M/s Bio Veda Action Research Pvt. Ltd., Sirmour V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 432/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0020 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C BIO; ASHISH GUPTA CIT DR ITA NOS C
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL ARORA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Tax effect; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 40A(3); 244A; 14A; 40(a)(ia); 80IC

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 508/CHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD, DHARAMKOT, PAONTA SAHIB, DISTT.SIRMOUR (HP) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE, PARWANOO ./PAN NO: AABCB7964J APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), SHIMLA DATED 27.2.2014 ./ ITA NO. 588/CHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE, PARWANOO M/S BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD, DHARAMKOT, PAONTA SAHIB, DISTT.SIRMOUR (HP ./PAN NO: AABCB7964J APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , SHIMLA D ATED 27.2.2014 ./ ITA NO. 432/CHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD, DHARAMKOT, PAONTA SAHIB, DISTT.SIRMOUR (HP) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE, PARWANOO ./PAN NO: AABCB7964J APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), SHIMLA DATED 12.2.2015 /ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUNIL ARORA, CA & SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADV. / REVENUE BY : SH. ASHISH GUPTA, CIT DR ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 2 ! /DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2019 '#$% ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.05.2019 (* / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AND APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS O F THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA [HEREINAFTER REFER RED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEAL S, THEY HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 3. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.508/CHD/2014 (A.Y.2009-10) 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS 17 REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A.O. A LLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80-IC OF THE ACT 30% AS AGAINST THE A PPELLANT'S CLAIM OF 100% DEDUCTION CONSIDERING THE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION UNDERTAKEN BY IT WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDI CIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 3 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,54,40,369/- MADE BY THE ID. A.O. ALLEGING THAT THE PAYMENTS MAD E TO BEAUTY ADVISORS ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194 H OF THE ACT AND AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SO URCE OF THESE PAYMENT THEY ARE LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)( IA) OF THE ACT WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD IN LAW. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ID. A. O. DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF RS. 1,96,33,577/- INCURRED ON ACCOU NT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES PAID TO THE FOREIGN PARTIES FO R VARIOUS SERVICES AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ITS BU SINESS WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 40 ,19,000/- MADE BY THE ID. A.O. AND AFFIRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A) IS GROSSLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 5. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ID. A.O. D ISALLOWING THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS. 8,40,000/- WHICH IS HIGH LY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 6. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTERIOR DESIGNING CHARGES OF RS. 1,12,360/- MA DE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS GROSSLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD IN LAW. 7. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID. A.O. D ISALLOWING THE FOLLOWING REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES: PARTICULARS AMT ( ) REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO:- I. PAONTA OFFICE (PAID TO M/S KALSI 74,15,385/- ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 4 BROTHERS) II. PAONTA OFFICE 61,49,798/- III. NOIDA OFFICE 27,71,590/- IV. JANGPURA OFFICE 11,15,995/- 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ID. A.O. AS WEL L AS ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN ARRIVING TO THE CONCLUSION THA T EVEN DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE ON THE AFORESAID REPA IRS & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, U NWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD IN LAW. 9. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF HOUSE KEEPING EXPENSES OF NOIDA OFFICE AMOUNTING TO 99,756/- MADE BY; THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSING OFFICER & AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS GROSSLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGA INST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD IN LAW. 10. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF ID, A.O. T HAT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION EXPENSES AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 35,15,766/- & 1,70,000/-RESPECTIVELY INCURRED BY TH E APPELLANT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWA RRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 11. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27,38,016/- MADE BY THE ID. A.O. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 12. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,47 ,1977- U7S 41(1) OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ID. A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF NON-M OVING SUNDRY CREDITORS WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 13. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING BANK GUARANTEE CHARGES AMOUNTING TO 4,06,512/- ALLEGING THE SAME TO BE PREPAID EXPENSE WHICH IS GR OSSLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD IN LAW 14. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 5 GROSSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES OF ELE CTRICITY EXPENSES OF RS. 94,409/- & RS. 42,630/- RELATING TO OFFICE PREM ISES AT NOIDA & JANGPURA RESPECTIVELY MADE BY THE ID. A,O. WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 15. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE B Y THE ID. A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF RENT & SECURITY EXPENSES OF RS. 19,600/- & RS. 1,08,390/- RESPECTIVELY RELATING TO OFFICE PREMISES AT NOIDA W HICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 16. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NSE INCURRED FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTERS OF RS. 3,96,717/- WHICH IS HI GHLY INJUDICIOUS, UNWARRANTED, AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 17. THE APPELLANT HEREBY PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD, AM END, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. GROUND. NO.1 : THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION AT TH E RATE OF 100% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS IN THE CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF UNIT. IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSION IS CARRIED OUT IS TO BE TAKEN AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YE AR FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET ITSELF, POINTED OUT THAT TH E HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN BUNCH OF CASES WITH THE LEAD CASE BEING PR.CIT, SHIMLA VS. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS IN CIVIL NO.1784 OF 2019 DATED 20.2.2019. ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 6 7. LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE WAS SETTLE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE APEX COUR T. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE AP EX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS (SUPRA) AND FIND THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT DEALT WITH THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF THE ACT RELATING TO THE RELEVANT SECTION I.E. SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT, AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE INITIAL ASSES SMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTION(8) OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT CAN LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. THE RELEVANT F INDING OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AT PARA 19 OF ITS ORDER IS AS UN DER: 19. HAVING EXAMINED THE SCHEME IN THE AFORESAID MA NNER, WE ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFINITION OF IN ITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (V) OF SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTION 80-IC CAN LEAD TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE CAN BE MORE THA N ONE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD OF 10 YEARS . AS PER SUB- SECTION (6), CAP IS ON THE 10 ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT IS NOT ON QUANTUM. WE HAVE ALSO TO KEEP IN MIND THE PURPOSE F OR WHICH SECTION 80-IC WAS ENACTED. THE PURPOSE WAS TO ESTAB LISH THE BUSINESS OF THE NATURE SPECIFIED IN THE SAID PROVIS ION IN THE SPECIFIED STATES. THIS PROVISION WAS, THUS, AIMED A T ENCOURAGING THE UNDERTAKINGS OR ENTERPRISES TO ESTABLISH AND SE T UP SUCH UNITS IN THE AFORESAID STATES TO MAKE THEM INDUSTRIALLY A DVANCED STATES AS WELL. UNDOUBTEDLY, THESE ARE DIFFICULT STATES AS MOST OF THESE STATES FALL IN HILLY AREAS. THEREFORE, COST OF PROD UCTION AND TRANSPORTATION MAY ALSO GO UP. 20. WHEN WE KEEP IN MIND THESE OBJECTIVES FOR WHICH SECTION 80-IC WAS ENACTED, AN IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE TO GRANT 100% DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS EVEN FROM T HE YEAR WHEN THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE EXISTING UNIT . AFTER ALL, THIS SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION INVOLVES GREAT DEAL OF INVEST MENT WHICH HAS ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 7 TO BE, AT LEAST 50% IN THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, OF THE BOOK VALUE THEREOF BEFORE TAKING DEPRECIATION IN ANY YEAR. WIT H AN EXPANSION OF SUCH A NATURE NOT ONLY THERE WOULD BE INCREASE I N PRODUCTION BUT GENERATION OF MORE EMPLOYMENT AS WELL, WHICH WO ULD BENEFIT THE LOCAL POPULACE. IT IS FOR THIS REASON, CARRYING OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION BY ITSELF IS TREATED AS INITIAL ASSESSME NT YEAR. IT WOULD MEAN THAT EVEN WHEN AN OLD UNIT COMPLETES SUBSTANTI AL EXPANSION, SUCH A UNIT ALSO BECOMES ENTITLED TO AVAIL THE BENE FIT OF SECTION 80- IC. IF THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATURE, WE S EE NO REASON AS TO WHY 100% DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS BE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN THOSE UNITS WHO HAD AVAILED THIS DEDUCTION ON SETTING UP OF A NEW UNIT AND HAVE NOW INVESTED HUGE AMOUNT WITH SUB STANTIAL EXPANSION OF THOSE UNITS. 9. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THEREAFTER CONCLUDED THAT A NEWLY SET UP UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE IN THE STATE OF HIMACH AL PRADESH WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION @ 100% OF THE ACT ITS PROF ITS FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND EVEN THEREAFTER IN THE CASE OF SUBST ANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRIED OUT BY IT, THEN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN B ECOMING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THAT IN ANY CASE, THE PERI OD OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT WOULD NOT EXCEED 10 YEARS. THE CONC LUSION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AT PARA 24 OF ITS ORDER IS AS UN DER: 24. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION LEADS US TO THE FOLLO WING CONCLUSIONS: (A) JUDGMENT DATED 20TH AUGUST, 2018 IN CLASSIC BINDINGINDUSTRIES CASE OMITTED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE DEFINITION INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-I C ITSELF AND INSTEAD BASED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE DEFINITION CONT AINED IN SECTION 80-IB, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY IN THESE CASES. THE DEF INITIONS OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE TWO SECTIONS, VIZ. SECTIONS 80-IB AND 80-IC ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. THE DEFINITION OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SECTION 80-IC HAS MADE ALL T HE DIFFERENCE. ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 8 THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT DOES NOT LAY DOWN THE CORRECT LAW. (B) AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE WHICH HAD SET U P A NEW UNIT BETWEEN 7TH JANUARY, 2003 AND 1ST APRIL, 2012 IN ST ATE OF HIMACHALPRADESH OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE ( II) OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80-IC, WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 100% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR FIVE ASSE SSMENT YEARS COMMENCING WITH THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION WOULD BE 25% (OR 30 % WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY) OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. (C) HOWEVER, IN CASE SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS CARRI ED OUT AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (IX) OF SUB-SECTION (8) OF SECTIO N 80-IC BY SUCH AN UNDERTAKING OR ENTERPRISE, WITHIN THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, THE SAID PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN WOULD BECOME INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND FROM THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE SHALL BEEN ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTIONS OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS. (D) SUCH DEDUCTION, HOWEVER, WOULD BE FOR A TOTAL P ERIOD OF 10 YEARS, AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (6). FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE EXPANSION IS CARRIED OUT IMMEDIATELY, ON THE COMPLE TION OF FIRST FIVE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION AGAIN FOR THE NEXT FIVEYEARS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF SUBST ANTIAL EXPANSION IS UNDERTAKEN, SAY, IN 8TH YEAR BY AN ASSESSEE SUCH AN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST F IVE YEARS, DEDUCTION @ 25% OF THE PROFITS AND GAINS FOR THE NE XT TWO YEARS AND @ 100% AGAIN FROM 8 TH YEAR AS THIS YEAR BECOMES INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR ONCE AGAIN HOWEVER, THIS 100% DEDU CTION WOULD BE FOR REMAINING THREE YEARS, I.E., 8TH, 9TH AND 10 TH ASSESSMENT YEARS. 25. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS ALL THESE APPEALS O F THE REVENUE. LIKEWISE, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW TH AT EVEN A NEW UNDERTAKING, WHICH HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ITS ELI GIBLE PROFITS @ 100% THEREOF FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS, IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION @ 100% OF ITS PROFITS THEREAFTER ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTA NTIAL EXPANSION ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 9 UNDERTAKEN BY IT. HOWEVER, SUCH DEDUCTION WOULD BE FOR A TOTAL PERIOD OF 10 YEARS AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (6) TO SECTI ON 80IC OF THE ACT. 11. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN THE IMPUGNED YE AR IS NOT DISPUTED, THE ASSESSEE, WE HOLD, IS ENTITLED TO CLA IM DEDUCTION @ 100% OF ITS ELIGIBLE PROFITS EVEN IF IT HAS ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF ITS PROFITS AT THE SAID RATE FOR FIRST FIVE YEAR S, IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THIS REGARD IN ITS D ECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS(SUPRA). THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE, STAND ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO. 2 TO 16 : THESE GROUNDS, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, ARE RELATING TO VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID VARIOUS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EVEN IF CONFIRMED, WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, ON SUCH ENHANCED INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WO ULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION @ 100% IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN PR. CIT VS. M/S AARHAM SOFTRONICS IN ITA NO. 1784 OF 2019 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.02.2019. HE, THEREFORE, HAS SU BMITTED THAT IF THE ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 10 ISSUE RAISED GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE, THEN, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL WILL BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE EXPENDITURE I NCLUDING THE SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 32, 40(A)(IA) 43B ETC., WOULD RESULT IN ENHANCEMENT OF THE PROFITS O F THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT BEARING NO. 37/2016 DATED 2.11.2016 THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO D EDUCTION@ 100% ON SUCH ENHANCED INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NOS. 2 TO 16 OF THE APPEAL BE DISMISSED HAVING BECOME IN FRUCTUOUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 37/2016 DATED 2.11.2 016. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, GROUND NOS. 2 TO 16 OF THE APPEAL SINCE HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS ARE ACCORDI NGLY DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPU TE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS GIVEN ON ISS UE NO.1 AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO. 37/2016. 15. GROUND NO.17 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 11 ITA NO.588/CHD/2014 16. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10. 17. THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 12 GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT ( AJ) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,98,522/- UNDER THE HEAD RENT, RATE AND TAXES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,75,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MEMBERSHIP AND SUBSCRIPTION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SECURITY E XPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,28,839/- AGAINST THE TOTAL DISALL OWANCE OF RS.9,32,783/-. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RENT AT RS .4,74,000/- AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,93,600/-. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,63,353/ - MADE UNDER THE HEAD MISC. EXPENSES. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT O F NON-MOVING SUNDRY CREDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,47,197/- AGAINST RS. 11,30,651/-. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,84,63 9/- TO RS.3,74,099/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTR ICITY AND WATER CHARGES BY TREATING THEM TO BE PERSONAL IN NA TURE. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,26,198/- UN DER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE. 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MAD E UNDER THE HEAD DIRECTOR'S TRAVELLING. 10. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD CIT(A ) HAS ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 12 ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,02,140/- O N ACCOUNT OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL CHARGES. 11. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SE T-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. RESTORED . 12. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH MAY ARISE AT THE TIME OF HEARING.' 18. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REVEAL THAT THE REVENUE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING T HE CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. 19. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE IN DELETIN G THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EVEN THEN, THE RESULTANT E FFECT WILL BE OF ENHANCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS INCOME OF ASSESSEE WH ICH OTHERWISE WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION @ 100% ON ACCOUNT OF SUBS TANTIAL EXPANSION. 20. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO AGREED TO THE SAID PROPOSIT ION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, SINCE THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION @ 10 0% OF THE INCOME OF THE UNIT, HENCE, ANY DISALLOWANCE MADE OR DELETED W ILL HAVE THE EFFECT EITHER OF ENHANCEMENT OR REDUCTION INTO THE BUSINES S INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS OTHERWISE ENTITL ED TO DEDUCTION @ 100% U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS G IVEN ABOVE WHILE ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 13 ADJUDICATING THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL, THERE WILL BE NO TAX EFFECT SO FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS C ONCERNED. 21. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APP EAL BY THE REVENUE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND HAVE BEEN RENDERED ACAD EMIC IN NATURE TO BE ADJUDICATED AT APPROPRIATE TIME, IF NEED BE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED. ITA NO. 432/CHD/2015 (A.Y. 2010-11) 22. NOW COMING TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010-11. WHEREIN, FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AT 100% AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTE DLY CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION WHICH MAKES THE UNIT ELIG IBLE FOR DEDUCTION @ 100% AND NOT 30% OF PROFITS AS UPHELD A ND AS SUCH NON ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRA RY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADD ITION OF RS.51,000/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD 'RATES AND TAXES' FOR ALLEGED UNVOUCHED PAYMENTS AND WITHOUT BILLS WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.3,04,044/- BE ING 50% OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.6,08,087/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD 'SECURITY EXPENSES' AT FRIENDS COLONY WHICH WERE DISALLOWED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANA TIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 14 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.3,26,136/- MAD E UNDER THE HEAD 'SECURITY EXPENSES' WHICH WERE DISALLOWED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF JUNGPURA PREMISES I N UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ILL EGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,16,000/- MAD E UNDER THE HEAD 'RENT' WHICH WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF JUNGPURA PREMISES IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 6. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,13,501/- APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) TREATING REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY M/S PREM JEWELLERS ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE TO BE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 7. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF L/10 TH OF THE TELEPHONE AND TELEX EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.65. 579''- INCURRED IN RESPECT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TREATI NG THE SAME TO BE PERSONAL IN NATURE WHICH IS NOT DISALLOWABLE IN CASE OF A COMPANY AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION SUSTAINED IS ARBIT RARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 8. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,93,005/- BE ING 50% OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.3,86,011/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD 'ELECTRICITY AND WATER EXPENSES' AT FRIENDS COLONY WHICH WERE DI SALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIE D. 9. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.54,355/- MADE UNDER THE HEAD 'ELECTRICITY AND WATER EXPENSES' WHICH WERE DI SALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF JUNGPURA PRE MISES IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 15 10. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,5 4,994/- TREATING SALES TAX EXPENSES TO BE IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY I N UTTER DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS IL LEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 11. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,13 ,43,475/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CIVIL WORK EXPE NSES, REPAIRS OF NOIDA OFFICE, PURCHASE OF STEEL AND CEME NT WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 12. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT NO DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 13. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 1,83.360/- PAID AS LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES IN UTTER D ISREGARD OF THE PLANTATIONS RENDERED AND SIMPLY RELYING ON THE ORDE R OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 14. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1979, 474/- WHEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE WHICH ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION UPHELD IS ARBITRARY AND UN JUSTIFIED. 15. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDI NG THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.8,24,597/- APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(L)(III) ON ALLEGED INTERES T FREE ADVANCES WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 16. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS EXIGENCIES AND COM MERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN RESPECT OF THE AFORE MENTIONED ADVANC E IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 17. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,44,00,455/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO BEA UTY ADVISORS TREATING THE SAME TO BE COVERED UNDER THE ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 16 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 C AND AS SUCH NON-DEDUCTI ON OF TAX ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) WHI CH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 18. THAT IN ANY CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) ARE ATTRACTED ONLY IN RESPECT OF AMOUNTS PAYABLE AND NOT TO THE AMOUNTS ACTUALLY HAVING BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR A ND AS SUCH THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AN D UNJUSTIFIED. 19. THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE ADMITTEDLY ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC BEING RELATED TO THE ELIGIBLE BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER HIMSELF WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME AT PAGE 22 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AS SUCH THE ADDITIONS UPHELD G IVING ONLY 30% DEDUCTION EVEN AFTER SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IS I LLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 20. THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD ARE BASED ON LY ON SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WHICH CANNOT FO RM THE BASIS OF FRAMING ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE ACT. 21. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER S ECTION 234 AND WITHDRAWAL OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A OF TH E ACT WHICH ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 22. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY OPPOSED TO LAW AN D FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 23. ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AF ORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 24. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL IS REGARDING ENTITLEMENT OF ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION @ 100% U/S 80 IC OF THE ACT AS HAS BEEN RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 17 2009-10. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 25. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF GRO UND NO.1, THE OTHER GROUNDS BEARING NOS. 2 TO 22 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE WOULD GO ON TO ENHANCEMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH OTHERWISE, IS ELIGIBL E FOR DEDUCTION @ 100% U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HAS S UBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 2 TO 22 OF THE APPEAL, A S THE SAME HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE LIGHT OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 37/2016 DATED 2.11.201 6. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREA TED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.05.2019. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & '# / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ,$ /DATE: 24 05.2019 . . ITA NOS. 508-588-C-14 & 432-C-15 BIO VEDA ACTION RESEARCH PVT. LTD., SIRMOUR 18 #& ' () *) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. + / THE APPELLANT 2. ',+ / THE RESPONDENT 3. - / CIT 4. - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. )./ ' 0 , ! 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5 / GUARD FILE #& / BY ORDER, 6 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR