DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. DLF Assest Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4433/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7516 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK WADEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYAJEET GOEL ADVS
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB; 80IB; 263; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4435 /DEL/2013 AY 20 10 - 11 D CIT, CIRCLE 10(1) I VS. M/S DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. NEW DELHI 9 TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI PAN: AABCD 4619 C A N D ITA NO. 4433 /DEL/2013 AY 20 10 - 11 DCIT, CIRCLE 10(1) VS. DLF ASSETS PVT.LTD. NEW DELHI 1 - E, NAAZ CINEMA COMPLEX JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI PAN: AACCD 4923 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI VIVEK WADEKAR, CIT, DR. RESPONDENT BY : S HRI R.S.SINGHVI & SH.SATYAJEET GOEL, ADVS. ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, JM BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP ITA 4433/DEL/2013 WHICH IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) - XIII DT. 9.5.2013 PERTAINING TO THE AY 2010 - 11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ITA NO. 4433 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF ASSETS PVT.LTD. AND ITA 4435 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. AY: 2010 - 11 2 1. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENT OF A SUM OF RS.4,73,70,13,878/ - IN THE BOOKS PROFIT CALCULATION U/S 115 JB OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF SEZ BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 2. T HE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. 1. FACTS OF THE CASE: - FACTS OF THE CASE ARE BROUGHT OUT AT PARA 4 OF THE LD.CIT(A) S ORDER WHICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. THE AS SESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED ON 10.3.2006 AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND OTHER ALLIED ACTIVITIES AS STATED IN THE MOU AND AOA OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.64,96,96,806/ - ON 14.10.2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.3.2012 DECLARING GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.64,96,96,806/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AS AGAINST THE TOTAL RETURNED INCOME OF RS.17,86,09,9 95/ - , THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT THE RETURNED INCOME. IN THE ASSESSEE S CASE, LIABILITY OF INCOME TAX HAS BEEN DETERMINED UNDER MAT ON BOOK PROFITS AS PER PROVISION OF S.115 JB OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS RECALCULATED THE BOOK P ROFIT OF RS.4,77,58,35,744/ - BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.4,73,70,13,878/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME RECEIVED FROM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEZ TO THE BOOK PROFIT OF RS.3,88,21,866/ - AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. 3. WE HAVE HEAR D SHRI VIVEK WADEKAR, LD.CIT, D.R. ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI RS SINGHVI, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE DELHI F BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 126/DEL/2013 AND ITA ITA NO. 4433 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF ASSETS PVT.LTD. AND ITA 4435 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. AY: 2010 - 11 3 NO.4761/DEL/2012 FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 VIDE ORDER DT. 24.01.2014. 4.1 . THE LD.D.R. THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD AT PARA 6.2 HELD AS FOL LOWS. 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PROVISION OF THE ACT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT IS A CO - DEVELOPER OF THE SEZ PROJECTS AND IT HAS RECEIVED INCOME FROM SEZ OPERATIONS. THE PROVI SIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 80IAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDE THAT THE DEDUCTION IS ADMISSIBLE FOR 10 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN A SPAN OF 15 YEARS AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT YET EXERCISED ITS OPTION TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION A DMISSIBLE TO IT U/S 80IAB. THE FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10 CCB REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTAINED U/S 80IAB AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED ONLY WHEN DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SECTION IS CLAIMED. SINCE THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE APPEL LANT, THEREFORE, THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE FILE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT ITS ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IS INCOME FROM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEZ PROJECTS. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THA T THE OPERATION OF SECTION L15JB(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS INDEPENDENT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE SECTION 80IAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION L15JB (6) CLEARLY STATE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION L15JB SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME ACCRUED OR ARISING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 200 5 FROM ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON, OR SERVICES RENDERED, BY AN ENTREPRENEUR OR A DEVELOPER IN A UNIT OR SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN THIS WAY THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION 11SJB AR E A COMPLETE CODE IN ITSELF AND ARE INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE AUDIT REPORT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, COPY OF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE ME. THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AUDITOR HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE INCOME AS SEZ INCOME AND HAS REDUCED THE SAME FROM THE BOOK PROFIT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115 JB (6) OF THE IT ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB (6) ARE VERY CLEAR AND THE INCOME FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AN D MAINTENANCE OF SEZ PROJECT IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED FOR WORKING OUT O F BOOK PROFITS. I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENT NOT PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION CONTAINED IN SECTION 115 JB WHICH ITA NO. 4433 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF ASSETS PVT.LTD. AND ITA 4435 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. AY: 2010 - 11 4 PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND SUBTRA CTIONS FROM THE PROFIT SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. I THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS FROM SEZ OPERATIONS AND SAME IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED FOR WORKING OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE IT ACT. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INCLUDING THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM SEZ OPERATIONS IN WORKING OUT BOOK PROFIT U/S 115 JB OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, THE BOOK PROFIT WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER INCLUDING THE SEZ INCOME IS NOT CORRECT AND SAME IS DELETED. A S A RESULT, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 473,70,13,878/ - . 5.1. THE DELHI F BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.126/DEL/2013 AND ITA NO.4761/DEL/2012 FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 VIDE ORDER DT. 24.01.2014 HAS ADJUDI CATED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AT PARA 13 IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS. 13. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WE FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (G) TO SECTION 115J B REFERS TO THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME WHICH HAS TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE PROFIT AS PER P&L A/C FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB. HOWEVER, WE FURTHER FIND THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION OF SU CH EXPENSES TO PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115J8 FIRST REQUIREMENT IS THAT AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE P&L A /C . THIS REQUIREMENT IS CONTAINED IN THE SECTION ITSELF. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON NOTIONAL L BASIS UNDER SECTION 14A AND THEREFORE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TY RES LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. MOREOVER, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNA L IN I .T.A. NO. 410/DELL DATED 27TH NOVEMBER , 2009 FOLLOWED THE SAME. THE FINDINGS ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 6 OF THIS ORDER WHIC H ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: - 'COMING TO THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 88,290/ - U/S 115J B THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 115J B (2) OF THE ACT. U/S 115J B OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PAY TAX ON ITS BOOK PROFIT SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE BOOK PROFIT IS TO BE DETERMINED U/S 115 J B (2) AS PER PART 11 & III OF SCHEDULE VI TO COMPANY'S ACT 1956. EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 115J B (2) DEFINES THE EXPRESSION 'BOOK PROFIT' AND MEANS THE NET PROFIT AS SHOWN IN THE P&L A / C FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR PREPARED UNDER SUB SEC. (2) AS INCREASED BY THE AMOUNTS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (A) TO (H) OF THE EXPLANATION - 1 . CLAUSE (FJ OF THE EXPLANATION 1 REFERS TO THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS OR EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO ANY INCOME TO WHICH SECTION 10 (OTHER THAN PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE 38 THEREOF) OR SECTION 11 OR SEC. 12 APPLY. FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB (2) THERE SHOULD BE NEXUS BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE INCOME EXEMPT U/S 10 OF THE ACT. THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS EXEMPT U / S 10(33) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE ITA NO. 4433 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF ASSETS PVT.LTD. AND ITA 4435 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. AY: 2010 - 11 5 INCURRED HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AND NO NEXUS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH THE DIVIDEND INCOME, THE EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF THE EXPLANATION. AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO TINKER WITH THE BOOK PROFITS AS DETERMINED AS P ER PROVISIONS OF COMPANY'S ACT UNLESS THE AMOUNT IS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (H) OF THE EXPLANATION. THE AMOUNT OF RS. .88,290/ - HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED TO HAVE NEXUS WITH THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 88,290/ - HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT 1% OF THE INCOME. IN OUR VIEW NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE AMOUNT OF RS.88,290/ - FROM THE BOOK PROFIT. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO.2 IN AY 2 009 - 10. 5.2. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 6. ITA 4435/DEL/2013 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) - XII I DT. 8.5.2013 PERTAINING TO THE AY 2010 - 11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,30,62,92,834/ - MADE BY THE AO MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 I AB OF THE ACT. 2. WHETHER THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE INCOME SALE OF ASSETS AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN HELD BY THE AO. 3. THE APPEL LANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 6.1 . FACTS OF THE CASE: - FACTS OF THE CASE ARE BROUGHT OUT AT PARA 4 OF THE LD.CIT(A) S ORDER WHICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 4. FACTS OF T HE CASE: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 1.1.2002. THIS COMPANY HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING REAL ESTATE PROJECTS WHICH INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF SEZ AND ALL RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING AN INCOME OF RS.2,52,39,665/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.2,30,62,92,834/ - U/S 80 IAB OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ITA NO. 4433 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF ASSETS PVT.LTD. AND ITA 4435 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. AY: 2010 - 11 6 THE ASSESS EE U/S 80 IAB OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.2,30,62,92,834/ - FOR DEVELOPING SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE AT HYDERABAD. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES UNDER APEPAL HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED TO IT IN EARLIER YEAR I.E. AY 2009 - 10 IN APPEAL NO.292/11 - 12 VI DE APPELLATE ORDER DT. 15.2.2013. A COPY OF THE APPELLATE RODER HAS ALSO BEEN FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN EARLIER YEAR AND THE MATTER IS SQUARELY COVERED BY ORDERS FOR AY 2009 - 10 AS MENTIONED ABOVE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80 IAB FOR THE 3 RD YEAR AND DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO IT IN EARLIER TWO YEARS. THE ISSUE IS INDEED COVERED BY THE EARLIER YEARS ORDER. 7. T HE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE DELHI B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2560/DEL/2013 FOR THE 2008 - 09 VIDE ORDER DT. 13.12.2013 . 7.1. TH E LD.D.R. THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL CONTENTIONS WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 8.1. THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 6.2 CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. 8.2. THE DELHI B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2560/DEL/ 2013 FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND ADJUDICATED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE QUASHING THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE INITIAL AY 2008 - ITA NO. 4433 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF ASSETS PVT.LTD. AND ITA 4435 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. AY: 2010 - 11 7 09 STANDS ALLOWED. THIS BEING THE FACTUAL DECISION, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT AYS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TATA COMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD., IN ITA NO. 531/2011 , VIDE ORDER DT. 8. 8 .2011 HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80 IA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED AFTER HAVING BEEN GRANTED IN THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM, AS THE RESTRAINT OF SECTION 80 IA(3) CANNOT BE READJUDICATED IN THE SUBSEQUENT AYS WITHOUT WITHDRAWING OR DISTURBING THE CLAIM WHICH WAS ALLOWED IN THE INITIAL AY. 8.3. THE DELHI B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2503 /DEL/2013 IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 DT. 17.L4.2014 HAD TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. 8.4. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEWS TAKEN THEREIN, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH DECEMBE R ,2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 11 TH DECEMBER , ,2014 *MANGA ITA NO. 4433 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF ASSETS PVT.LTD. AND ITA 4435 /DEL/2013 M/S DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD. AY: 2010 - 11 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR