Karan Synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 440/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8206 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N B SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, *MH *MH*MH *MH* ** * IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.440/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 104, SARDAR PATEL COLONY, STADIUM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD. ! PAN/GIR NO. : AAACK 6270 D ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' RESPONDENT ) '$ APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. K. SINGH, SR. D.R. #'%$ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. B. SHAH, A.R. & ' (%) * / DATE OF HEARING 11/08/2017 +,-. %) * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/10/2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, AHMEDABAD, D ATED 09/01/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHM EDABAD GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 FOR A SUM OF RS.1,25,760/- OUT OF EXPEN DITURE WHICH HAD ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 2 - BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS E OF THE BUSINESS AND RELATABLE TO EARNING OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X. 1.2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHM EDABAD GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DULY DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVING T HAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF FINANCE COST FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHICH HAD YIELDED EXEMPTED DIV IDEND INCOME OF RS.41,760/-, THAT IT HAD ALSO NOT INCURRED ANY EXPE NDITURE BY WAY OF ADMINISTRATIVE COST FOR MAINTAINING SUCH INVESTMENT . 1.3 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHM EDABAD GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT INVE STMENTS IN SHARES OF RS.13,24,100/- IS OUT OF THE CAPITAL AND RESERVE S OF THE COMPANY WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.10,66,04,000/- AND THEREFORE T HE APPELLANT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY FINANCIAL COST FOR THE INVESTM ENT IN SHARES. 1.4 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHM EDABAD GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE APPE LLANTS CONTENTIONS THAT EVEN IF ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A W ERE TO BE MADE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF R S.41,760/-. 1.5 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, AHME DABAD GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE RAT ION OF THE BINDING JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TORRENT POWER LIMITED (2014) 363 IT R 474 (GUJ) AND CIT VS. UTI BANK LIMITED (2013) 215 TAXMAN 8(GU J.) AND JUDGMENT OF THE UAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF MOHIT INDUSTRIES LIMITED ITA 2493/AHD/2010 AND PATEL TRAC TORS ITA 39/AHD/2010 WHICH WERE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO. 1.6 IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWAN CE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2.1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHM EDABAD ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 3 - GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE FOR A SUM OF RS.21,202/- BEIN G EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND & ESI WHICH WERE DEP OSITED LATE BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHM EDABAD GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION/D ISALLOWANCE IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VINAY CEMENT CO. LTD. (113 CTR 268) AND CIT VS. ALUM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED (319 ITR 306 (SC)) WHIC H WERE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO. 2.3 IT IS PRAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION/DISALLO WANCE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3.1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHM EDABAD GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING COMPUTING THE BOOK-PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY U/S.115JB OF THE I.T. ACT AT RS.1,25,670/- IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE FACT THAT AS PER THE AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT COMP ANY WHICH HAD BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART-II AND III OF SCHEDULE-VI TO THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, THERE IS BOOK LOSS OF RS.98,76,456/-. THEREFORE, EVEN AFTER MAKING THE AD JUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,670/- MADE BY TH E AO U/S.14A THERE WILL BE BOOK LOSS OF RS.97,50,786/- AND CONSE QUENTLY THE APPELLANT IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX U/S.115JB. THE COMPU TATION IS AN UNDER: BOOK LOSS AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF PART-II AND III OF SCHEDULE-VI TO COMPANIES ACT, 1956 LOSS RS. 98,76,456/- LESS: ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A RS. 1,25,670/- LOSS RS. 97,50,786/- THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX U/S.115JB. 3.2 IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE TAX LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.115JB MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 4 - 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF HDPE WOVEN FABRICS AND SACKS (BAGS). THE VARIOUS ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE SCRUTINY OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE DISCUSSED IN THE SUBSEQU ENT PARAS. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S.14A ON PERUSAL OF THE RETURN OF INCOME IT IS NOTICED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.41,760/- DURING TH E YEAR AND CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S.10(33) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. T HE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE DATED 24/12/2013 WAS REQUESTED TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED REPLY AS UNDER: PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE ARE NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT E XPENSES INCURRED TO EARN THE SAME. STILL ON THE SAFER SIDE, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4176/- IN THE SAME. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DULY CONSIDERED B UT THE SAME IS NOT FOUND TO BE AACCEPTABLE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN REC EIPT OF EXEMPT INCOME AND NO SEPARATE ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN REGA RD TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE D DETAILS OF EXACT SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN SHARES DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. THERE IS NO MENTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESS EE HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE ACCOUNTS OF INTEREST BEARING FUND AND NON- INTEREST BEARING FUNDS UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT. THE FUNDS ONCE PUT IN BUSI NESS GET INTERMINGLED ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 5 - AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KEEP THE FUNDS SEGREGATED FOR EACH AND EVERY PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED DAY TO DAY M OVEMENT OF FUNDS SO THAT SEGREGATION OF NATURE OF SPENDING CAN BE ASCER TAINED WITH A DEGREE OF CERTAINTY. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS OF SO URCE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARE, IT COULD BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY HAS INVESTED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS ALSO FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THE INTEREST EXPENSES INCURRED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN LIGHT, OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABA D IN THE CASE OF HARISH KRISHNAKANT BHATT VS. ITO (2004) 91 ITD 311( AHD). FURTHERMORE, THE MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS ALWAYS ENTAIL CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN EXEMPT INCOME EARNING SECURITIES AND HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME. WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT INTE REST FREE FUNDS THEN WHAT IS THE NEED FOR TAKING UNSECURED LOAN AND SECU RED LOAN. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT A SATISFACTORY REPLY RELATING TO T HIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE GOOD AMOUNT O F INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND INTEREST FREE FUNDS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. THE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE U/S.14A IS COMPUTED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AS UNDER: TOTAL INTEREST DIRECT INTEREST (TOTAL INTEREST RS.40410130 MINUS RS..0) 40,410,130 40,410,130 AN AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT OPENING BALANCE OF INVESTMENTS RS. CLOSING BALANCE OF INVESTMENTS RS. TOTAL = AVERAGE 1,324,100 1,324,100 2,648,200 1,324,100 AN AVERAGE VALUE OF ASSETS OPENING BALANCE OF ASSETS RS. CLOSING BALANCE OF ASSETS RS. TOTAL = 416,015,212 452,428,487 868,443,699 ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 6 - AVERAGE 434,221,849 DISALLOWANCES UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF THE RULE 8 D [DIRECT INTEREST EXPENSE] DISALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF THE RULE 8D[A*(B/C)] DISALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (III) OF THE RULE 8D TOTAL DISALLOWANCE LESS : DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME NET DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A 1,23,225 6,621 1,29,846 4,176 1,25,670 THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,25,670/- IS HEREBY DIS ALLOWED U/S.14A OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND U/S.36(I) (VA) ON PERUSAL OF THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE LATE PAYMENT OF EM PLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND AND EI ON THE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AMOUNTING TO RS 21,202/- THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND DEPOSITED IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 36(I)(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM ALONG N ECESSARY EVIDENCES, IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM. HENCE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS.21,202/- BEING LATE DEPOSI TED TO THE GOVT. A/C. IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 7 - DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,25,670/- WERE MADE. 3. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW APPELLANTS APPEAL IS BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. IN THIS CASE, AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THER E IS A LOSS OF RS.98,76,456/- AND HENCE, THERE IS NO APPLICABILITY OF MAT U/S.115JB. AS AGAINST THE SAME, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E AN ADDITION OF RS.1,46,872/- BEING: A) DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D RS.1,25,670/ - B) DISALLOWANCE FOR LATE PAYMENT OF PF/ESI RS. 2 1,202/- IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL AND RESERVES & SURPLUS, AGGREGATING TO RS.1 0,66,04,000/- AS AGAINST THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.13,24,100/-. ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT INVESTMENT FUND OF ITS OWN AND THESE ABOVE DETAILS HAVE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE MUCH EARLIER AND THEY HAVE SUBMITTED COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR YEAR 2006-07, WITH RELEVAN T SCHEDULES AS PER ANNEXURE-6, WHICH ALSO SHOWS THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THIS YEAR ONLY. IN EARLIER YEAR, ON THE SIMILAR FAC TS, ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y.2009-10 HAS BEEN PASSED U/S.143(3) AND ON THE S IMILAR FACTS, NO ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 8 - ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE TOWARDS WHILE WORKING OUT DI SALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D. THEREFORE, ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY, THE I MPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5.2 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, ASSESSEE CITED JU DGMENTS OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT(193 ITR 321(SC)): IN THIS CASE, IT HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE JUSTIFYI NG THE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THAT TAKEN IN EARLIER PR OCEEDINGS, THE QUESTION OF THE EXEMPTION OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT SHOULD N OT HAVE BEEN REOPENED. WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THR OUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY O R THE OTHER AND THE PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THE POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED B Y NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. H. A. SHAH & COMPANY VS. CIT(30 ITR 618)(BOM): AN EARLIER DECISION ON THE SAME QUESTION CANNOT BE REOPENED IF THAT DECISION IS NOT ARBITRARY OR PERVERSE, IF IT HAD BE EN ARRIVED AFTER DUE INQUIRY, IF NOT FACTS ARE PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. CIT VS. HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED (192 ITR 619)(CAL) : IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL GRO UND FOR ONE ITO TO DIFFER FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY ANOTHER ITO IN EAR LIER ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 9 - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND JUDGMENTS WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,760/- 5.3 SO FAR ADDITION OF RS.21,202/- BEING EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND & ESI WHICH WERE DEPOSITED LATE BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE I .T. ACT IS CONCERNED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSE E WAS REQUESTED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES BU T IN REPLY ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMITTED HIS REPLY IN DETAIL. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND EVEN BEFORE US ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY REASON THAT W HY HE DEPOSITED THE PAYMENT LATE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, AMOUNT OF RS.21,202/- WI LL BE CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/10/2017 SD/- SD/- IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; (PRAMOD KUMAR) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/10/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.440/AHD/ 2015 KARAN SYNTHETICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12. - 10 - !'# $#! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 012) & 3) / CONCERNED CIT 4. & 3) 45 / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD. 5. 67 8)'12 *12. 0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8 9: ( GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, # 6)) //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 24/10/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 7 PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 26/10/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER