The Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd., Pune V. Dy.CIT,Cir.7, Pune, Pune

ITA 461/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76050 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS M S VERMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 32; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 2008-09) THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD., H.O., 269 SHANIWAR PETH, PUNE 411 030. PAN : AAAAT0742K . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MR. SUNIL GANOO RESPONDENT BY : MRS. M. S. VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 04-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-01-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSES SEE INVOLVING CERTAIN COMMON ISSUES, THEREFORE THEY HAVE BEEN CLU BBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS DIRECT ED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATED 31.03.2011 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 29.12.2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 3. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPELLANT BANK'S CLAIM IN RESPECT OF LOSS OF INVESTMENT IN APEX URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA & GOA TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,77,90,000.00. THE BANK HAD TO PROVIDE FOR THE LOSS AS INVESTMENT DIMUNITION RESERVE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF RBI. TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE BINDING NATURE OF THE RBI INSTRUCTIONS. ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 2. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF MERGED BANKS LO SSES OF RS. 2668.13 LACS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS NOT A BUSINESS LOSS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BANK BE GRANTED AS IT IS A W ELL ESTABLISHED LAW THAT PROFITS SHOULD BE COMPUTED AFTER DEDUCTING THE LOSS ES AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION THAT IT IS A BUSINESS LOSS UNDER SEC 28 OF THE I.T.ACT, ALTERNATIVELY, DEPRECI ATION MAY BE ALLOWED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSETS ACQUIRED AND LIABILITIES TAKEN OVER REPRESENTS INTANGIBLE ASSETS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SEC 32(1) OF IT ACT. 4. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT RIGHT LEGALLY AS WELL AS FACTUALLY IN NOT HOLDING APPELLANT BANK'S H ELD TO MATURITY SECURITIES AS ITS STOCK IN TRADE. LT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT SECU RITIES HELD BY THE APPELLANT BANK UNDER HELD TO MATURITY CATEGORY CONSTITUTE ITS STOCK IN TRADE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LOSS ON VALUATION OF THE SAID SECU RITIES AS ON 31.3.2007 ON THE BASIS OF COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWE R(ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL SCRIP) IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AND THE SAME MAY P LEASE BE DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. 5. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT RIGHT LEGALLY AS WELL AS FACTUALLY IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE A PPELLANT BANK IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR STANDARD ASSETS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4, 18,90,000.00 AS THE PROVISION WAS MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF RBL. THE DIRE CTIONS OF RBI BEING MANDATORY THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS NECESSARY B USINESS EXPENDITURE. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION THAT SECURIT IES HELD BY THE APPELLANT BANK UNDER HELD TO MATURITY CATEGORY CONS TITUTE ITS STOCK IN TRADE, ALTERNATIVELY, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BANK IN R ESPECT OF PREMIUM ON SECURITIES WRITTEN OFF TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,06,17,2 49.00 BE ALLOWED AS THE WRITE OFF WAS MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF RBL. THE DIRECTIONS OF RBI BEING MANDATORY THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS NECESSARY BUSINESS EX PENDITURE. 4. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE APPELL ANT IS AN URBAN CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKIN G. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, IT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.NIL, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WHEREBY AF TER MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESS ED AT RS.53,95,04,920/-. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A), WHO HAS SINCE ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF AND NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE AFOR ESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO A SUM OF RS.2,77,90,000/- REPRESENTING LOSS ON ACCOUN T OF DIMUNITION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES HELD IN APEX URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BAN K OF MAHARASHTRA HELD BY ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE DISALLOWED THE LOSS ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS ONLY A NOTIONAL L OSS AND NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UNDER THE ACT. THE SAID GROUND HAS NOT B EEN PRESSED BEFORE US AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE IN RELATIO N TO A SUM OF RS.2668.13 LACS WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS LOSS ON ACCOUN T OF TAKEOVER OF FOUR BANKS BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF MERGER. IN THIS RE GARD, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN-OVER FOUR BANKS, NAMELY, ANNAPURNA MAHILA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., HYDERA BAD, MANASA COOP. URBAN BANK LTD., HYDERABAD, CO-OP. BANK OF AHMEDABA D LTD., AHMEDABAD AND UNNATI COOP. BANK LTD., VADODARA IN TERMS OF TH E RESPECTIVE SCHEMES OF MERGER AS PER THE APPROVALS OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE TOOK OVER THE BUSINESS PROPERTIES, ASSETS AND LIABILITIE S OF THE FOUR BANKS IN TERMS OF THE RESPECTIVE SCHEMES, WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY APPROV ED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE DETERMINED THE EXCESS OF LI ABILITIES OF THE MERGED BANKS OVER THE REALIZABLE VALUE OF ASSETS TAKEN-OVE R AND THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS A REVENUE LOSS. SUCH LOSS WAS COMPUTED AT RS.2668.13 LACS, WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING TH E TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER THE CIT(A) HAS ALS O DISALLOWED THE CLAIM, AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE TAKEOVER OF THE BUSINESS OF THE FOUR BANKS WAS A PRUDENT BUSINESS D ECISION AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED LOSS WHICH REPRESENTED CONSIDERATION FOR E XCESS OF LIABILITIES OVER THE REALIZABLE VALUES OF THE ASSETS TAKEN-OVER WAS TO BE REGARDED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE/LOSS. THE SAID STAND OF THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN NEGATED BY THE CIT(A), WHICH IS IN CHALLENGE BEFORE US BY W AY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE SAID GROUND OF APPE AL HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 8. HOWEVER, BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3, AN AL TERNATIVE CLAIM HAS BEEN RAISED WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT SUCH PAYMEN T OF RS.2668.13 LACS REPRESENTS ACQUISITION OF AN INTANGIBLE BUSINESS AS SET AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT, AND THUS A SSESSEE BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION THEREON. SUCH ALTERNATIVE PLEA HAS AL SO BEEN REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) AND HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. 9. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE I MPUGNED SUM, BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF LIABILITIES OVER THE REALIZABLE VALUE S OF THE ASSETS OF THE BANKS TAKEN-OVER, DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY BUSINESS OR COMM ERCIAL RIGHTS OF THE SIMILAR NATURE CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SE CTION 32(1) OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, AS PER THE REVENUE, THE MERGER OF THE BAN KS IN QUESTION IS NOT BY WAY OF PURCHASE WHEREAS IT IS A CASE OF MERGER BY A MALGAMATION, THEREFORE NO INTANGIBLE ASSETS, EITHER BY WAY OF GOODWILL OR OTH ERWISE, CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF SU CH ACQUISITION OF BANKS. THE AFORESAID REASONS HAVE FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE CIT(A) ALSO TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE SAME HAVE ALSO BEEN REITERATED BEFORE US. 10. THE CASE SET-UP BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE SCHEME OF THE MERGER THE FOUR BANKS WERE TAKEN-OVER ALONGWITH THEIR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND SUCH TAKEOVER INCLUDED HUGE CLIENT BASE ALONGWI TH THE FULLY FUNCTIONAL BRANCHES OF THE RESPECTIVE BANKS WHICH PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE BANK WITH EASY AND IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO THE MONEY MARKETS OF THE LO CALITIES WHERE THE MERGED BANKS WERE FUNCTIONING. THUS, ASSESSEE BANK WAS SAVED THE HASSLE OF GETTING LICENSES FOR OPENING NEW BRANCHES AND TH AT TOO IN DIFFERENT STATES. IT WAS, THEREFORE, POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED SUM, BEING CONSIDERATION PAID ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS OF LIABILITIES OF THE MERGED B ANKS OVER THE REALIZABLE VALUES OF THE ASSETS TAKEN-OVER OF SUCH BANKS, WAS NOTHING BUT A CONSIDERATION PAID TOWARDS VARIOUS BUSINESS ADVANTA GES DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF MERGER OF BANKS, AND THE SAM E IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 AS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECT ION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AREVA T & D INDIA LTD. & ORS. VS. DCIT, (2012) 345 ITR 421 (DELHI) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SKS MICRO FINANCE LTD. VS. DCIT, (2013) 37 TAXMANN.COM 192 (HYDERABAD TRIB.). THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE SCHEME OF MERGER, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK, AND CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN-OVER ASSETS AND LIABILITIES INCL UDING THE CUSTOMERS ACCOUNTS/DEPOSITS, EMPLOYEES, THE LICENSES AND OTHE R STATUTORY APPROVALS OF THE MERGED BANKS, ETC. AND THEREFORE IT IS ASSERTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT REFLECTS ACQUISITION OF AN INTANGIBLE ASSET. AT PAGES 42 TO 43 AND 61 TO 78 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE DETAILS OF THE MANNER OF COMPUT ING THE EXCESS OF LIABILITIES OVER THE REALIZABLE VALUES OF THE ASSETS TAKEN-OVER OF THE RESPECTIVE BANKS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. ON THIS BASIS, IT IS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED THAT THE CONSIDERATION PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE INTRINSIC NET WORTH OF MERGED BANKS IS NOTHING BUT PAYMENTS MADE FOR ACQUIRING THE AFORESA ID ADVANTAGES OF BUSINESS WHICH ARE INTANGIBLE IN NATURE, AND FALL F OR CONSIDERATION U/S 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. SECTION 32(1)(II) PRESCRIBES THAT IN RESPECT OF KNOWHOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMME RCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE, BEING INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER 01.04.1998 OWNED WHOLLY OR PARTLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL BE ENTITLED FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AS PER THE PRESCRIBED RATES. THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER ON ACCOUNT O F MERGER OF FOUR BANKS ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED ANY ASSET WHICH FALLS IN THE MEANING OF EXPRESSION BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE SO AS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 12. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT WOULD BE APPROPRI ATE TO REFER TO THE SCHEME OF MERGER OF RESPECTIVE FOUR BANKS, COPIES O F WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. ALL THE SCHEMES OF THE MERGER A RE SIMILAR AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA IN TERMS OF T HE RESPECTIVE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THE SCHEME OF MERGER PROVIDES THAT THE ENTIRE UNDERTAKING, THE ENTIRE BUSINESS, ALL THE PROPERTIES (WHETHER IMMOVA BLE OR IMMOVABLE, TANGIBLE OR INTANGIBLE) ASSETS, INVESTMENTS OF ALL KINDS, AL L CASH BALANCES WITH THE RBI AND OTHER BANKS MONEY AT CALL OR SHORT NOTICE, LOAN S & ADVANCES, ANY OTHER CONTINGENCY RIGHTS OR BENEFITS, LEASE AND HIRE PURC HASE CONTRACTS AND ASSETS, RECEIVABLES, SECURITIZED ASSETS, LICENSES, FIXED AS SETS AND OTHER ASSETS, POWERS, CONSENTS, REGISTRATIONS, EXEMPTIONS, WAIVER S OF ALL KINDS AND WHERESOEVER SITUATE BELONGING TO, OR ENJOYED BY THE TRANSFEROR BANK HAVE BEEN TAKEN-OVER BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LIABILITIES T AKEN-OVER MEAN ALL DEBTS, DEMAND DEPOSITS, SAVING BANK DEPOSITS, TERM DEPOSIT S, TIME AND DEMAND LIABILITIES, RUPEE BORROWINGS, BILLS PAYABLE, INTER EST ACCRUED, CAPITAL RESERVES AND SURPLUSES, WHETHER STATUTORY OR NOT AND ALL OTH ER LIABILITIES INCLUDING CONTINGENT LIABILITIES, DUTIES, UNDERTAKINGS AND OB LIGATIONS OF THE TRANSFEROR BANKS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN-FACT, TH E SCHEME SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT ALL THE LICENSES/REGISTRATIONS OF THE BANK OR ITS BRANCHES ETC. ISSUED BY RESERVE BANK OF INDIA OR ANY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR OTHER AUTHORITIES CONCERNED, ETC. STA ND TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE BANK. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE LIABILITIES OF THE TRANSFEROR BANK INCLUDING THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OR CURRENT BANK ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER DEPOSITS OF THE CUSTOMERS. THE SCHEME ALSO ENVISAGED TAKING- OVER OF ALL THE EMPLOYERS OF THE TRANSFEROR BANK WH O WISHED TO CONTINUE IN SERVICE. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, ASSESSEE BANK TOOK OVER THE ENTIRE BUSINESS APPARATUS OF THE TRANSFEROR BANK, WHICH INCLUDED IT S CLIENT BASE, OPERATIONAL BRANCHES OF THE BANK AT DIFFERENT PLACES AND ALSO T HEIR EMPLOYEES, BESIDES THE LICENSES AND OTHER STATUTORY APPROVALS ENJOYED BY T HE TRANSFEROR BANK. NOW, THE CASE SET-UP BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ACQUISI TION OF HUGE CLIENT BASE, ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 OPERATIONAL BRANCHES OF THE BANKS AND THE ACCESS TO NEW MONEY MARKETS HAS RESULTED IN A BUSINESS ADVANTAGE WHICH IS COVERED W ITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILA R NATURE AS CONTEMPLATED IN CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. 13. THEREFORE, THE MOOT QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER T HE AFORESAID BUSINESS/ COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES, NAMELY, TAKING OVER OF HUGE CLIENT BASE, LICENSES, OPERATIONAL BANK BRANCHES IN DIFFERENT AREAS, ETC. CAN BE CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHT S OF SIMILAR NATURE CONTAINED IN SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, ONE MAY REFER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF AREVA T & D INDIA LTD. & ORS. (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIG H COURT ASSESSEE COMPANY ACQUIRED THE BUSINESS OF THE TRANSFEROR LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL UNDER A SLUMP SALE AGREEMENT. THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION PAID I N EXCESS OF THE NET VALUE OF TANGIBLE ASSETS TRANSFERRED, WAS CLAIMED AS PAYM ENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQUISITION OF VARIOUS BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL RIGHTS, WHICH COMPRISED OF BUSINESS CLAIMS; BUSINESS INFORMATION; BUSINESS REC ORDS; CONTRACTS; SKILLED EMPLOYEES; AND, KNOWHOW. SUCH ACQUISITION WAS CLAI MED TO BE AN ASSET IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS CONTA INED IN SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONCURRED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSETS IN QUESTION, BEING INTANGIBLE ASSETS ACQ UIRED UNDER SLUMP SALE AGREEMENT WERE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR COMMER CIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT A ND WERE ACCORDINGLY HELD ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. 14. IN THE AFORESAID LIGHT, FACTUALLY SPEAKING, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE BY ACQUIRING THE FOUR CO-OPE RATIVE BANKS HAS ACQUIRED EXISTING RUNNING BANKING BUSINESSES COMPLETE WITH T HE REQUIRED STATUTORY LICENSES, OPERATIONAL BANK BRANCHES, CUSTOMERS BASE AS ALSO THE EMPLOYEES, BESIDES OTHER ASSETS. THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE IS T HAT THE DIFFERENCE PAID BY ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF LIABILITIES OVER THE REAL IZABLE VALUES OF THE ASSETS TAKEN-OVER DOES NOT REPRESENT PAYMENT FOR ANY BUSIN ESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS IS UNTENABLE. IN-FACT, THE IMPUGNED SUM REFLECTS T HE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OVER AND ABOVE THE NET WORTH OF THE BANKS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN- OVER, WHICH OSTENSIBLY IS A REFLECTION OF THE VALUE OF THE AFORESAID INTANGIBLE ADVANTAGES OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUCH ADVANTAG ES ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AREV A T & D INDIA LTD. & ORS. (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF SKS MICRO FINANCE LTD. (SU PRA), ASSESSEE ACQUIRED A RUNNING BUSINESS UNDER A SLUMP SALE AGREEMENT AND T HE CONSIDERATION PAID INCLUDED, SUM PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE CLIENT BASE OF THE TRANSFEROR. THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS OVER THE ASSETS OF THE TRANSF EROR, INCLUSIVE OF ITS CUSTOMERS BASE WAS HELD TO BE AN INTANGIBLE ASSET BEING BU SINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 32(1)(II ) OF THE ACT AND WAS HELD ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE BUSINESS ADVANTAGES DETAILED EARLIER, ARE LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET, BEING BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE CONTEMPLATED U/S 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONS IDERED OPINION, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE FAULTED EITHER IN LAW OR ON FACTS. 15. THE OTHER OBJECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMALGAMATION IN QUESTION IS NOT BY WAY OF PURCHASE BUT IS AN AMALGA MATION BY MERGER, IN OUR VIEW, IS NO GROUND TO DENY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E, WHICH IS OTHERWISE WELL- FOUNDED. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN OUR VIEW, ON FACTS AND IN LAW THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRE CIATION ON THE IMPUGNED SUM FOR ACQUISITION OF BUSINESS OF COMMERCIAL RIGHTS CO NTEMPLATED IN SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THUS, ON THE GROUND OF APPEA L NO.3, ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 16. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS WITH REGARD TO TH E ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE SECURITIES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE BANK UNDER HELD TO MATURITY (HTM) CATEGORY CONSTITUTE ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND THE CONS EQUENTIAL LOSS ON VALUATION OF THE SAID SECURITIES AS ON 31.03.2007 ON THE BASI S OF COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER (ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL SCRI P) IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. THE SAID CLAIM WAS MADE BY WAY OF AN ADDITIONAL GRO UND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY HIM FOR ADJUDICATION BUT ON MERITS IT HAS BEEN DENIED. BEFORE US, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT THE SECURITIES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE BANK ARE PART OF STOCK-IN-TRADE IRRESPECTI VE OF THEIR CLASSIFICATION AND THAT A SIMILAR MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE PU NE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF LATUR URBAN COOP. BANK LTD. IN ITA NO. 778/PN/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DATED 31.08.2012 AND THE SA NGLI BANK LTD. IN ITA NO.846/PN/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DATED 30 .05.2013 WHEREIN SUCH SECURITIES ARE ACCEPTED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE AFORESAID FACTU AL MATRIX. 17. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS SECURIT IES HELD UNDER HTM CATEGORIES ARE CONCERNED, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF LATUR URBAN COOP. BANK LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT SUCH SECURI TIES HELD BY AN ASSESSEE BANK ARE PART OF ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE THAT THE S ECURITIES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HTM CATEGORY ARE CAPITAL IN NATU RE. THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LATUR URBAN COOP. BANK LTD. (SUPRA) IS RELEVANT :- 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THE LD COUNSEL PLAC ED HIS HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BANK OF BARODA AND IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK VS. CIT, 240 ITR 355 (SC). IN THE CASE OF BANK OF BARODA (SUPRA), THE IS SUE BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIP WAS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. THE METHO D OF VALUATION FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS TO VALUE INVESTMENTS AT COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER WAS LOWER. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE D EPREDATION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 11,82,35,007/- AND THE SAID DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O, BUT THE ASSESSEE B ANK SUCCEEDED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE CARRIED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. TH E CORE ISSUE WAS THE METHOD OF VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK FO R VALUING THE STOCK OF THE SECURITIES. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FOLLOWED THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK (SUPRA) . 15. IN THE CASE OF UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK (SUPRA), EVEN THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF THE STOCK IN TRADE OF THE INVESTMENT W AS BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ISS UE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF THE LOSS ON THE SALE OF THE SECURITIES. MERELY B ECAUSE THE SECURITIES ARE KEPT UNDER THE HEAD TILL THE MATURITY, THE SAID SEC URITY CANNOT BE TREATED AS A PURELY INVESTMENT. LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE SEC URITIES HELD BY THE BANK ARE IN THE NATURE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE. WE MAY LIKE TO QUO TE HERE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NEDUNGADI BANK LTD., 264 ITR 545. IN THE SAID CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT H AS HELD THAT THE SECURITIES HELD BY THE BANK ARE IN THE NATURE OF STOCK-IN-TRAD E. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS MERELY GONE ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE HEAD UND ER WHICH THE SECURITIES ARE HELD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NOMENCLATURE CANN OT BE DECISIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BANK. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE LOSS ON THE SALE OF THE SECURITIES IS REVENUE IN NATURE AND SAME IS ALLOWABLE. ACCORDI NGLY, GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 18. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, WE HOLD THA T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS JUSTIFIED AND IS ALLOWABLE. 19. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6 IS ALTERNATE TO GROU ND OF APPEAL NO. 4 WHEREBY IT IS CANVASSED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE BANK IN RESPECT OF PREMIUM PAID ON SECURITIES BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. 20. AS THE MAIN CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLO WED IN TERMS OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4, THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM IS RENDERED A CADEMIC AND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 21. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IS WITH REGARD TO A PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DEBIT TO P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF RS.4,18,90,000/- UNDER THE HEAD CONTINGENT PROVISI ONS AGAINST STANDARD ASSET. EXPLAINING THE SAID CLAIM, IT WAS STATED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A PROVISION IS MADE IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AGAIN ST A CONTINGENCY WHICH MIGHT OCCUR IN FUTURE WITH REGARD TO NON-PERFORMING ASSETS (NPAS). IT WAS SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSED THAT THE PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE IN LINE WITH THE RBI ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 GUIDELINES AND THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WAS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLO WED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS ONLY A CONTINGENT LIABILITY WHIC H CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE FOLLOWIN G THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHN OLOGIES LTD. VS. JCIT, (2010) 320 ITR 577 (SC). 22. FACTUALLY, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE IMPUGN ED CLAIM IS A CONTINGENT PROVISION MADE ON THE BASIS OF A PERCENTAGE ON THE VALUE OF STANDARD ASSETS. THE PROVISION DOES NOT REFLECT ANY PARTICULAR DEBT WHICH IS DOUBTFUL OR BAD AND IT IS ONLY A GENERAL AND NON-SPECIFIC PROVISION AND IT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CLASSIFIED AS A CONTINGENT PROVISION BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORI TIES. IN-FACT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, F AIRLY CONCEDED THE CONTINGENT NATURE OF THE PROVISION AND THEREFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES MADE NO MISTAKE IN DISALLOWING THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE JUDG MENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 24. NOW, WE MAY TAKE-UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATED 31.11.2011 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FR OM AN ORDER DATED 29.12.2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143( 3) OF THE ACT. 25. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE :- 1. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF MERGED BANKS LOSSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 NOT A BUSINESS LOSS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT. THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT BANK FOR RS. 4,45,543.00 BE GRANTED AS IT IS A WELL ESTABLIS HED LAW THAT PROFITS SHOULD BE COMPUTED AFTER DEDUCTING THE LOSSES AND EXPENDIT URE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION THAT IT IS A BUSINESS LOSS UNDER SEC 28 OF THE I.T.ACT, ALTERNATIVELY, DEPRECIATION MAY BE ALLOWED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASSETS ACQUIRED AND LIABILITIES TAKEN OVER REPRESENTS INTANGIBLE ASSETS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER CLAUSE(II) OF SEC 32(1 ) OF IT ACT. 3. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT RIGHT LEGALLY AS WELL AS FACTUALLY IN NOT HOLDING APPELLANT BANK'S HELD T O MATURITY SECURITIES AS ITS STOCK IN TRADE. LT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT SECURITI ES HELD BY THE APPELLANT BANK UNDER HELD TO MATURITY CATEGORY CONSTITUTE ITS STOCK IN TRADE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LOSS ON VALUATION OF THE SAID SECU RITIES AS ON 31.3.2008 ON THE BASIS OF COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS L OWER (ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL SCRIP) IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AND THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. 4. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT RIGHT LEGALLY AS WELL AS FACTUALLY IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELL ANT BANK IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR STANDARD ASSETS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 7, 70,00,000.00 AS THE PROVISION WAS MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF RBL. THE DIRE CTIONS OF RBI BEING MANDATORY THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION THAT SECURIT IES HELD BY THE APPELLANT BANK UNDER HELD TO MATURITY CATEGORY CONSTITUTE ITS STOCK IN TRADE, ALTERNATIVELY, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BANK IN RESPECT OF PREMI UM ON SECURITIES WRITTEN OFF TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,08,15,431.00 BE ALLOWED AS THE WRITE OFF WAS MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF RBL. THE DIRECTIONS OF RBI BEING MANDAT ORY THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 6. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT RIGHT LEGALLY AS WELL AS FACTUALLY IN HOLDING THAT SEC 43 D APPLIES TO TH E APPELLANT BANK. THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) III OF INCOME TAX HAS OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT BANK BEING A SCHEDULED BANK, THE RBI DIRE CTIONS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO IDENTIFY THE DOUBTFUL DEBTS AS PRESCRIBE D U/S 43D. LT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT ADDITION SUSTAINED ON ACCOUNT OF SEC 43 D MAY BE QUASHED BEING ILLEGAL AND DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 26. IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5 RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 ARE PARI-MATERIA TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 CONSIDE RED BY US IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THEREFORE OUR DECISION ON SUCH GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 WOULD APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS ON THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALSO AND AS A RESULT (I ) GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED; (II) GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED; AND, (III) GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE DISMISSED. 27. THE LAST GROUND REMAINING IN THIS APPEAL BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6 RELATES TO A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,12,75,445/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 OFFICER BY INVOKING SECTION 43D OF THE ACT. IN THI S REGARD, THE PERTINENT DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO CATEGORIZATION OF BAD AND DOUBTFU L FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 43D(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CATEGORIZATION WAS DONE AS PER THE RBI GUIDELINES, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTED THAT THE CATEGORIZATION OF NPAS AND THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST T HEREOF WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN TERMS OF RULE 6EA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1 962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) AS PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 43D OF THE A CT, AND ACCORDINGLY HE COMPUTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,12,75,445/- WHICH WAS LI ABLE TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME. THE AFORESAID POSITION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT, 140 TTJ 203. 28. THE CONTROVERSY IN QUESTION IS THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST IN RELATION TO CATEGORIES OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS, WHICH IN TERM S OF SECTION 43D OF THE ACT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INTEREST IS CREDITED OR IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE BANK, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER . THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CATEGORIZATION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT S IS TO BE MADE AS PER THE PRESCRIBED RULES WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE CONT AINED IN RULE 6EA OF THE RULES HAVING REGARD TO SECTION 43D(A) OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT THE CATEGORIZA TION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS SHOULD BE MADE HAVING REGARD TO THE GUIDELINE S ISSUED BY THE RBI. THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI AND THE METHODOLOGY PR ESCRIBED IN RULE 6EA OF THE RULES ARE AT VARIANCE AND THE REVENUE HAS SOUGH T TO COMPUTE THE INTEREST INCOME ON THE BASIS OF METHODOLOGY CONTAINED IN RUL E 6EA OF THE RULES. OSTENSIBLY, A SIMILAR CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN CONSIDER ED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE STAND OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN UPHELD. BEFORE US, T HE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY DECISION TO THE CONTRARY EITHER OF THE TRIBUNAL OR OF ANY HIGH COURT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE US TO DEVIATE FROM T HE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GIC HOUSING FI NANCE LTD. (SUPRA). ITA NOS.460 & 461/PN/2012 A.YS. 2007-08 & 2008-09 CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, W E FIND NO ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, WHICH WE HEREBY AFFIRM. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ALSO ASSESSEE FAILS. 29. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 30. RESULTANTLY, BOTH THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G . S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 23 RD JANUARY, 2014 SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-III, PUNE; 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE