OF 2008 HAD THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW:- WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE COMMON HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES CANNOT BE APPORTIONED TO THE VARIOUS UNITS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE TURN OVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B, 80I AND 80HH? 20. AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THA T IT FOLLOWED THE ORDERS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1981-82 TO 1991-92 DATED 28.5.2 002 DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL S WERE ALLOWED. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THIS COURT T HE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER PASSED IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE ON THE IDENTICAL CLAIM DEAL T WITH UNDER PARAGRAPH 28 OF THE ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85, PARA GRAPH 53 OF THE ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1987-88 AND PARAGRAPH 77 OF THE ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. THE TRIBUNAL POINTED OUT THAT THE HEA D OFFICE MONITORED THE REQUIREMENT OF FINANCE AND OTHER ACTION WHICH WERE NECESSARY FOR RUNNING ALL THE UNITS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TH OUGH RELATABLE TO THE VARIOUS ITA NO. 3021 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-11 4 UNITS, ARE EXPENSES INCURRED IN GENERAL, TOWARDS TH E WELL BEING OF THE BUSINESS. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE HOLDING THAT THE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE PROPORTIONATELY DISTRIBUTED A MONG THE VARIOUS UNITS OR ALLOTTED TO ANY PARTICULAR UNIT INDEPENDENTLY. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT BEEN CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS C OURT BY WAY OF FILING ANY TAX CASE (APPEAL) AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HA D ATTAINED FINALITY. PRESENT TAX CASE (APPEAL) IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994 -95, 1995-96, 1996-97 AND 1997-98. WHEN THE SAME WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LEARN ED STANDING COUNSEL, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT R EPORTED IN 248 ITR 432 CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LIMITED V. STATE OF KARNATAKA A S WELL AS TO THE DECISION OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT REPOR TED IN (2012) 81 CCH 031 PRESTIGE FOODS LIMITED V. CIT, AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE COMMON EXPENSES BE APPORTIONED AMONG THE VARIOUS UNITS DEPENDING ON THE TURNOVER. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE ABOVE STATED DECISIONS WOULD BE OF AN Y ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE, PARTICULARLY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT. 4. A READING OF THE APEX COURT DECISION REPORTED IN 248 ITR 432 CONSOLIDATED COFFEE LIMITED V. STATE OF KARNATAKA S HOWS THAT IT RELATES TO THE CLAIM UNDER THE KARNATAKA AGRICULTUR AL INCOME TAX ACT, 1957 AND A SPECIFIC RULE FRAMED IN 1957. THE APEX COURT REFERR ED TO RULE 7 OF THE KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX RULES, WHICH READS AS FOLLO WS:- 'COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION ON MIXED INCOME WHERE A D EDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY ITEM ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 5 OR UNDER RULE 5, IS A COMMON CHARGE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DERIVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME ASSESSA BLE UNDER THE ACT, AND INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922, T HE DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT SHALL BE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RELATING T O THE INCOME DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND PROVED BY ACCOUNTS OR O THER CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. WHERE NO SUCH ACCOUNTS OR EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER SHALL PROCEED TO ASSESS THE INCOME TO THE B EST OF HIS JUDGMENT.' 5. REFERRING TO RULE 5 OF THE KARNATAKA AGRICULTURA L INCOME TAX RULES, THE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE CRUCIAL WORDS IN THE SAID RULE ARE THAT THE ITA NO. 3021 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-11 5 DEDUCTIONS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT SHALL BE THE AC TUAL AMOUNT RELATING TO THE INCOME DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND PRO VED BY ACCOUNTS OR OTHER CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. WHERE NO SUCH ACCOUNTS OR EVID ENCE AVAILABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN PROCEED TO ASSESS THE INCOME TO THE BES T OF HIS JUDGMENT. IN CONFIRMING THE VIEW OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, TH E SUPREME COURT ALSO AFFIRMED THE SIMILAR VIEW RENDERED BY THIS COURT IN THE DECISION REPORTED IN 130 ITR 908 CIT V. MANJUSHREE PLANTATIONS LIMITED. 6. AS FAR AS THE ABOVE STATED DECISION IS CONCERNED , THE DEDUCTION IS BASED ON RULE 5. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, AND MORE SO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH PROVISION, THERE BEING NO M ATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE THOUGH COMMON WERE WITH REFERENCE TO IN DIVIDUAL UNITS RELATABLE TO THE INCOME EARNED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE G ROUND TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE CONTENTION THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED WAS FOR THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT OF THE UNITS AS WELL AS FOR PROVIDING FINANCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IS MI SPLACED. 7. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE MADHYA PRADESH HIG H COURT REPORTED IN (2012) 81 CCH 031 PRESTIGE FOODS LIMITED V. C1T, IS CONCERNED , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE UNITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE DEDUCIBILITY. THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT VIEWED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS BEING MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO EST ABLISH THAT THE PARTICULAR EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR ITS PARTICULAR UNIT OUT OF ITS TWO UNITS, THE EXPENSES HAD TO BE TREATED AS ONE FOR BOTH THE UNITS WHICH H AS TO BE DIVIDED BASED ON THE PROPORTIONATE TO THE TURNOVER. THE QUESTION THAT AR ISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS NOT THE SAME AS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE MADHYA PRADESH H IGH COURT. IT IS NOT DENIED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE'S UNITS HAVE SEPARATE ACCOUNTS INDICATING THEIR INCOME AND THE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CLAI M ANY DEDUCTION ON THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE HEAD OFFICE. THE ONLY QUES TION IS AS TO WHETHER THE COMMON EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE HEAD OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING THE UNITS WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE SUBJECTED TO THE DOCTRI NE OF PROPORTIONALITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION. ITA NO. 3021 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-11 6 21. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO. 8 OF 20 07 WAS SEIZED WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW. WHETHER TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE A LLOCATION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE HEAD OFFICE AM ONG THE FOUR MANUFACTURING UNITS ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE EXPENDITURE SO IN CURRED WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THESE MANUFACTURING UNITS? 22. AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- THE HEAD OFFICE AND EACH OF THE UNITS HAVE THEIR OW N SEPARATE R&D DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING LABORATORIES. THE R&D WORK R ELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MEDICINAL PRODUCTS. NONE OF THE UNITS MANUFACTURED THESE PRODUCTS. THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON A T THE UNITS DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE NEW DRUGS DEVELOPED/TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE S AID R&D ACTIVITIES. [PARA 5] IT IS NOT THE RESPONDENT'S CASE THAT ANY OF THE UNI TS HAD BENEFITED BY THE SAID R&D ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE NEW DRUGS OR HAD U TILIZED THE RESULTANT BENEFIT THEREOF, IF ANY, IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. IT IS NOT THE RESPONDENT'S CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURED THE SAID NEW DR UGS THROUGH OR EVEN WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THESE UNITS. EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS, IT IS NOT EVEN THE RESPONDENT'S CASE THAT THE EXISTING ACTIVITIES OF ANY OF THE UNITS IN FACT BENEFITED FROM OR COULD BENEFIT FROM THE SAID R&D ACTIVITIES. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT EACH OF THE UNITS MANUFACTURES DIFFERENT ITEMS AND, THEREFORE, ALSO C ARRIES OUT INDEPENDENT R&D WORK. [PARA 8] WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE CONCER NED UNDERTAKING, ONLY EXPENSES RELATING THERETO CAN BE DEDUCTED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE EXPENSES MUST BE INCURRED, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CONCERNED UND ERTAKING. THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY OTHER UNIT OR THE HEAD OFFICE E XPENSES WHICH HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, CANNOT BE DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF THE ITA NO. 3021 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-11 7 SAID UNDERTAKING WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GA INS OF THE UNDERTAKING. [PARA 10] REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT ANY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE HEAD OFFICE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY ENSURE TO THE B ENEFIT OF THE UNITS/INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS. THE SUBMISSION PROCEEDS ON AN ERRONEOUS BASIS AND D OES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT ALL. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAID R&D ACTIVITIES WERE IN RELATION TO THE NEW DRUGS. THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE ASSESSEE DECIDING TO COMMERCIAL LY EXPLOIT THE BENEFITS OF THE R&D WORK, THE PRODUCTS WOULD BE MANUFACTURED BY THE SAID UNITS. THE FALLACY IN THE SUBMISSIONS PROCEEDS ON THE HYPOTHETICAL BAS IS THAT THE SAID PRODUCTS WOULD BE MANUFACTURED BY EACH OF THE UNITS OR ANY O NE OF THEM. [PARAS 16 & 17] THE FALLACY ALSO ARISES ON ACCOUNT OF AN ERRONEOUS PRESUMPTION THAT THE BENEFIT OF ANY R&D ACTIVITY CAN ONLY BE EXPLOITED B Y AN ENTERPRISE UTILIZING THE SAME IN ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THAT IS N OT SO. AN ENTERPRISE CAN ALWAYS ASSIGN THE BENEFIT THEREOF TO A THIRD PARTY. IT CAN ALWAYS GRANT A LICENCE IN RESPECT OF ANY PATENT OR DESIGN TO A THI RD PARTY. IN THAT EVENT, THE OTHER UNITS WOULD NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT IN RESPECT THEREOF. THE PRESUMPTION OF A NEXUS BETWEEN THE R&D ACTIVITIES AND THE UNITS IS NOT WELL FOUNDED. [PARA 18] THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE ALLOCATION OF R&D EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE HEAD OFFICE AMONG MANUFACT URING UNITS. [PARA 19] 23. IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS DISCU SSED HEREINABOVE , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR SILVASSA UNIT-I & II AS EVIDENT FROM THE TWO AUDIT REPORTS E XHIBITED AT PAGES 7 TO 19 AND 20 TO 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOWS THAT THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES HAVE BE EN MADE MORE OUT OF COMPULSION THEN OUT OF NECESSITY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND THE ITA NO. 3021 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-11 8 UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS, THE A.O. HAS NOT POINTE D OUT ANY FLAW OR DEFECT IN THE ALLOCATIONS STATEMENT EXHIBITED ELSEWHERE. W E FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE MANAGERIAL C OMMISSION CANNOT BE ALLOTTED TO THE SILVASSA UNIT. WE ALSO AGREE THAT O NLY EXPENSES RELATING TO THE CONCERNED UNDERTAKING SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM T HE PROFITS THEREON. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DIRECT NEXUS BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR THE IMPUGNED ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SAID ALLOCATION. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRE CT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ALLOCATIONS RE-DRAWN BY HIM. THIS GRIEVANCE IS ACCO RDINGLY ALLOWED. 24. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE RELATES TO THE DOUBLE ALL OCATION OF MANAGERIAL COMMISSION. THE LD. COUNSEL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED COMMON EXPENSES TO THE PROFITS OF SILVASS A UNIT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB WHICH INCLUDED MANAGERIAL REMUN ERATION, SALARY AND WAGES. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. FURTHER ALLOCATED EXPENDITURE AND THE ADDI TIONAL ALLOCATION WORKED OUT BY THE A.O. ONCE AGAIN INCLUDE MANAGERIA L COMMISSION AND REMUNERATION. THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT BRING ANY DIST INGUISHING FACT. 25. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY INCLUDED THE MANAGERIAL COMMIS SION AND REMUNERATION WHILE ALLOCATING COMMON EXPENSES TO TH E SILVASSA UNIT. THE A.O. HAS ONCE AGAIN INCLUDED THESE EXPENSES WHILE C OMPUTING THE RE- ALLOCATION. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE A.O. TO VER IFY THE COMPUTATION ONCE AGAIN AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF O UR FINDINGS GIVEN FOR GROUND NO. 1. GROUND NO. 2 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO. 3021 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2010-11 9 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED AND GROUND N O. 2 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 - 02- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 28 /02/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD