Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6145 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
18-07-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
09-03-2018
Judgement Text
1 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) . . , . ! . '# , $ ) [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM & SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] I.T.A. NO. 395/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD. (PAN: AAICS3034R) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA. APPLICANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 04.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.07.2018 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI S. K. TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI P. K. SRIHARI, CIT ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, KOLKATA DAT ED 31.01.2018FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. GROUND NO.1, 9 & 10 RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE GEN ERAL IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CALLED FOR ANY ADJUDICATION. BY RAISING GROUND NO.2 TO 8 OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS PRIMARILY OBJECTED TO THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF RS.6,31,12,350/- CHARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND ASSESSING THE INCOME OF RS.7,02,72,979/- DERIVED FROM FIXED DEPOSITS (FDS) AND MUTUAL FUNDS UNDER THE HEAD OF OTHER SOURCES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 09.06.2004 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING A HOTEL BUSI NESS BY ESTABLISHING A FIVE START HOTEL AT RAJARHAT, KOLKATA. IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID PROJ ECT, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD PURCHASED LAND AT NEW TOWN, RAJARHAT FROM WEST BENGAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 2 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO WBHIDCO) IN THE YEAR 200 5. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS ALSO SOUGHT AND OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM VARIOUS LOCAL, ST ATE AND CENTRAL AUTHORITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID HOTEL PROJECT. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO OBTAINED LONG TERM BORROWINGS FROM AXIS BANK FOR THE HOTEL PROJECT AGAINST MORTGAGE OF ENTI RE LEASEHOLD LAND PURCHASED FROM WBHIDCO AND PARIPASSU CHARGE ON ALL PRESENT AND FUT URE MOVEABLE FIXED & CURRENT ASSETS ETC. DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12, TH E HOTEL WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND THE PROJECT WAS YET TO COMPLETE. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A /C PREPARED FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2012, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD CREDITED INCO ME OF RS.7,02,72,979/- DERIVED FROM FIXED DEPOSITS AND FUNDS. THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD DEBITED EXPENSES OF RS.12,00,81,779/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. OUT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, RS.3,27,03,538/- WAS CAPITALIZED BY THE APPELLANT AND A SUM OF RS.2, 42,65,891/- WAS REVERSED BEING EXPENSES OF EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE NET SUM OF RS.6,31,12,350/- WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C AGAINST INCOME C REDITED THEREIN. 4. IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3), THE ASS ESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 6,31,12,350/- CLAIMED BY THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF TH E FACT THAT BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS YET TO START. IN RESPONSE, THE APPELLAN T FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION ALONG WITH RELEVANT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HOWEVER WAS NOT AGREEABLE TO THE EXPLANATION PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. AFT ER REFERRING TO SUDDEN JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE FAC T THAT APPELLANT IS YET TO COMMENCE HIS BUSINESS AND THE SETTING UP OF FIVE STAR HOTEL WAS NOT AT COMPLETE, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE HEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME C ANNOT BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD NONE OF THE EXPENSES FULFILLED THE CRI TERIA LAID DOWN IN SECTION 57(III) AND THEREAFTER NO DEDUCTION THEREOF WAS ALSO PERMISSIBL E AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.7,02,72,979/- ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD OF OTHE R SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS.6,31,12,3 50/- AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF RS.7,02,72,979/- UNDER THE HEAD OF OTHER SOURCES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE L D. CIT(A) WHO WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SAME. 5. AGGRIEVED THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS BEFORE US. 3 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. WE NO TE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS SET- UP WITH THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF SETTING UP AN D OPERATING A FIVE STAR HOTEL AT RAJARHAT, KOLKATA. AFTER OBTAINING THE CERTIFICATE OF COMMEN CEMENT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TAKEN SEVERAL STEPS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTING UP OF A FIVE STAR HOTEL. THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TOOK US THROUGH SEVERAL STEPS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD COMMENCED AND THAT THE REVENUE EXPENSES INCURRED (APART FROM THOSE INCURRE D IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT) WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSI NESS. THE RELEVANT ACTS AND DEEDS PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SE TTING UP OF FIVE STAR HOTEL IS AS FOLLOWS: I) IN REGARD TO THE ABOVE, LAND SITUATED AT NEW TOW N WAS PURCHASED BY SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD I.E. SHA REHOLDER OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEV ELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [WBHIDCO] VIDE CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 22.03.2007.BEF ORE THAT, A PERMISSIVE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE WAS GIVEN BY WBHIDCO TO THE SAID COMPANY ON 25.08.2005 FOR UNDERTAKING SOIL TESTS AND PREPARATION OF THE M ASTER PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 5 STAR HOTEL COMPLEX. THE SAID PERMISSIVE POSSE SSION CERTIFICATE WAS CANCELLED AND A REVISED PERMISSIVE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DAT ED 16.05.2006 ISSUED FOR THE SAID PURPOSE BY WBHIDCO. IN THE SAID REVISED PERMISSIVE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE, IT WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN THAT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE LAND WILL BE GIVEN AFTER FULL PAYMENT OF THE LAND PRICE AND EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE. A COPY OF THE REVISED PERMISSIVE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IS ENCLOS ED AT PAGES 92-94 OF THE PAPER BOOK. II) IN CONNECTION TO THE SAID PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTI NG THE FIVE STAR HOTEL, THE APPELLANT COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 16.10.2006 MADE AN APPLIC ATION TO BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL) FOR THE CLEARANCE OF HEIGHT OF THE P ROPOSED 5 STAR HOTEL COMPLEX LOCATION MOUZA JATRAGACHI NO.AAII/CBD/2, ACTION ARE A II, NEW TOWN, RAJARHAT. III) IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESAID LETTER, BSNL VIDE LETTER DATED 01.11.2006 INFORMED THE APPELLANT COMPANY THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOS ED MULTISTORIED BUILDING AT THE 4 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 SAID PREMISED HAVE BEEN CLEARED FOR 142.0 MTRS ONLY ABOVE GROUND LEVEL INCLUDING LIFT MACHINE ROOM AND WATER TANK ON THE ROOF TOP. ( THE SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 95 OF THE PAPER-BOOK) IV) THEREAFTER, SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [SIDCL] PURCHASED LAND (APPROX 8 ACRES) IN NEW TOWN FROM WE ST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ON 22.0 3.2007 FOR A SUM OF RS.24,00,00,000/- SO AS TO ENABLE SIDCL TO ERECT B UILDINGS THEREON FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTING UP A FIVE STAR HOTEL COMPLEX. (PURCHASE DEED OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 96-125 OF THE PAPER BOOK) V) ON 31 .03.2007,SHRISTIINFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [SIDCL] ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT (COPY ENCLOSED AT PA GES 126-144 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WITH THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO LEASE LAND OF AN AREA OF APPROX 3.5 ACRES TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY OUT OF APPROX 8 ACRES PURCHASED B Y SIDCL ON 22.03.2007. SIDCL LEASED THE SAID LAND TO SHRISTI HOTEL LTD. FO R A PERIOD OF 50 YEARS AT A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.20000/- EXCLUSIVE OF RATES AND TAXES. VI) THE APPELLANT COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 24.05.2 007 ISSUED TO WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD SEEKING PERMISSION FOR THE SUPPLY OF CONSTRUCTION WATER FOR CONSTRUCTING FIVE STAR HOTEL AT RAJARHAT. VII) IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, WEST BENGAL HOUSING I NFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VIDE LETTER DATED 11.06.2007 GRANT ED PERMISSION TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO SINK 2 NOS. DEEP TUBEWELLS FOR THE PURPO SE OF CONSTRUCTION OF 5 STAR HOTEL PROJECT SUBJECT TO CLEARANCE FROM SWID, GOVT. OF WE ST BENGAL. THE SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 145 OF THE PAPER BOOK. VIII) ON 26.06.2007, THE APPELLANT COMPANY ISSUED A LETTER TO THE WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [WBHIDCO] FOR SEEKING PERMISSION FOR THE PILING WORK FOR THE PROPOSED 5 S TAR HOTEL COMPLEX AT THE SAID PLOT. 5 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 IX) IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, WBHIDCO VIDE LETTER DA TED 19.07.2007 GRANTED PERMISSION TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR THE PILING WORK FOR THE PROPOSED 5 STAR HOTEL COMPLEX AT THE SAID PREMISES SUBJECT TO THE F OLLOWING CONDITIONS: (THE SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 146-147 OF THE PAPER BO OK) NO CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL BE TAKEN UP AT OR ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL TILL THE BUILDING PLAN IS FORMALLY SANCTIONED BY WBHIDCO NO CONSTRUCTION WORK CAN BE DONE OTHER THAN THE PIL ING WORK BELOW THE GROUND LEVEL X) THE APPELLANT COMPANY OBTAINED PROVISIONAL REGIS TRATION OF THE SAID PROPOSED TOURISM UNIT PROPOSING CREATION OF 300 ROOMS AT A PROJECT COST OF RS. 20319.57 LAKHS ON 10.07.2007FROM THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT, GOV T. OF WEST BENGAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED INTHE SAID LETTER. THE SAI D LETTER IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 148 OF THE PAPERBOOK. XI) SUBSEQUENTLY ON 12.09.2008, EXTENSION AND MODI FICATION DEED WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LTD AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY (ENCLOSED AT PAGES 149-162 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY HAD REQUESTED THE LESSOR TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF LEASE FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 30 YEARS COMMENCING FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRY OF THE SAID LEASE DATED 31.03.20 07 AND ENDING ON21.03.2087. XII) FURTHER A PROJECT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 2 3.09.2008 WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SIDCL (PROJECT MANAGER), THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY (COMPANY) AND RASHIMA INVESTMENTS LLC (INVESTOR) WHEREBY THE PROJECT MANA GER WILL MANAGE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT AND HE WILL BEAR ALL PA YROLL AND EMPLOYEE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING SERVICES (INCLUDING THE EMPLOYEES ON THE PAYROLL OF THE COMPANY AND WHICH SHALL FURTHER INCLUDE THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MARKETING HEAD/PROJECT HEAD/SITE ENGINEERS/DESIGN TEAM ETC WH O SHALL BE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PROJECT MANAGER. COPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT IS ENCL OSED AT PAGES 212-247 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 6 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 XIII) THEREAFTER, WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTUR E DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD GRANTED PERMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 24.10.2008 FOR CARRYING OUT CONSTRUCTION OF THE 5 STAR HOTEL COMPLEX AT THE LAND SITUATED AT PLOT NO. AA-IVCBDIZ, AA-II, NEW TOWN, KOLKATA ON THE BASIS OF THE DRAWINGS MENTIONE D IN THE SAID LETTER. COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 163- 165 OF THE PA PER BOOK. XIV) ON 26.02.2009, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERED IN TO A WORK CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH SIDCL WHEREIN THE LATER WILL DEVELOP AND EXECU TE THE WORK INCLUDING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPMENT OF THE 5 STAR HOTEL AT RA JARHAT, KOLKATA. THE SAID CONTRACT AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 167-178 OF THE PAPER BOOK. XV) FURTHER ON 13.03.2009 A SUB CONTRACT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SIDCL AND M/S MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD WHEREBY T HE LATER WOULD DO DESIGN, SUPERVISE, CONSTRUCT AND WILL DO OTHER WORKS SUCH A S WATER PROOFING AND ANTI TERMITE TREATMENT WITH GUARANTEE AND PERFORMANCE TESTS ETC. THE SAID SUB CONTRACT AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 179-197 OF THE PAPER BOOK. XVI) THE APPELLANT COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 05.02. 2010 ISSUED A LETTER TO THE WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SEEKING PERMISSION A ND CONSENT AND TO ESTABLISH (NOC) FROM ENVIRONMENTAL POINT OF VIEW FOR CONSTRUC TING A FIVE STAR HOTEL AT RAJARHAT AT THE PREMISES MENTIONED ABOVE. XVII)WEST BENGAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VIDE LETTE R DATED 25.03.2010 GRANTED CONSENT TO ESTABLISH (NOC) FROM ENVIRONMENT POINT O F VIEW TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTING A FIVE STAR HOTEL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE SAID LETTER. COPY OF THE LETTER IS ENCLOSED AT PAGE S 198-201 OF THE PAPE RBOOK. XVIII) THE APPELLANT COMPANY VIDE FORM 4 PERMIT FO R SINKING OF NEW WELL U/S 7(3)(B), 7(5)(A) OF THE WEST BENGAL GROUND WATER RE SOURCES, DATED 20.04.2011 WAS GRANTED PERMISSION FOR SINKING A NEW WELL FOR EXTRA CTING GROUND WATER SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE SAID FORM. THE SAID FOR M IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 202 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 XIX) ON 16.11.2011, AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO B ETWEEN WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD (WBSEDCL) AND THE PROJECT MANAGER I.E. SIDCL WHEREBY WBSEDCL AGREED TO SUPPLY ENERGY FOR C OMMERCIAL PURPOSED AT 5 STAR HOTEL PROJECT AT PLOT NO.CBD-2 IN ACTION AREA -II, NEW TOWN UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE SAID AGREEMENT. COP Y OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN WBSEDCL AND SIDCL IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES203-209 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. XX) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. MINISTRY OF TOURISM CONFIR MING THE PROVISIONAL APPROVAL GRANTED ON10.07.2007, VIDE LETTER DATED 27.02.2012, GRANTED APPROVAL TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR THE SETTING UP THE HOTEL PROJECT BY THE NAME OF SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD AT PLOT NO. AA-II/CBD/2,AA-II, NEW TOWN, RAJARHAT, KOLKATA-700156, WEST BENGAL UNDER 5 STAR CATEGORY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF ITS SUITABILITY TO DOMESTIC/INTERNATIONAL TOURISTS. THE SAID APPROVAL WAS GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE SAID APPROVAL LETTE R. THE LETTER OF APPROVAL IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 210-211 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 7. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE EST ABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A HOTEL PROJECT IS A LONG DRAWN PROCE SS AND THE MERE FACT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT YET AT COMPLETE CANNOT BE THE BASIC FACTOR T O ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE TWO PARAMETERS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND CANNOT BE CO-RELATED. IT WAS EXPLAIN ED THAT IN BUSINESS LIKE HOTEL PROJECT HAVING PROLONGED GESTATION PERIOD THERE ARE SEVERAL STAGES, LIKE FIRST STAGE IS PROCUREMENT OF LAND, OBTAINING NECESSARY APPROVALS ETC. THE SECOND STAGE BEING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY AND SETTING UP OF THE HOTEL AND THE THIRD BEING COM PLETION AND OPERATIONALISATION OF THE HOTEL. ACCORDING TO HIM, ONCE THE ASSESSEE INITIAT ED THE FIRST STAGE OF BUSINESS AND TAKEN STEPS IN CONNECTION WITH AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS, THEN THE BUSINESS IS SAID TO HAVE COMMENCED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT THE HOTEL DID NOT START COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS WAS NOT MATERIAL IN DECIDING THE QUESTION AT HAND. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO SEVERAL PRECEDENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS P ROPOSITION. 8. THE LD. AR FURTHER REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT QUE STION CONCERNING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD COMMENCED BUSINESS HAD COME UP FOR CONS IDERATION IN THE COURSE OF 8 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 PROCEEDING U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2009-1 0. REFERRING TO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NOT ONLY THE D EPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS BUT ALS O ALLOWED THE BUSINESS LOSS AS RETURNED IN THE SAID AY 2009-10. RELYING ON THE PR INCIPLE OF JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. RADHASOAMI SATSANG [193 ITR 321 (SC)], THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT TAKE A CONTRA VIEW STAND AND DISTURB THE SETTLED FACTS UNLESS THERE IS A CHANGE IN LAW OR FACTS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE PROVISO TO SEC. 3 OF THE AC T IT REQUIRES SETTING UP OF BUSINESS AND NOT COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, THE PREMISE VIZ., NON COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ON WHICH THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE EXPENS ES WAS UNTENABLE IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. 9. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LD. A R ALSO TOOK AN ALTERNATE PLEA THAT IF THE AOS PREMISE THAT THE COMPANYS BUSINESS WAS NO T SET UP AND FOR THAT REASON EXPENSES INCURRED WERE NOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE , IS UPHELD; THEN ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE THE INCOME OF RS.7,02,72,979/- DERIVED DURING SUCH PRE-COMMENCEMENT PHASE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE BUT SUCH INCOME SHO ULD BE NETTED OFF AGAINST EXPENSES INCURRED ON SETTING UP OF THE SAID BUSINESS. THE LD . AR SUBMITTED THAT HE COULD TAKE SUCH ALTERNATE PLEA BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST T IME SINCE THE INTENT & OBJECT OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IS ULTIMATELY TO ARRIVE AT THE TRUE & C ORRECT INCOME OF ANY ASSESSEE ON WHICH HE IS LEGALLY LIABLE TO PAY TAX. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IF THE PLEA OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS ACCEPTED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN PRE-COMMENCEMENT STAGE THEN THE AO COULD THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CO NNECTION WITH THE PROJECT TO BE CAPITAL OR PRE-OPERATIVE IN NATURE BUT THE INCOME INCIDENTAL T O SAME PROJECT TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE. THE LD. AR THEREFORE URGED THAT SHOULD THE ASSESSEE S PRIMARY CONTENTION FAIL, THEN THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATE CLAIM FOR NETTING OFF OF EXPEN DITURE AGAINST INCOME BE CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HE SUBMITTED THAT A UNIT CAN BE SAID TO SET UP ONLY WHEN IT START FUNCTIONING OR BEGINS COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS. ACCORDING TO LD. DR, THE 9 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 EXPRESSION SET-UP WAS EQUIVALENT TO THE WORD EST ABLISHED AND HENCE, SETTING UP OF BUSINESS CULMINATES IN ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUSINES S. IN THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE THE HOTEL WAS NOT COMPLETE AND THE CONSTRUCTION WAS IN PROGRESS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SAID TO HAVE COMMENCED FOR TAX PURPOSE. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE DETAILED OBSERVATIONS AND FINDING M ADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER. HE ALSO REITERATED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS REFERRED TO BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE: (A) CWT VS. RAMARAJU SURGICAL COTTON MILLS LTD. (19 63) 63 ITR 478 (SC), (B) CIT VS. PIEM HOTEL (P) LTD. 73 TAXMAN 295, (C) CIT VS. INDUSTRIAL SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS PVT. LT D. (1979) 119 ITR 608, (D) RITZ CONTINENTAL HOTELS LTD. VS. CIT 114 ITR 55 4. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATE PLEA FOR NETTIN G OFF INTEREST RECEIVED AGAINST PRE- COMMENCEMENT EXPENSES, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SU CH PLEA WAS NEVER RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES NOR FACTS NECESSA RY FOR DECIDING THIS QUESTION WERE CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE SUCH ALTERNATE PLEA FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S, WE FIND SUFFICIENT FORCE & MERIT IN THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IN WHICH IT CLA IMED THAT IF THE AOS CONTENTION IS TO BE UPHELD THEN ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE THE INCOME OF RS. 7,02,72,979/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE DERIVED DURING SUCH A PRE-COMMENCEMENT PHASE SHOULD NOT ALSO BE REGARDED AS REVENUE IN NATURE BUT MUST BE ALLOWED TO BE NETTED OFF AGAINST THE EXPENSES INCURRED DURING PRE- COMMENCEMENT STAGE AND ONLY THE NET EXPENDITURE, IF ANY, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE PRE- OPERATIVE IN NATURE REQUIRING CAPITALIZATION. IN S UPPORT OF SUCH ALTERNATIVE PLEA, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHALAKSHMI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. 66 I TR 710. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THIS JUDGMENT, THE ALTERNATE CLAIM RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINABLE. IN THE JUDGMENT RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR, THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT CONSIDERED THE SCOPE, AMBIT AND POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE UP ON THE ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT RAISED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. IN THAT JUDGM ENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY CLAIMED 10 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 DEDUCTION FOR DEVELOPMENT REBATE IN RESPECT OF THE CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED ON INTRODUCTION OF CASABLANCA CONVERSION SYSTEM (CCS) IN ITS SPINN ING PLANT. SUCH CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE AO BECAUSE IN HIS OPINION THE INTRODUCTION OF C CS DID NOT INVOLVE INSTALLATION OF NEW MACHINERY. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS UPHELD BY THE AAC. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE RAISED ALTERNATE PLEA THAT IF DEVELOPMENT REBATE IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO INSTALLATION OF NEW MACHINERY, THEN TH E AMOUNT EXPENDED SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS CURRENT REPAIRS. ON APPRECIATION OF RELEVANT FAC TS, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION AS CURRENT REPAIRS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ON FURTHER APPEAL WHIL E UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT , THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT MADE THE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION CONCERNING THE POWER OF THIS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE CO NTENTION RAISED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. . BY THE FIRST QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF THE TR IBUNAL TO ALLOW A PLEA INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLEA RAISED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES IS CANVA SSED. IN SUB-SECTION (4) OF SEC. 33 OF INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS COM PETENT TO PASS SUCH ORDERS ON THE APPEAL AS IT THINKS FIT. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE INCOME -TAX ACT WHICH RESTRICTS THE TRIBUNAL TO THE DETERMINATION OF QUESTION RAISED BEFORE THE DEPARTM ENTAL AUTHORITIES. ALL THE QUESTIONS WHETHER OF LAW OR OF FACT WHICH RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IF FOR REASONS RECORDED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORI TIES IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, GRANT OF RELIEF TO HIM ON A NOTHER GROUND IS JUSTIFIED, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES AND THE TRIBUNAL AND I NDEED THEY WOULD BE UNDER A DUTY TO GRANT THAT RELIEF. THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO RE LIEF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE PLEA RESTRICTED BY HIM. (EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US). 12. APPLYING THE ABOVE RATIO, WE FIND THAT THE ALTE RNATE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING IS MAINTAINABLE AN D ACCORDINGLY, WE ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS: 13. FROM THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS AND THE MATERIALS PLAC ED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT SINCE INCORPORATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD UND ERTAKEN CONCERTED EFFORTS TO SET UP A FIVE STAR HOTEL IN KOLKATA. THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OU T NUMEROUS ACTS AND DEEDS IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER TO ENSURE THAT A FIVE STAR HOTEL OF THE HIGH EST STANDARD WAS CONSTRUCTED AND SET UP. EACH AND EVERY ACTIVITY INCLUDING THE EFFORTS TAKEN FOR RAISING FINANCIAL RESOURCES WERE AIMED ON SETTING UP OF THE HOTEL AND, THEREFORE, NO NE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE CONSIDERED OR VIEWED IN ISOLATION. THE REQUISIT E FUNDS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF EQUITY CAPITAL AND LOANS FROM VARIOUS SOURCE S WITH THE OBJECT OF MEETING THE COST OF 11 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 HOTEL PROJECT. THESE FUNDS WERE NOT RAISED MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING INTEREST OR OTHER INCIDENTAL INCOME. HOWEVER, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT SETTING UP OF NEW STAR HOTEL AS A GREEN FIELD PROJECT WAS LONG TERM INVOLVEMENT AND THE GESTATION PERIOD UPTO THE START OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION WAS FAIRLY LONG, IT WAS NOT P OSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO UTILIZE THE ENTIRE FINANCE RAISED IN ONE GO. UNDER THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE EFFECTIVE COST OF SETTING UP THE HOTEL PROJECT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPLOYED THIS TEMPORARY SURPLUS FUND IN FIXED DEPOSITS WHICH YIELDED INTERE ST INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE DURING PRE- COMMENCEMENT STAGE. WE FIND THAT IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER, THE AO CONSIDERED SUCH INTEREST RECEIPT IN ISOLATION UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES AND ASSESSED SUCH INTEREST ON STAND- ALONE BASIS. WE, HOWEVER, FIND MERIT IN THE LD. AR S SUBMISSION THAT SUCH INTEREST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN ISOLATION AND BROUGHT TO TAX ON STAND-ALONE BASIS. WE COULD NOT LOST SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAD NEVER I NTENDED TO RAISE FUNDS AND DEPLOYED THE SAME FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENDERING INTEREST SIMPLICI TOR. OBJECT AND INTENTS OF RAISING FINANCIAL RESOURCES WAS TO SET UP ITS HOTEL PROJECT IN KOLKATA AND IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE WORK UP TO THE SETTING UP OF THE PROJECT WAS NOT HI NDERED, SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL RESOURCES WERE ARRANGED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER A PERIOD TILL THE COM MERCIAL OPERATION COMMENCED WERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR SETTING UP OF THE HOTEL PROJECT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, FUNDS WHICH WENT IN MAKING THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SOLELY WITH THE INTENTION OF UTILIZING THEM IN SETTING UP ITS HOTEL PROJECT AND NOTHING ELSE. THE ACTS OF THE ASSESSEE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME ESTABLISHED THAT THE FUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ULTIMATELY USED FOR SETTING UP THE HOTEL PROJECT AN D NOT OTHER PURPOSES. WE, THEREFORE, FIND FORCE IN THE LD. ARS SUBMISSION THAT INTEREST EARN ED ON FUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MEET THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF HOTEL PR OJECT COULD NOT BE VIEWED IN ISOLATION AND COULD NOT BE TAXED ON STAND-ALONE BASIS UNDER THE H EAD OTHER SOURCES. IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, WE FIND SUPPORT IN THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL PANIPAT POWER CONSORTIUM LTD. VS. ITO 31 5 ITR 255 WHEREIN THE FACTS WERE ALMOST SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN THAT CAS E THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED PART OF THE FUNDS RAISED BY ISSUE OF SHARES IN MATURING BANK DEPOSITS PENDING UTILISATION OF SETTING UP OF POWER PROJECTS. THE INTEREST EARNED ON SUCH FIXED DEPOSIT WAS SOUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO AS INCOME WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ITS SET OFF AGAI NST PRE-COMMENCEMENT EXPENSES INCURRED ON SETTING UP OF THE POWER PROJECT. ON AP PEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE HONBLE HIGH 12 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 COURT FOUND THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE AND INTEREST THE REON WERE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH SETTING UP OF THE POWER PLANT AND, THEREFORE, THE R ATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BOKARO STEEL LTD. (199 9) 236 ITR 315 (SC) WAS APPLICABLE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS A S FOLLOWS: 10. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL WIT HOUT HOLDING THAT THE FINDING OF FACT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THAT THE INTE REST EARNED WAS ' INEXTRICABLY LINKED' WITH THE SETTING UP OF THE POWER PLANT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) BY MAKING A BALD OBSERVATION THAT THE 'DE POSIT OF SHARE CAPITAL HAS NO OR VERY REMOTE CONNECTION WITH SETTING UP OF PLANT AND MACH INERY' . THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS AN INDEPENDENT INCOME EARNED IN A SIMIL AR FASHION AS WAS THE CASE IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC). 11. IN OUR OPINION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS MISCONSTRUED T HE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS [J9 97} 227 ITR 172 AND THAT OF BOKARO STEEL LTD. [J999] 236 ITR 315 . THE TEST WHICH PERMEATES THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS [1997] 227 ITR 172 IS THAT IF FUNDS HAVE BEEN BORROWED FOR SETTING UP OF A PLANT AND IF THE FUNDS ARE ' SU RPLUS' AND THEN BY VIRTUE OF THAT CIRCUMSTANCE THEY ARE INVESTED IN FIXED DEPOSITS THE INCOME EARN ED IN THE FORM OF INTEREST WILL BE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD' INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE RATIO OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN BOKARO STEEL LTD. [1999] 236 ITR 315 TO OUR MIND IS THAT IF INCOME IS EARNED, WHETHER BY WAY OF INTEREST OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER ON FUNDS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE SETTING UP OF THE PLAN T, SUCH INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE CAPITALIZED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES. 14. WE ALSO RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. FACOR POWER LTD. (2016) 380 ITR 474 (DEL). IN THIS CASE THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TEMPORARY INVESTMENT ON FDRS MADE OUT OF THE ADD ITIONAL SHARE CAPITAL WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME. SUCH SHARE CAPITAL WAS RAISED TO PART FINA NCE CONSTRUCTION OF THE POWER PLANT. ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES CONCURRENTLY FOUN D THAT ADDITIONAL CAPITAL WAS RAISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING CAPITAL ASSET FOR THERMAL POWE R PLANT WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. PART OF THE FUNDS RAISED FROM ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITA L WAS TEMPORARILY DEPLOYED IN FD, WHICH HAD YIELDED INTEREST. IT WAS, THEREFORE HELD THAT SINCE INTEREST EARNED ON FDR WERE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH THE ACQUISITION OF PLANT A ND MACHINERY FOR ASSESSEES POWER PLANT THEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THE INTEREST EARNED ON SUC H FUNDS WERE LIABLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON FURTHER REFERENCE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COORDINATE BEN CH IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL PANIPAT CONSORTIUM LTD., SUPRA UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITIES 13 ITA NO.395/KOL/2018 SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., AY- 2012-13 15. WE FIND THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THESE JUDGMENTS ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THESE DECISIONS, WE FIND MORE MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATIVE PLEA FOR NETTING OFF THE INTEREST INCOME AGAINST PRE-OPERATI VE EXPENSES. ON THIS ALTERNATIVE PLEA, WE HOLD THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE NETTED OFF THE INTERES T INCOME AGAINST PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH ITS SET TING UP OF THE HOTEL PROJECT AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE ALTERNATE PLEA RAISED IN T HE COURSE OF APPEAL, WE DO NOT EXPRESS OUR OPINION ON THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE S BUSINESS WAS SET-UP OR NOT AND WHETHER EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR WERE PER MISSIBLE TO BE DEDUCTED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THESE QUESTIONS ARE LEFT OPEN. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED ON 18.07.2018 SD/- SD/- (P. M. JAGTAP) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :18TH JULY, 2018 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT M/S. SHRISTI HOTEL PVT. LTD., PLOT N O. X-1, 2 & 3, BLOCK EP, SECTOR-V, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700 091. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A) -3,KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA. DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Legal Requirements
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Memorandum Amendment Resolution
₹0
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026