M/s Sirmour Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour V. ITO, Nahan

ITA 376/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5137 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KANIKA GUPTA CAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 374/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD., VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, NAHAN ROAD, PARWANOO KALA AMB, DISTT SIRMOUR PAN NO. AACCS5530J ITA NO. 375/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD., VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, NAHAN ROAD, PARWANOO KALA AMB, DISTT SIRMOUR PAN NO. AACCS5530J ITA NO. 376/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD., VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE, NAHAN ROALD, PARWANOO KALA AMB, DISTT SIRMOUR PAN NO. AACCS5539J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHWANI KUMAR & MS. KANIKA GUPTA, CAS RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 19.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.03.2018 ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 2 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATING TO THE DIFFERE NT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFT ER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] SHIMLA DATED 30.12.2016. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS AS T O WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN RUNNING OF A HOTEL IS ENTITLED T O DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON AC COUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ITA NO. 374/CHD/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS TAKEN, AS THE LEAD C ASE FOR DISCUSSION OF FACTS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IS RUNNING A HOTEL AT KALA AMB UNDER THE NA ME OF BLACK MANGO HOTEL IN DISTRICT SIMOUR IN THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED D EDUCTION @ 100% OF THE NET PROFITS U/S 80IC OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF S UBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT CLAIMED TO BE CARRIED OUT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 20 05-06. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT WAS RUNNING AN ECO-TOURISM PROJECT AS MENTIONED IN XIV SCHEDULE, PART C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, AT THIS STAGE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 80IC AND SCHEDULE XIV OF THE ACT :- SECTION 80IC SPECIAL PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN UNDERTAKIN GS OR ENTERPRISES IN CERTAIN SPECIAL CATEGORY STATES. 80-IC. (1) . ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 3 (B) WHICH HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PR ODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING, SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHED ULE OR COMMENCES ANY OPERATION SPECIFIED IN THAT SCHEDULE, OR WHICH MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ANY ARTICLE OR THING , SPECIFIED IN THE FOURTEENTH SCHEDULE OR COMMENCES A NY OPERATION SPECIFIED IN THAT SCHEDULE AND UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING . (II) ON THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2003 AND ENDING BE FORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2012, IN THE STATE OF HIMACHA L PRADESH OR THE STATE OF UTTARANCHAL; OR (8) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (I) (IX) 'SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION' MEANS INCREASE IN THE INVESTMENT IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY BY AT LEAST F IFTY PER CENT OF THE BOOK VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY (BEFORE TAKING DEPRECIATION IN ANY YEAR), AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN; .. SCH XIV LIST OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR OPERATIONS . PART C FOR THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND THE STATE OF UTTARANCHAL S.NO. ACTIVITY OR ARTICLE OR THING OR OPERATION 4/6 DIGIT EXCISE CLASSIFICATION SUB-CLASS UNDER NIC CLASSIFICATION ON1998 ITC (HS) CLASSIFICATION 4/6 DIGIT 1. . 15 ECO-TOURISM INCLUDING HOTELS, RESORTS, SPA, ENTERTAINMENT / AMUSEMENT PARTS AND ROPEWAYS - 55101 ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 4 4. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS REVEALS THAT T HESE ARE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR PROMOTION OF CERTAIN CLASS OF INDUST RY IN THE SPECIFIC STATES OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UTTARANCHAL. THE DEDUCTIONS UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT IS ADMISSIBLE TO AN UNDERTA KING WHO HAS BEGUN OR BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THI NG, AS SPECIFIED IN XIV SCHEDULE OR COMMENCES ANY OPERATION AS SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE AND EVEN THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION IS ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE I NDUSTRIES WHO ARE ALREADY IN OPERATION AND UNDERTAKES SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION D URING THE PERIOD AS MENTIONED IN SUB CLAUSE (2) TO SECTION 80IC (2)(B)( II) OF THE ACT. IN THE XIV SCHEDULE, ONE OF THE ACTIVITY IS MENTIONED AS ECO- TOURISM INCLUDING HOTELS, RESORTS, SPA, ENTERTAINMENT / AMUSEMENT PARTS AND R OPEWAYS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD MADE SUBS TANTIAL EXPANSION IN ITS HOTEL WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION O F ECO-TOURISM AS PROVIDED IN THE XIV SCHEDULE. 5. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEES HOTEL DID NOT QUALIFY AS AN ECO-TOURISM UNIT. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT MERE ESTABLISHING OF A HOTEL DOES NOT ITSELF CONSTITUTES AN ECO-TOURI SM UNIT. HE OBSERVED THAT THE HOTEL WAS NOT LOCATED IN THE AREA OF OPERATION OF THE ECO-TOURISM POLICY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, RATHE R THE SAME WAS SITUATED IN THE MOST URBANIZED, INDUSTRIALIZED AND POLLUTED ZONE OF DISTRICT SIRMOUR OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. THAT THE HOTEL WAS NOT INVOLV ED IN CONVERSATION OF ECOLOGY WHILE CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS OPERATION. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE HOTEL OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUC TION U/S 80-IC OF THE ACT ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 5 BEING NOT AN ECO-TOURISM UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN AS PER THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IC(8) OF THE A CT, SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION MEANS INCREASE IN INVESTMENT IN THE PLAN T AND MACHINERY BY AT LEAST 50% OF THE BOOK VALUE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE EXPANSION IN THE HOTEL BUILDING, FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT DID NOT CONSTITUT E EXPANSION IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY. HE REFERRING TO THE DEFINITION OF PLANT GIVEN U/S 43(3) OF THE ACT, OBSERVED THAT PLANT EXCLUDED BUILDING, FUR NITURE AND FITTINGS. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANAND THEATRES (2000) 244 ITR 192 (SC) A ND CIT VS. ABAD HOTELS INDIA PVT LTD (2000) 119 TAXMAN 429 (SC) AN D HELD THAT BUILDING COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PLANT AND, THEREFORE, T HE SAME WOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AS DEFINED IN SUB SECTION (8) OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFORE, DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESS EE. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE LD. CI T(A) RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF RAGHUNATH SING H THAKUR IN ITA NO. 152 & 469/CHD/2010 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD QUA LIFY AS AN ECO-TOURISM PROJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ITEM 15 IN SCHEDULE X IV OF THE I.T. ACT. HE, HOWEVER, UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION HAD TO BE LOOKED INTO ONLY AFTER EXCLUDIN G THE BUILDING, FURNITURE AND FITTINGS. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. 7. THE REVENUE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS AN ECO-TOURISM PROJE CT AS PROVIDED AT ITEM ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 6 NO.15 IN SCHEDULE XIV OF THE I.T. ACT. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSEE HAS COME IN PRESENT APPEAL AGITATING THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) H OLDING THAT THE EXPANSION IN THE HOTEL UNIT WHICH MAINLY CONSISTED OF INVESTM ENT IN BUILDING, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES DID NOT CONSTITUTE INVOLVEMENT OF PLA NT AND MACHINERY. 8. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ECO-TOURISM PROJECT, HENCE, THE SOLE QUESTION LEFT FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US IS, AS TO WHETHER IN A HOTEL BUSINESS THE INVESTMENT MADE IN BUILDING, FURNITURE AND FIXT URE CAN BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT?. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPO N THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANAND THEATRES (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT WAS WHETHER BUILDING WHICH WAS USED AS A HOTEL OR A CINEMA THEA TRE COULD BE GIVEN DEPRECIATION AS PLANT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO THE DEFINITION OF PLANT AS PROVIDED U/S 43(3) OF THE I.T. ACT A ND HELD THAT AS PER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 32, SEPARATE RATE OF DEPRECIATION FOR BUILDING, MACHINERY AND PLANT, FURNITURE AND FITTINGS ETC. WAS PROVIDED . THE DEFINITION OF PLANT WAS PROVIDED U/S 43(3) WHICH NOWHERE INCLUDED BUIL DINGS. THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENT RATE OF DEPRECIATION FOR EACH ASSET AND F URTHER THAT FOR A BUILDING USED FOR A HOTEL, SPECIFIC PROVISIONS WAS MADE GRAN TING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S 32(1)(V) OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT, THEREFORE, HELD THAT EVEN THE BUILDING USED FOR A HOTEL OR TH EATRE COULD NOT BE GIVEN DEPRECIATION AS A PLANT AS THE TERM PLANT AND BU ILDING HAD BEEN DEFINED ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 7 SEPARATELY AND DIFFERENT RATE OF DEPRECIATION WERE AVAILABLE ON DIFFERENT ITEMS. 10. MOST HUMBLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE ABOVE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN RELATION TO THE CLAIM OF D EPRECIATION ON HOTEL OR BUILDING CANNOT BE IMPORTED WHILE DECIDING THE CLAI M OF AN ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN H OTEL, IF SUCH HOTEL UNDERTAKING IS OTHERWISE FALLS IN THE LIST OF ELIGI BLE UNDERTAKINGS FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF T HE ACT. THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT IS NOT ONLY ALLOWABLE ON THE COMME NCEMENT / START OF OPERATION OF SUCH UNITS AS ARE LISTED IN THE XIV SC HEDULE BUT ALSO ON THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF SUCH UNITS. ADMITTEDLY, CA RRYING OF HOTEL BUSINESS DOES NOT INVOLVE THE SETTING UP OR INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AS IS USUALLY DONE IN CASE OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING INVOLVED IN MANUFACTURING / PRODUCTION OF THINGS OR ARTICLES. DESPITE THE FAC T THAT IN THE PROJECT OF A HOTEL, THE SETTING UP / INSTALLATION OF PLANT AND M ACHINERY IS NOT REQUIRED, THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT HAS BEEN G IVEN TO SUCH UNITS PROVIDED THEY START / COMMENCE THEIR OPERATION WITH IN THE STIPULATED DATES OR UNDERTAKE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION DURING THE SAID STI PULATED PERIOD IF SET UP IN THE SPECIAL CATEGORY OF STATES INCLUDING STATE OF H IMACHAL PRADESH. IN OUR HUMBLE VIEW, WHEN A UNIT LIKE A HOTEL IS ESTABLISHE D IN THE SPECIAL CATEGORY OF STATES WHOSE MAIN INVESTMENT IS ON BUILDING, WHI CH HAS BEEN SO PLANNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO SERVE THE ASSESSEES SPECIAL TE CHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF HOTEL/ HOSPITALITY SERVICES INCLUDING THE INVESTMEN T ON FURNITURE AND FIXTURES, SO SPECIALLY REQUIRED FOR CARRYING OUT SUCH ACTIVI TY, AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION ON ITS COMMENCEMENT OF ACTIVITY U/S 80IC OF ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 8 THE ACT, THEN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR THE P URPOSE OF THE MEANING OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION THE EXPANSION IN SUCH BUILD ING, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES WOULD CONSTITUTE AN INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHIN ERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE TERM PLANT AND MACHINERY IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF T HE ACT, SPECIFICALLY ENACTED FOR PROMOTION OF CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL UNDERT AKING OR ENTERPRISE IN THE SPECIAL CATEGORY OF STATES OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND UTTARANCHAL WILL INCLUDE THE TECHNICALLY DESIGNED BUILDING AND FURNITURE, FI TTINGS AND FIXTURES THEREIN IN CASE OF HOTEL WHEREIN OTHERWISE NO PLANT AND MA CHINERY IS REQUIRED. WE FIND SUPPORT, IN OUR VIEW, FROM THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION (2001) 247 ITR 268 (SC) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD TH AT THE QUESTION WHETHER A BUILDING CAN BE TREATED AS PLANT, BASICALLY, IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND WHERE IT IS FOUND AS A FACT THAT A BUILDING HAS BEEN SO P LANNED AND CONSTRUCTED AS TO SERVE AS ASSESSEES SPECIAL TECHNICAL REQUIREMEN TS, IT WILL QUALIFY TO BE TREATED AS A PLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT AL LOWANCE. THE DISPUTE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US IS RELATING TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT. THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ARE ENACTED FOR PROMOTING INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IN CE RTAIN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISES IN THE SPECIAL CATEGORY OF STATES INCLU DING STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. THE ECO-TOURISM UNIT INCLUDING THE HOTEL HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED IN THE LIST ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS PER S PECIAL PROVISIONS WHICH OTHERWISE DOES NOT INVOLVE INSTALLATION OF PLANT AN D MACHINERY. IF THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT MADE FOR SETTING UP OF SUCH UNI T IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT, THEN CERTAINLY THE FURTHER I NVESTMENT IN THE SAME INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANSION CANNOT BE DENIED, MERELY BECAUSE ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 9 THE INVESTMENT DOES NOT INVOLVE SETTING UP / INSTAL LMENT OF PLANT AND MACHINERY. ANY OTHER OR STRICT DEFINITION OF WORD SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN OUR VIEW, WOULD DEFEAT PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SPECIA L PROVISIONS UNDER THE SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN MADE. WE, THEREFO RE, HOLD THAT THE RESTRICTIVE MEANING GIVEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO DENY THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUBST ANTIAL EXPANSION CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE AND HOLD THAT THE INVESTM ENT IN BUILDING, FURNITURE, FIXTURE IN THE CASE OF A HOTEL WILL QUALIFY TO BE T REATED AS INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IC OF TH E ACT AND, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTIO N U/S 80IC OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNIT. 11. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ORDER, WE WISH TO CLARI FY AGAIN THAT WE HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESS EE HOTEL QUALIFIES TO BE AN ECO-TOURISM UNIT, AS THE SAID ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN RAISED BEFORE US. 12. SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED IN ITA NO. 376/CHD/2017 IS ALSO SIMILAR TO THAT OF ITA NO. 375/CHD/2017, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E, THEREFORE, STANDS ALLOWED. 13. HOWEVER, IN ITA NO 375/CHD/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, BESIDES THE ABOVE IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO RAISED ANOTHER ISSUE RELATING TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, NO ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED ON THIS ISSUE. NEITH ER THE SAID GROUND HAS BEEN PRESSED NOR HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS BEEN ADVANCED B Y THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE ISSUE OF ELIG IBILITY OF DEDUCTION ON ITA NO. 374 TO 376-CHD/2017 SIRMOUR HOTELS PVT LTD. 10 ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF THE UNDERTAKING . THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.03.2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19.03.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR