ACIT-WARDHA-CIRCLE, Wardha V. JAMNALAL SONS PVT. LTD., Wardha

ITA 394/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93431 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Assessee Lawyers: M A GOHEL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A; 10

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T. A. NO S . 394 & 395/NAG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 9 - 10 & 2010 - 11. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, JAMNALAL SONS PVT. LTD., WARDHA CIRCLE, WARDHA. V/S. BACHHRAJ BHAVAN, BACHHRAJ ROAD, WARDHA. PAN AAACJ3176H. (APPELLANT) RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KA NE . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.A. GOHEL. DATE OF HEARING : 26 - 0 5 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 TH JULY, 2015. O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIN YAHYA, A.M . THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 RESPECTIVELY. THE COMMON ISSUE S RAISED READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERR ED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF ` .2,89,58,067 FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND ` .4,59,46,458/ - FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, APPLYING SECTION 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES. 2 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENOUGH FUNDS OF ITS OWN TO MAKE INVESTMENTS TO EARN DIVIDENDS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT IF THE ASS ESSEE HAD ITS OWN ACCUMULATED RESOURCES, THEN, IT HAD NO NEED TO TAKE HUGE UNSECURED LOAN. 2. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, WE ARE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES RAISED WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` . 58,90,26,674/ - . IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF ` .5,09,38,980/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENQUIRED AS TO WHY EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. ASSESSEES SUBMISSION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BY WAY OF COPY OF FINANCIAL STATUS AS ON 31 - 03 - 2009 AND 31 - 03 - 2010 AS UNDER : SR. NO. PARTICULARS AS AT 31.03.2010 AS AT 31.03.2009 AS AT 31.03.2008 1. OWN FUNDS: 1.1 SHARE CAPITAL. 1.2 RESERVE & SURPLUS 5,00,000 413,32,30,044 413,32,30,044 4,05,00,000 348,11,58,031 352,16,58,011 4,05,00,000 254,50,38,924 258,55,38,924 2. SECURED LOANS - 65,66,17,867 - 3 INVESTMENTS 3.1 SHARES 3.1.1 QUOTED 3.1.2 UNQUOTED 3.2 MUTUAL FUNDS 3.3 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION IN PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. 206,88,40,658 87,94,40,038 27,91,48,307 30,31,800 323,04,60,803 211,61,27,352 37,48,16,263 6,80,66,515 30,31,800 256,20,41,9310 202,00,26,037 2,46,16,263 1,77,20,158 30,31,800 206,53,94,258 3 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 2.2 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE SAID TABLE THAT THE SHAREHOLDER FUNDS AS ON 31 - 03 - 2009 AND 31 - 03 - 2010 ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN RESPECTIVE YEARS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS FAR IN EXCESS OF INTEREST AND FINANCIA L CHARGES THAT HAVE BEEN PAID FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THESE FACTS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NO PART OF THE BORROWED FUNDS HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR ACQUIRING INVESTMENTS. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE FACTS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST ON BORROWINGS IS NOT AT ALL REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISALLOWANCES U/S 14A AS IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY NEXUS, EITHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT WITH EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE CASE OF CIT V/S. HERO CYCLE LTD. (SUPRA). 2 .2 THAT ALSO WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED IN P&L A/C IN THE NATURE OF ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES INCLUDING EMOLUMENTS TO SOME OF THE EMPLOYEES WORKING WITH THE APPELLANT FOR MORE THAN 25 - 30 YEARS AND THAT UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR EARNING OF DIVIDEND, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN RES PECT OF SUCH EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT FIND THE SAME TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATIONS IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT UNS ECURED LOAN OF ` .15 CRORES SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET LAST YEAR WAS BORROWED TO PAY DIVIDEND TO ITS SHARE HOLDERS AND IT IS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS TAKEN FOR THE ABOVE PURPOSE. THIS WAS NECESSITATED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE USED ITS ENTIRE PROFIT/DIVIDEND TO INVEST IN PURCHASE OF SHARES AND IN UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS. WHEN ASSESSEE USED ITS DIVIDEND INCOME TO INVEST IN SUCH 4 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 ASSETS WHOSE INCOME IS EXEMPT, ASSESSEE HAD TO BORROW TO PAY DIVIDEND TO ITS OWN SHARE HOLDERS. IN ANY GIVEN CASE, IF ASSESSEE INVESTS BORROWED FUNDS IN ASSETS WHOSE INCOME IS EXEMPT , INTEREST IS TO BE DISALLOWED DIRECTLY U/S 14A, JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE BUYS UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND AND SHARES FROM OUT OF ITS DIVIDEND INCOME AND BORROWS TO PAY DIVIDEND TO ITS OWN SHARE HOLDERS, IT CANNOT BE TREATED ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING. DIVIDEND IS PAID OUT OF PROFIT OF THE COMPANY. IT IS IN THE NATURE OF DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE A SSESSEE COMPANY HAS INVESTED ITS SURPLUS I.E. INCOME EARNED DURING THE YEAR INTO PURCHASES OF ASSETS WHOSE INCOME IS EXEMPT AND HAS BORROWED FUNDS TO PAY DIVIDEND. INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID ON SUCH BORROWED FUNDS. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN UP A SCHEME TO CLAIM EXPENSES OTHERWISE NOT ALLOWABLE, SO AS TO REDUCE ITS TAXABLE INCOME IS CLEAR IF ONE CONSIDERS THE ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES. AN ALTERNATIVE COULD HAVE BEEN THAT ASSESSEE EARNS INCOME, PAYS DIVIDEND OUT OF THAT INCOME TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS AND INV EST THE BALANCE PROFITS INTO PURCHASE OF ASSETS I.E. SHARES AND MUTUAL FUND UNITS. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE BORROW ANY FUNDS TO MAKE DIVIDEND PAYMENT TOWARDS SHAREHOLDERS. ON THE CONTRARY WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO DO IS THA T IT HAS INVESTED ENTIRE PROFIT INTO SHARES AND MUTUAL FUND UNITS AND BORROWED FUNDS TO PAY DIVIDEND, SO THAT IT CAN CLAIM INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON THE SAME AND BRING DOWN ITS TAXABLE INCOME. AS WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING INCOME ONLY FROM DIVIDENDS, WHETHER THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS EARNED FROM STOCK IN TRADE OR INVESTMENT IT REMAINS INCOME EXEMPT FROM TAXATION. AS THE ANALYSIS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS IS CONCERNED, IT IS ONLY EARNING DIVIDEND, MOREOVER THE ASSES SEE HAS CONTRADICTED ITS OWN STAND WHEN IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME SUBMITTED WITH RETURN OF INCOME, IT HAS DISALLOWED ` .5,00,000/ - ON ITS OWN. HENCE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON ABOVE LOANS SHOULD NOT COME UNDER THE PREVIEW OF THE EXPENSES INCUR RED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME IS UNTENABLE. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 5 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 5. THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, REITERATED THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO MAKE THE INV ESTMENT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING LEGITIMATE BUSINESS/ESTABLISHMENT EXPENDITURE AS EXPENDITURE RELATING TO DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FUNDS THROUGH BORROWING BUT IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SUCH BORROWINGS WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES.. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO TRIBUNALS DECISION IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE CONCLUDING PORTION OF ITATS ORDER AS REF ERRED ABOVE. THEREAFTER, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONCLUDED AS UNDER : THE FACTS OF THE CASE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO A.Y. 2008 - 09. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 IT IS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ITS OWN SUFFICIENT FUNDS WHICH WERE INVESTED IN THE SHARES AND WER E UTILIZED FOR INCURRING THE VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES AND NO INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID ON THESE SURPLUS FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. THE LD. AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF ` .2,89,5 8,067/ - . 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT T HERE ARE BORROWED FUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT A SSESSEES CLAIM THAT IT HAD USED ONLY OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN VERIFIED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THAT I N THE SUBMISSIONS , THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY GIVEN THE SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS AND COMPARED THE SAME WITH INVESTMENTS. LEARNED D .R, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE OR CORRELATION WITH THE OTHER ITEMS OF BALANCE SHEET IN THE SH APE OF FIXED ASSETS AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS WHERE T HE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DEPLOYED. THAT 6 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 THIS IS MORE RELEVANT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN HUGE UNSECURED LOAN. HENCE THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT MAKING ANY FACTUAL VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS , LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND GRANTED RELIEF. FURTHER MORE, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED VARIOUS ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS CLAIMED THAT NO SUCH EXPENSE RELATE TO DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR EARNING OF DIVIDEND. LEARNED D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNALS DECISION IN EARLIER YEARS WHERE THE CLAIM OF SUFFICI ENT OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED RELATE TO THE FACTS OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR AND IT CANNOT BE EXTRAPOLATED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL BORROWINGS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ALSO UNDISPUTED. HENCE THE LEARNED D.R. PLEADED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS IN THE EARLIER YEARS IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 8. PER CONTRA, LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS EARLIER DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS WHICH WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENTS. IN THIS REGARD HE PLACED RELI ANCE ON SEVERAL CASE LAWS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IS REQUIRED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSE WHEN SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. HENCE THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 9. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST 7 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 EXPENSE IS REQUIRED WHEN SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS ARE THERE. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS TO MAKE THE INVESTMENTS WERE APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THAT PARTICUL AR YEAR WHICH WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT YEAR CANNOT BE APPLIED MECHANICALLY IN THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT AS ON 31 - 03 - 2009 THERE WERE SECURED LOAN S AMOUNTING TO ` .65,66,17,867/ - . HENCE THE PRESENCE OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS ALSO NEEDED TO BE EXAMINED. FURTHER MORE THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSIONS ONLY REFERRED TO THE AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUNDS, SECURED LOANS AND INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE NO R EFERENCE IN ITS SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) REGARDING THE TOTAL DEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS IN THE SHAPE OF FIXED ASSETS AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS. HENCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT EXAMINED THE FULL FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS HU RRIEDLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS AND THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEAR APPLIES WITHOUT EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. 10. FURTHER MORE , LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ORDER IS TOTALLY SILENT ON THE ASPECT OF PORTION OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPENDITURE WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE RELATED TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THIS ASPECT OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS IT IS FOUND THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS CONCERNED WITH MANAGEMENT OF INVESTMENT. HENCE IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT NO PART OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE IS RELATED TO EARNING OF DIVIDENDS. AS RIGHTLY NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSES SEE HAS ITSELF CONTRADICTED ITS OWN STAND WHEN IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME SUBMITTED WITH RETURN OF INCOME IT HAS DISALLOWED ` .5,00,000/ - ON ITS OWN. 8 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 11. IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ) HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS WITHOUT PUTTING THE SAME TO PROPER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS SIMPLY REPRODUCED THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS. THEREAFTER HE HAS REFERRED TO THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN EARLIER YEAR AND THEREAFTER IN A SMALL ONE PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER HE HAS LACONICALLY HELD THAT FACTS OF THE CASE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. HENCE HE HAS FOLLOWED THE ITATS ORDER AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AS WE HAVE ALREAD Y POINTED OUT IN THE DISCUSSION HEREIN ABOVE THAT THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN REFERRED TO AND EXAMINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HENCE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ORDER IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. HONBLE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF KAPURCHAND SRIMAL 131 ITR 451 HAS HELD THAT IT IS THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS DUTY TO CORRECT THE ERRORS IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE SAME FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH NECESSARY DIRECTIONS , IF REQUIR ED , UNLESS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SOURCES OF ASSESSEES FUNDS AND THEIR DEPLOYMENT IN THE ENTIRETY. THEREAFTER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SH ALL ALSO EXAMINE TH E PRESENCE OF INTEREST BEARING LOANS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE ATTRIBUTION OF ESTABLISHMENT AND OTHER EXPENDITURE TOWARDS EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME AS PAR LAW. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9 ITA NOS. 394 & 395/NAG/2013 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ( SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 10 TH JULY, 2015. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE