Itaslia Glass Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 4385/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9135 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U B MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD KEDIA
• Keywords: Business income; Proportionate interest; Bad and doubtful debts; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 205; 207

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH D DD D BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT MUKUL SHRAWAT MUKUL SHRAWAT MUKUL SHRAWAT, , , , JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N.S.SAINI N.S.SAINI N.S.SAINI N.S.SAINI, , , , ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 16-12-2010 DRAFTED ON:20- 12-2010 ITA NO. 4385 /AHD/ 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 M/S. I TALIA GLASS PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O. KEDIA & KEDIA ASSOCIATES,CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 205 KAALING, BEHIND BATA SHOW ROOM, NR.MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL, OFF ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, NAVJEEVAN TRUST BUILDING, OFF ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. : AAACI 3619N (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD KEDIA. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI U. B. MISHRA, SR.D.R. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI II, AHMEDABAD DATED 27-9-2007. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER:- ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN HOLDING THAT PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS LINKED TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME AND THAT PROPORTIONATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EA RNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME AND THEREBY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF `.71,616/-(OUT OF INTEREST) AND `. 206 (OUT OF ADMI NISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE) MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY - 2 - INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED DIVI DEND INCOME OF `.1,800/- AND THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN INVEST OF `.2 0,18,000/- AS ON 31-3-2004. AS THE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EXEMPT FROM T AX, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO DISALLOW PROP ORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENSE AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INCURR ED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED DETAILS OF EXACT SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AN D MUTUAL FUNDS DURING THE YEAR IN APPEAL AND THERE IS NO MENTION T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE ACCOUNTS OF INTERE ST BEARING FUNDS AND NON-INTEREST BEARING FUNDS UTILIZED FOR I NVESTMENT. AS NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, HE INFERRE D THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INVESTED INTEREST BEARING FUND S FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES/MUTUAL SHARES. THEREFORE PROPO RTIONATE INTEREST EXPENSES FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES/M UTUAL FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF `.71,616/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER BY RELYING ON DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF H.K. BHATT 91 ITD 311 (AHD.). FURTHER HE DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF `.206/- BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 14AOF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS), THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN SHARES OF PALLADIO GLASS LTD., TO THE TUNE OF `.20 LACS WHICH IS A SUB SIDIARY COMPANY AND INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF THE COMPANY AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 AND 2003-04. THUS TOTAL INVESTMENTS OF `.20,18,000/- HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS BEING SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES WHICH WERE TO THE TUNE OF `.42,60,490/ - IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 AND THE SAME WERE OF `.51,09,766/- IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HAD - 3 - BORROWINGS OF `.33,75,695/- WHICH WERE PURELY ON AC COUNT OF TRADE SECURITY DEPOSITS COLLECTED FROM THE DEALERS WHICH HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN FINANCING CURRENT ASSETS OF THE COMPANY AND NOT THE INVESTMENTS. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 I.E. YEAR IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWINGS BY WAY OF VEHICLE LOAN OF ` .7,62,811/- WHICH HAS GONE TO FINANCE VEHICLES AND FURTHER BY W AY OF TRADE SECURITY DEPOSITS FROM DEALERS OF `.51,05,508/- AND THESE BORROWINGS HAVE GONE TO FINANCE CURRENT ASSETS. TH US, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE BORROWING HAS GONE TO FI NANCE INVESTMENTS OF `.20,18,000/-. THE LEARNED AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) BREAK UP OF INT EREST OF `.2,08,260/- WHICH CONSISTED OF INTEREST ON VEHICLE LOAN OF `.63,055/- AND INTEREST ON TRADE SECURITY DEPOSITS OF `.1,27,096/- AND BANK CHARGES OF `.18,109/-.THUS IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AT THE TIME OF MA KING INVESTMENTS I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 NOR IN THE YEAR IN APPEAL AND THERE WAS NO NEXUS OF INTEREST PAID DURING THE YEAR IN APPEAL TO THE ACQUISITION OR HOLDING OF INVESTMENTS. THERE FORE, NO PART OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF THE CURRENT YEAR COULD BE D ISALLOWED AS BEING RELATABLE TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. AS R EGARDS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE, NOTHING WAS REQUIRED TO BE DONE TO MANAGE THE INVESTMENTS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT CURR ENT YEARS EXPENDITURE WAS RELATED TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT DI VIDEND INCOME. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED AS UNDER:- I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INVESTED `.20 LACS I NEQUITY SHARES OF PALLADIO GLASS LTD. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02.AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET FILED AS ON 31-3-2002, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS HAVE INCREASED FROM `.25.96 LAC S AS ON31-3-01 TO `.33.75 LACS AS ON31-3-02.ALTHOUGH THE RE IS INCREASE IN RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF `.11 LACS (`.22 ,60,490/- - `.11,21,535/-),THE INCREASE IN RESERVES AND SURPLUS HAS BEEN UTILIZED IN MAKING INVESTMENT IN FIXED ASSETS, AS T HERE IS AN INCREASE OF `.15.62 LACS (`.21,68,136 - `.6,06,715) IN THE NET - 4 - BLOCK OF FIXED ASSETS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INCREASE IN UNSECURED LOANS OF `. 8 LACS (`.33,75,695 - `.25 ,96,207) HAS BEEN UTILIZED IN MAKING THE INVESTMENTS IN EQUI TY SHARES OF PALLADIO GLASS LTD. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT T HE UNSECURED LOANS CONSIST OF TRADE SECURITY DEPOSITS COLLECTED FROM DEALERS AND THE SAME HAS GONE TO FINANCE CURRE NT ASSETS OF THE COMPANY AND NOT THE INVESTMENTS. THE SAME IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE LE ARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST OF `.1,27,096/- PAID TO TRADE SECURITY DEP OSIT OF DEALERS IS CLEARLY LINKED TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND IN COME, ALTHOUGH THE INTEREST ON VEHICLE LOANS OF `.63,055/ - AND BANK CHARGES OF `.18,109/- ARE NOT RELATED TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HA S RIGHTLY DISALLOWED PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPENSES AS THE S AID EXPENDITURE IS LINKED TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME AND INVESTMENTS IN SUBSIDIARY AND HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS TH E ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES I DO NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENT ION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT NO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR EA RNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF `.206/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS HELD TO BE JUSTIFI ED. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORT ED AT (2010) 328 ITR 81(BOM.) HAS HELD THAT RULE 8D INSERTED W.E .F. 24-3-2008 READ WITH SECTION 14A(2) CANNOT BE REGARDED AS RETR OSPECTIVE BECAUSE IT ENACTS AN ARTIFICIAL METHOD OF ESTIMATIN G EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO TAX FREE INCOME. IT APPLIES W.E.F. ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. FURTHER, HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT RECENTL Y HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES L TD., (2010) 323 ITR 518 WHICH HAS HELD THAT :- THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT DIRECTLY OR IND IRECTLY SOME EXPENDITURE IS ALWAYS INCURRED WHICH MUST BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A AND THE IMPACT OF EXPE NDITURE SO INCURRED CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME WHICH MAY NULLIFY THE MANDATE OF S ECTION 14A, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A REQUIRES FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CANNOT STA ND. - 5 - 7. HE CONTENDED THAT AS THE AFORESAID DECISIONS WER E NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE, THE ISSUE SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION BY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION TO WHIC H THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AGREED. WE THEREFO RE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ADJUDICATION AFRE SH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFORESAID TWO DECISIONS OF T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ISSUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 8. GROUND NO.2 READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAL ENTERPRISES & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. AND IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FAILED TO PERUSE AND TO APPRECIATE THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS. THEREBY HE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO `.10,46,864/-. 9. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY HAD WRITTEN OFF BAD DEBTS OF `.10,46,864/- . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT JUSTIFIED HOW THE DEBTS HAVE BECOME BAD RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS AND DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY COMPANY VS. CIT 262 I TR 97 (GUJ.) AND DISALLOWED THE BAD DEBT. 10. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RECENTLY SETTLED BY DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF DI CT VS. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK SAOG REPORTED IN 100 ITD 285 (MU M)(SB) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AFTER AMENDMENT TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) - 6 - W.E.F. 1-4-1989, IT WAS NOT OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT WRITTEN OFF WAS INDEED A BAD DEBT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED BAD DEBT IN VIEW OF CBDTS CIRCULAR NO.551 DATED 23-01- 1990. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VIII FOR THE E ARLIER YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2003-04 WHEREIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBT W AS DELETED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT RECOVERY OF THE DE BTS WAS NOT FORTHCOMING EVEN AFTER PERSISTENT EFFORTS. THEREFOR E, FINALLY ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT OF THE C OMPANY THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF THE BAD DEBTS. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF THE STEPS TAKEN BY THE COMPANY FOR RECOVERING THE AMOUNT BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 23-12-2006. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SH RI RAM GUPTA 149 TAXMAN 237(ALL.) IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION T HAT MERELY BECAUSE LEGAL STEPS FOR RECOVERY WERE NOT TAKEN IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE DEBT WAS NOT BAD. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNE D AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED AS UNDER:- SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL HAVE BEEN CONSIDERE D. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INTER OFFICE MEMO WAS INDICATIVE OF NEGOTIATION AND ARBITRATION OF DISPUTED DEBT. HOWEV ER, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF STEPS TAKEN FOR RECOVERY EITHE R BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE ME. THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D HAL ENTERPRISES AND ENGINEERS PVT. LTD., 207 CTR 729) ( GUJ.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD P ROVE THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD IN THAT YEAR, AS THE APPELL ANT HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE ABOVE DEBTS HAVE REALLY BECOME BAD, THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBT IS SUSTAINED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE - 7 - COMPANY HAD WRITTEN OFF BAD DEBTS OF `.10,46,864/- . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT JUSTIFIED HOW THE DEBTS HAVE BECOM E BAD THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECIS IONS AND DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY COMPANY VS. CIT 262 ITR 97 (G UJ.) AND DISALLOWED THE BAD DEBT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN APPE AL BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). WE FIN D THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BUSINESS DEBT OF THE ASSESSEE. A BUSINESS DEBT OF T HE ASSESSEE WHENEVER ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE AS IR RECOVERABLE, IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. NO MATERIAL WA S BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ABOVE WRITE OFF WAS MALAFID E. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY MAKING ANY CROSS VERIFICAT ION TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE AMOUNTS AT ANY TIME OR RECEIVED ANY OTHER BENEFIT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON. SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. V. CIT [2010] 190 TAXMANN 391 [SC] WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT DEBT, IN FACT, HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR; IT IS ENOUGH IF BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERAB LE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF `. 10,46,864/-. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED AS ABOVE. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL SHRAWAT ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: AHMEDABAD, 23 RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 - 8 - COMPILED AND COMPARED BY: PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD. 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 16-12-2010 -------------- ----- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 20-12-2010 ----- -------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 20-12-2010 ------------ ------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 20-12-2010 ---------- --------- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 22-12-2010 -------- ------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 23-12-2010 --------- ----------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 23-12-2010 ------ -------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- ---- -----------------