The ACIT, Circle-2, Surat V. M/s. Surat National Co.Operative Bank Ltd., Surat

ITA 355/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0306 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAMES KURIEN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 142(1); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM, & SHRI MANISH BORA D, AM. ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR: 2010-11 ACIT, CIRCLE-2, SURAT. VS. M/S SURAT NATIONAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., 3/4016, NAVNIDHI NAVAPURA, KARWA ROAD, SURAT. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AAAAS 5702J APPELLANT BY SHRI JAMES KURIEN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING: 30/9/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/10/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-II, SURAT DATED 13.1 1.2013 IN PPEAL NO.CAS-II/175/2012-13 PASSED AGAINST ORDER U/S 143( 3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FRAMED ON 17.12.2012 BY DCI T, CIRCLE-2, SURAT. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE RE VENUE :- (1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHE THER THE LD.CIT(A)-II, SURAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,58,676 /- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF PREMIUM AMORTIZATION EXPENSES INCURRED ON PURCHA SE OF GOVT. SECURITIES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISI ONS IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 2 (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHE THER THE LD.CIT(A)-II, SURAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 42,76,929 /- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF PROVISIONS FOR STAFF EX-GRATIA WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THE FACT THAT A CONTINGENT LIABILITY CANNOT CONSTITUTE DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME-TAX ACT AND THUS PUTTING ASIDE AN AMOUNT WHICH MAY BECOME E XPENDITURE IN THE FUTURE IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1. (3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHE THER THE LD.CIT(A)-II, SURAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,89,508/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE MEMBERS FROM THE MEMBE RS WELFARE FUND. THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE MEMBERS WE RE ACTUALLY OWNERS OF THE BANK. (4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (5) IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) MAY BE SET-SIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTE NT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A CO- OP. BANK. RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2010-11 W AS FILED ON 17.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,45,61,640 /-. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED FOLLOWED BY NOTICE 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG W ITH QUESTIONNAIRE. NECESSARY DETAILS/INFORMATION/EVIDENCES WERE FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF RS.5,41,31,288/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.95,69, 548/- TOWARDS FOLLOWING :- 3. ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AGAINS T ALL THE ADDITIONS EXCEPT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INCOME-TAX EXP ENDITURE AT 1 DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF PREMIUM AMORTIZATION EXPEN SES RS. 21,58,676 2 DISALLOWANCE OF STAFF EX-GRATIA EXPENSES RS. 42, 76,929 3 DISALLOWANCE OF SPECIAL LONG TERM FINANCE FUND RS. 24,00,000 4 DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT TO MEMBER FROM MEMBER WELFARE FUND RS. 6,89,508 5 DISALLOWANCE OF INCOME TAX EXPENSES RS. 44,535 ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 3 RS.44,435/-. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) DELETING ALL THE ADDITION. 4. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS AGAINST THE DELETION OF RS. 21,58,676/- TOWARDS PREMIUM AMORTIZATION EXPENSES, DELETION OF RS.42,76,929/- AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF STAFF EX-GRATIA EXPENSES, D ELETION OF RS.6,89,508/- TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF PAYM ENT MADE TO ITS MEMBERS FROM WELFARE FUND. 5. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 14.9.2016 WAS PLACED ON RECORD. 6. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED AHEAD ON THE BASIS OF WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. WE HAVE H EARD THE LD. DR AND GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND T HAT ALL THE THREE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO (I) PREMIUM AMORTIZATION EXPENSES AT RS.21,58,676/-, (II) DISALLOWANCE OF ST AFF EX-GRATIA EXPENSES AT RS. 42,76,929/- & (III) DELETION OF DIS ALLOWANCE TOWARDS CLAIM OF PAYMENT MADE TO ITS MEMBERS FROM WELFARE F UND AT RS. 6,89,508/-. 8. FIRST WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.1 IN RELATION TO DELE TION OF RS. 21,58,676/- TOWARDS PREMIUM AMORTIZATION EXPENSES. WE FIND THAT CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2793/AHD/2012 ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 4 FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AN D DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS BELOW :- 6. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- '2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LE GAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE. THE ALLOWABILITY OF AMORTIZED EXPENSES ON PREMIUM ON GO VERNMENT SECURITIES HAS BEEN PROVIDED U/S. 36(1)(II) OF THE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED AND EXPLAINED BY CBDT, NEW DELHI VIDE INSTRUCTION NO. 17 OF 2008 DATED 26.11.2008. AS PER THIS CLARIFICATION, INVESTMENTS OF BANKS CLASSIFIED UNDER HTM (HELD TO MATURITY) CATEGORY NEED NOT BE MARKED TO MARKET AND ARE CARRI ED AT ACQUISITION COST UNLESS THESE ARE MORE THAN THE FACE VALUE, IN WHICH CASE, THE PREMIUM SHOULD BE AMORTIZED OVER THE PERIOD REMAINING TO MATURITY. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INSTRUCTION, DIFFERENT TRIBUNALS, AS MENTIONED ABOVE BY ASSESSEE , HAVE ALLOWED THE AMORTIZED EXPENDITURE. THE AO HAS IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF I NSTRUCTION WHICH IS BINDING ON HIM WHILE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AND DISALLOWING T HE EXPENDITURE. SINCE, THE INSTRUCTIONS AND CIRCULARS ARE BINDING IN NATURE ON AOS AND DIFFERENT TRIBUNALS HAVE GIVEN DECISIONS AGAINST THE REVENUE, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND ADDITION MADE BY AO IS DELETED.' SINCE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE B Y PLACING RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF TRIBUNALS ON THE ISSUE IN VIEW OF CBDT INSTRUCTION DATED 26-11- 2008, WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER P ASSED BY HIM AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED 9. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PRIME CO-OP. BANK LTD. IN ITA NO.2791/AHD/2012 FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 23.8.2013 HAS DECIDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSE E BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 6. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- '2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LE GAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE. THE ALLOWABILITY OF AMORTIZED EXPENSES ON PREMIUM ON GO VERNMENT SECURITIES HAS BEEN PROVIDED U/S.36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT AND I.T.A N O.2791/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009- 10 PAGE NO 5 DCIT VS. PRIME CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THESE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED AND EXPLAINED BY CBDT, NEW DELHT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.17 2008 DATED 26.11.2008. AS PER THI S CLARIFICATION, INVESTMENTS OF ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 5 BANKS CLASSIFIED UNDER HTM (HELD TO MATURITY) CATEG ORY NEED NOT BE MARKED TO MARKET AND ARE CARRIED AT ACQUISITION COST UNLESS T HESE ARE MORE THAN THE FACE VALUE, IN WHICH CASE, THE PREMIUM SHOULD BE AMORTIZ ED OVER THE PERIOD REMAINING TO MATURITY. ON THE BASIS OF THIS INSTRUCTION, DIFF ERENT TRIBUNALS, MENTIONED ABOVE BY ASSESSES, HAVE ALLOWED THE AMORTIZED EXPEN DITURE. THE AO HAS IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF INSTRUCTION WHICH IS BINDING ON H IM WHILE DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AND DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE. SINCE, THE INSTRUC TIONS AND CIRCULARS ARE BINDING IN NATURE ON AO'S AND DIFFERENT TRIBUNALS HAVE GIVE N DECISIONS AGAINST THE REVENUE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND ADDITION MADE BY AO IS DELETED.' SINCE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE B Y PLACING RELIANCE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF TRIBUNALS ON THE ISSUE IN VIEW OF CBDT INSTRUCTION DATED 26-11- 2008, WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER P ASSED BY HIM AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. 10. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRI BUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF CBDT INSTRUCTION DATED 26.11.2008. WE, T HEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AN D UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE O F RS. RS. 42,76,929/- ON ACCOUNT OF EX-GRATIA PAYMENT TO STAF F, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.2793/AHD/2012 FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 AND THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE SAME VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.08.201 3 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 14. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- '4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS ON THE ISSUE AND F OUND THAT AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF EX-GRATIA PAID TO STAFF MEMBERS ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE PROVISIONAL EXPENSES BEING UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND ANY CONTINGENT LIABILITY CANNOT CONSTITUTE DEDUCTIB LE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF IT ACT . IN MY OPINION, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY AO IS MISP LACED. THE AMOUNT OF EX-GRATIA HAS BEEN DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF ME MORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 6 ENTERED INTO BY BANK WITH UNION OF EMPLOYEES. THE C OPY OF MEMORANDUM, SIGNED BY ALL THE STAFF MEMBERS, IS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT WHICH CONTAINS THE METHOD OF WORKING THE EX-GRATIA PAYMENTS. MOREOVER, THESE EXP ENSES ARE NOT CLAIMED BY APPELLANT FIRST TIME. IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO I.E . IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09, APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EX-GRATIA EXPENSES OF RS. 29, 15,540/- AND RS.32,84,023/- RESPECTIVELY WHICH WERE ALLOWED ALSO BY AO WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION. SINCE, THESE EXPENSES ARE BEING REGULARLY INCURRED AND CLA IMED BY APPELLANT AND WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, IT IS ASCERTAINED LIABILITY WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . IN VIEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT EX- GRATIA EXPENSES OF RS. 38,00,386/-ARE ALLOWABLE EXP ENSES THEREFORE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED.' SINCE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT EXPENSES BEING REGULARLY INCURRED AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E AND WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IT IS ASCERTAINABLE LIABILITY WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISION OF THE ACT, WE ARE NOT INCLINE D TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. I.T.A NO.2793/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2009 -10 PAGE NO 10 DCIT VS. SURAT NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 12. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRI BUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. 13. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3 IN RELATION TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.6,89,508/- TO MEMBERS FROM ITS WEL FARE FUND, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.3242/AHD/2010 FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 AND THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 23.08.2013 HAS DECIDED THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 7. GROUND NO.2 OF APPEAL IS AGAINST NOT ALLOWING DE DUCTION OF RS,3,33,0887-IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT SPENT FOR WELFARE OF THE MEMBERS. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT RS.3,33,0887- UNDER THE HEAD 'MEMBERS WELFARE FUND' BEFORE OFFERING THE PROFIT F OR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHICH W AS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 7 VIDE LETTER DATED 05-11-2009. THE ASSESSEE'S REPLY WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO BUT IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT MEMBERS ARE OWNER OF THE BANK AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE OWNER CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS PROVIDED U/S 37 OF THE A CT. THUS, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,33,0887-. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER;- '7. DECISION: 7,1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT. IN SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE CONCERNED, THE SAM E ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS ARE IN R ESPECT OFCO-OP. SOCIETIES AND NOT IN C-OP. BANKS, WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY THE RBI G UIDELINES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ABOVE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IS NOT FROM THE INCOME OF THIS YEAR, BUT CR EATED OUT OF PROFIT OF EARLIER YEARS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED AS TO W HETHER THE ABOVE CLAIM IS AS PER THE RBI GUIDELINES AND CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 17 OF 2008 DID. 26.11.2008. I VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ALLOWING THE ABOVE DEDUCTION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAIN DRAWN OUT ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOO K AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ARGUED THAT T O CREATE INTEREST IN THE MEMBERS BY THE BANK AND KEEP THE RELATION ALIVE BET WEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE MEMBERS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR CERTAIN EXPENDIT URE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT, GUJ. - III VS DASCROI TALUKA CO-OPERATIVE PURCHASE & SALES UNION LTD. REPORTED IN 126 ITR 413 WHEREIN AS SESSEE'S EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF SILVER JUBILEE AND PURCHASE OF PRESENTATION OF ARTICLES TO THE MEMBERS WERE HELD TO BE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXC LUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS U/S 37OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE GUJ' ARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KARJAN CO-OPERATIVE COTTON SALES JINNING & PRESSING SOCIETY REPORTED IN 199 ITR 17 AND PRAYED THAT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM MAY BE ALLOWED. 9. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE IS WITH RESPECT OF WELFARE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO MAINTAIN G OOD RELATION WITH THE MEMBERS AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE EXP ENDITURE TOWARDS THE WELFARE OF THE MEMBERS. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASES, SUPRA, SUCH TYPE OF EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS U/S 37 OF THE ACT. THUS WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE STANDS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 8 14. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE TRI BUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF ASSESSEE WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. 15. OTHER GROUNDS ARE OF GENERAL NATURE, WHICH NEED NO ADJUDICATION IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 5 /10/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 355/AHD/2014 ASST. YEAR 2010-11 9 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 30/09/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 5/10/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK:6 /10/16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: