Indusa Infotech Services Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 3405/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0468 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Question of law; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUN TANT MEMBER INDUSA INFOTECH SERVIES PVT. LTD 2 ND FLOOR, GNFC INFO TOWER SARKHEJ GANDHINAGAR HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD PAN NO. AAACI6432R (APPELLANT) VS . INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3) AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SRI Y.P. VERMA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SRI SUNIL TALATI, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04-3-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-03-2013 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-VIII DATED 21-01-2010 & 14-10-2010. ITA NO. 3404,3405 & 3406/AHD/2010 A.Y.:-2005-06,2006-07 &2007-08 RESPECTIVELY I.T.A NOS. 3404,3405 &3406/ADH/2010 A.Y. 2005-06,06 -07&2007-08 PAGE INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER 2 2. SINCE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS SAME, W E ARE DISPOSING OF THESE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER BY TAKING THE FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF R EDUCING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AT RS. 6,7 0,900/- BY ERRONEOUSLY CALCULATING THE SAME. THE LEARNED CIT( A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE REDUCTION OF THE BR OUGHT FORWARD LOSS AND DEPRECIATION OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, 2002-0 3 AND 2003-04 AGGREGATING TO RS. 34,10,405/- FROM THE CURRENT YEA R ELIGIBLE PROFIT OF STPI (SEC. 10A) UNIT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IGNORED T HE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSMENT WHEREIN THE ABOVE LOSS/ UNABSORBED DEPRE CIATION WAS DULY RETURNED AND ACCEPTED AS NON-STPI LOSS/ DEPRECIATIO N. IT BE SO HELD NOW THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10A WAS ALLOWABLE AT RS . 41,51,891/- AS CLAIMED WITHOUT REDUCING THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS/U NABSORBED DEPRECIATION WHICH MAY BE HELD TO BE PERTAINING TO NON-STPI UNIT ACTIVITIES. 2. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT THE SAME BE HELD SO NOW. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF RS. 41,51,891/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT STPI G ANDHINAGAR HAS GRANTED AN APPROVAL FOR 5 YEARS AS 100 % EOU FOR COMPUTER S OFTWARE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME AUTHORITY GRANTED EXTENSION OF 5 YEARS FOR SAME APPROVAL BY ITS LETTER DATED 18-12-2006. HE HAS FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION A S UNDER:- I.T.A NOS. 3404,3405 &3406/ADH/2010 A.Y. 2005-06,06 -07&2007-08 PAGE INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER 3 A.Y. CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES CARRIED FORWARD DEPRECIATION LOSSES 2001-02 978047 - 2002-03 1421316 39650 2003-04 951507 20185 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY WHETHER THE AMOUN T OF CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ARE REL ATED TO STPI BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AS THE ASSESSEE IS 100 % EOU UNDER THE APPROVAL OF STPI. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10A WITHOUT SET OFF OF BALANCE OF CARRIED FORWARD DEPRE CIATION/LOSSES. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. IN HIS O RDER AS UNDER:- PARA NO.5 OF SUBMISSION DATED 24/11/2008 WITH REGARD TO THE POINT NO. 3(IV) OF YOUR QUERY ON THIS ITEM. PLEASE NOTE THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A, WHICH S AYS THAT SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS F THAT SECTION 10(A), A DEDUCTION OF SUC H PROFITS/GAINS AS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES O R THING OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD OF ASSESSMEN T YEARS SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM THAT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS IN RESPECT OF PROFIT EARNED IN SECTION 10A UNIT IS TO BE GIVEN A DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE , PROFIT AND GAINS IS TO BE FIRST OF THE TOTAL PROFITS OF THE CO MPANY AMOUNTING TO RS. 44,46,871/- PROFIT PERTAINING TO SECTION 10A UNIT A S PER FORM NO. 56F IS OF RS. 41,51,891/- WHICH IS DEDUCTED AS PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 10A(1) REMAINING THEREBY INCOME OF RS. 2,94,980/- WHICH PE RTAINING TO NONSTIP/DOMESTIC ACTIVITY. IT IS ONLY AGAINST THIS TAXABLE INCOME RS. 2,94,980/- THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS O F A.Y. 2001-02, 2002-03 & 200304 WHICH DO NOT PERTAINING TO STPI UN IT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SAME CAN BE SET-OFF IN FUTURE AGAINST INCO ME FROM UNIT OTHER THAN NON-STPI OR AGAINST PROFIT FROM DOMESTIC ACTIV ITIES. I.T.A NOS. 3404,3405 &3406/ADH/2010 A.Y. 2005-06,06 -07&2007-08 PAGE INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER 4 PARA 1 OF SUBMISSION DATED 08/12/2008 WITH REGARD TO YOUR QUERY REGARDING CLAIM OF EDUCAT ION U/S. 10A SEEKING REASONS WHY SUCH DEDUCTION (NO EXEMPTION AS MENTIONED BY YOU) IS CLAIMED IN PRESENCE OF BALANCE OF CARRIED F ORWARD DEPRECIATION/LOSSES, WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT THIS HA S BEEN EXPLAINED IN DETAILS IN OUR SUBMISSION DATED 24/11/2008 AT PARA- 5. FURTHER PLEASE NOTE THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2001 ONWARDS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10A HAVE UNDERGONE SOME AMENDMENTS AND INSTEAD OF E XEMPTION PROVISION, THE LANGUAGE USED IS DEDUCTION, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF 10A UNITS. IN VIEW OF THE DELIBERATE AM ENDMENTS MADE IN THE PROVISION OF SEC. 10A AND CONSEQUENTIAL SUB-SEC TION (6) OF SECTION 10A, IT IS NOW ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WHILE COMPUTIN G DEDUCTION U/S. 10A THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR TH E PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION IS TO BE COMPU TED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY OF THE UNDERTAKING IS THE ONLY SO URCE OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, ANY DEPRECIATION/LOSS PERTAINING TO OTHE R ACTIVITIES (IN OUR CASE NON STPI ACTIVITIES) CANNOT BE TAKEN IN TO ACC OUNT. THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10A IS FIRST TO BE DETERMINED AN D GIVEN DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10A ITSELF. IF ANY INCOME OF ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN STPI ACTIVITIES IS EARNED, THE LOSS/DEPR ECIATION BROUGHT FORWARD IN RESPECT OF SUCH NITS CAN BE SET-OFF AGAI NST SUCH INCOME ON WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DONE AS PER THE STATE OF INCO ME. IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE CHENNAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHANGEPOND TECHNOLOGIES (P) V/S. ACI T IN ITA NO. 731/MDS/2007(2008) 119 TTJ(CHENNAI) 18. A COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID DECISION IS ENCLOSED. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF LOSS (DIFFERENCE) ON AC COUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION ON RESTATEMENT OF CURRENT ASSE TS AND LIABILITIES, PLEASE NOTE THAT HE ISSUE IS NOW SETTLED BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. WOODWARD GOVERNOR IND IA PVT. LTD. (2007) 294 ITR 451 WHICH IS FOLLOWED BY HONBLE DEL HI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SONI INDIA PVT. LTD. V/S. DCIT(2008) 11 8 TTJ (DEL) 865 A COPY OF RELEVANT PRONOUNCEMENT IS ENCLOSED. I.T.A NOS. 3404,3405 &3406/ADH/2010 A.Y. 2005-06,06 -07&2007-08 PAGE INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER 5 4. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THESE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 5.(II) AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION, IT IS FOUND THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOU NT OF CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION ARE PERTAINED TO NO N-STPI ACTIVITIES OF THE MUMBAI UNIT. IN THIS REFERENCE, IT IS OBSERV ED FROM THE ASSESSEE'S RECORD THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVI TIES/RECEIPT OF MUMBAI UNIT OF THE COMPANY FROM F.Y 2001-02 AND THE BIFURCATION OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF AHMEDABAD AND MUMBAI UNIT IS AS UNDER:- A.Y.2002-03 A.Y.2003-04 INCOME FROM OPERATIONS ABAD MUMBAI ABAD MUMBAI SOFTWARE EXPORTS 14814410 0 8016701 0 SOFTWARE DOMESTIC SALES 0 288300 0 ONSITE SERVICE 620378 0 8305001 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 1450835 1223985 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE CHART THAT THERE IS N O BUSINESS ACTIVITIES/RECEIPT OF MUMBAI UNIT OF THE COMPANY FR OM F.Y 2001-02 AND ONWARD THOUGH, THE ASSESSES HAS DEBITED EXPENSE S FOR MUMBAI UNIT. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM O F EXPENDITURE IN MUMBAI UNIT IS ONLY AN ADJUSTMENT ENTRY AND DIVERSI ON OF THE EXPENDITURE OF THE COMPANY TO ENHANCE THE PROFIT OF STPI UNIT I.E. AHMEDABAD UNIT TO CLAIM MORE DEDUCTION U/S 10A. ACTUALLY, THE EXPENDITURES ARE RELATED TO STPI UNIT ONLY. HENCE, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES RELATED TO THOSE YEARS PERTAIN TO AHMEDABAD STPI UNIT, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT MUMBA I OFFICE IS A PART OF THE AHMEDABAD STPI UNIT AND IT IS LIAISON OFFICE FOR STPI UNIT. THEREFORE THE EXPENSES INCURRED SHOULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFIT OF AHMEDABAD UNIT TO ARR IVE AT REAL PROFIT OF STPI UNIT. AND ACCORDINGLY THE CARRY FORWARDED LOSS AND ABSORBED D EPRECATION ARE REQUIRED TO BE SET-OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT OF STPI U NIT TO COMPUTE THE I.T.A NOS. 3404,3405 &3406/ADH/2010 A.Y. 2005-06,06 -07&2007-08 PAGE INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER 6 REAL PROFIT OF STPI UNIT BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE AMOUNT OF LOSSES BROUGHT FORWA RDED IS SET-OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE BEFORE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 10A. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VIEW THAT THE GENUINE CARR IED FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF NON-STPI UNIT OF BOMBAY HAS TO BE FIRST SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF STPI UNIT AND T HEN ONLY ON THE BALANCE INCOME, THE INCOME CAN BE CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S 10A. 6. FURTHER AGGRIEVED NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US AND AT THE TIME OF HEARING AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS NOW COVERED BY THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. ACE SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD (GUJ) TAX APPEAL NO. 687 (2012) IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. ACE SOFTWARE EXPORTS LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN HONBLE H IGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 1. REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 22.05.2012 RAISING FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR OUR CONS IDERATION: I.T.A NOS. 3404,3405 &3406/ADH/2010 A.Y. 2005-06,06 -07&2007-08 PAGE INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER 7 1. WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT DED UCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S10A OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF STP RAJKOT UNIT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES OF OTHER UN ITS AND WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES/UNABSORBED DEP RECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS? 2. WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE CI T(A)S ORDER WHEREBY DIRECTION IS GIVEN TO REVISE THE REDUCTION OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIE R YEARS AND REDUCE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER GIVING APPE AL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE APPELLANT S CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED? 2. SHORT ISSUE IS WHETHER DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SHOULD BE A LLOWED WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT OF LOSSES OF OTHER UNITS AND WITHOUT ADJ USTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND/OR ITS DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER Y EARS. 3. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED SUCH QUESTION IN LIGHT OF A DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BLACK AND VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN [2012] 348 ITR 72 (BOM) AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX VS. BLACK AND VEATCH CONS ULTING PVT LTD. (SUPRA) SAME ISSUE CAME-UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WHICH IT WAS DECIDED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. 4. SECTION 10A IS A PROVISION WHICH IS IN THE NATUR E OF A DEDUCTION AND NOT AN EXEMPTION. THIS WAS EMPHASIZED IN A JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WHILE CONSTRUING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 10B, IN HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS. DEPUTY CIT [2010] 325 I TR 102 (BOM) AT PARAGRAPH 24. THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE LITERS READING OF SECTION 10A UNDER WHICH A DED UCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR A PERIO D OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE I.T.A NOS. 3404,3405 &3406/ADH/2010 A.Y. 2005-06,06 -07&2007-08 PAGE INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER 8 ASSESSES. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A, IN OUR V IEW, HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTING THE PROFI TS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THIS IS ANTERIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 72 WHICH DEALS WITH THE CARRY FORWARD AND S ET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES. A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEGISLA TURE WHILE INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI-A SECTIO N 80A(1) STIPULATES THAT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSES, THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME, IN AC CORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, THE DEDUC TIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 80C TO 80U. SECTION 80B(5) DEFINES FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHAPTER VI-A GROSS TOTAL INCOME TO MEAN THE TOTAL I NCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BEFOR E MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THE CHAPTER. WHAT THE REVENUE IN E SSENCE SEEKS TO ATTAIN IS TO TELESCOPE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI -A IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEDUCTION WHICH IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 10A, WHICH WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE UNLESS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIO N TO THAT EFFECT WERE TO BE MADE. IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, SUCH AN APPROAC H CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFIRMED SINCE IT IS PLAIN AND EVIDENT T HAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A HAS TO BE GIVEN AT THE STAGE WHEN THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ARE COMPUTED IN THE FIRST INSTANC E. SO CONSTRUED, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SU BSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AND SHALL ACCORDINGLY STAND DISMISSED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 5. WE NOTICE THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS FOLLOWED BY THE SAME HIGH COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 VS, S CHMETZ INDIA (P.) LTD., [2012] 211 TAXMAN 59=[2012] 26 TEXMAN.COM 336 (BOM). 6. HAVING PERUSED THE STATUTORY PROVISION CONTAINE D IN SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS SECTION 80A, WE SEE NO RE ASON TO TAKE A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS IN THE PRES ENT CASE. RESULTANTLY, TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THESE APPEALS IS ALLOWED. I.T.A NOS. 3404,3405 &3406/ADH/2010 A.Y. 2005-06,06 -07&2007-08 PAGE INDUSA INFOTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD VS. INCOME-TAX OF FICER 9 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( D.K.TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 08/03/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. ! , ' , #$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. %& '( / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ) / # * ' , #$