Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74038 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-01-2014
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
07-01-2014
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
27-10-2011
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 DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH A AA A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NOS SS S. .. .3463/DEL/2011 & 4697/DEL/2011 3463/DEL/2011 & 4697/DEL/2011 3463/DEL/2011 & 4697/DEL/2011 3463/DEL/2011 & 4697/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEARS SS S : : : : 2007 2007 2007 2007- -- -08 & 2008 08 & 2008 08 & 2008 08 & 2008- -- -09 0909 09 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCO INCO INCO INCOME TAX, ME TAX, ME TAX, ME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -2(1), 2(1), 2(1), 2(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S ACB (INDIA) LIMITED, M/S ACB (INDIA) LIMITED, M/S ACB (INDIA) LIMITED, M/S ACB (INDIA) LIMITED, (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL BENEFICATIONS (P) LTD.), BENEFICATIONS (P) LTD.), BENEFICATIONS (P) LTD.), BENEFICATIONS (P) LTD.), C CC C- -- -102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, 102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, 102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, 102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 056. 110 056. 110 056. 110 056. PAN : AABCA0043K. PAN : AABCA0043K. PAN : AABCA0043K. PAN : AABCA0043K. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALIL KAPOOR AND SHRI VIKAS JAIN, ADVOCATES. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-V, NEW DELHI DATED 12.05.2011 AND 27 .08.2011 FOR AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THE ONLY COMMON GROUND RAISE D BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS PARTLY SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A). WE SHALL FIRST DEAL WITH THE APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 I.E. ITA N O.4697/DEL/2011. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN AY 2008-09 READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS ERRONEO US & CONTRARY TO FACTS & LAW. ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN REST RICTING THE ADDITION U/S 14A TO RS.1,93,054/- AS AGAINST RS.19,96,242/- MADE BY THE A.O. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY FOR EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. THAT INCURRING OF SOME EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME IS THE PRE-REQUISIT E FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A AS WELL AS RULE 8D. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF SUBSIDIARY COMPA NIES. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENOUGH OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING THE IN VESTMENT AND, THEREFORE, NO MONEY WAS BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY SUB-SECTION (2) & (3) OF SECTIO N 14A BEFORE INVOKING RULE 8D FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) JUSTICE SAM P. BHARUCHA VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-11(3), MUMBAI [2012] 53 SOT 192 (MUMBAI)(URO). (II) AUCHTEL PRODUCTS LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI [2012] 52 SOT 39 (MUMBAI)(URO). (III) CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. [ 2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H). (IV) DCIT VS. ALLIED INVESTMENTS HOUSING P.LTD. - ORDER DATE D 7 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 IN ITA NO.305/MDS/2013 OF CHENNAI BENCH OF ITAT. (V) JK INVESTORS (BOMBAY) LTD. VS. ACIT(OSD) ORDER DATED 13 TH MARCH, 2013 IN ITA NO.7858 & 7851/MUM/2011 OF MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT. ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 3 4. WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE, HE STAT ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF FOR AY 2010-11 HAS COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 0.05% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT WHICH IS THE RATE WHICH IS APPLIED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. THEREFORE, EVEN IF IT IS HELD THAT SOME DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A, THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS COMPUTED ON THE IDENTICAL BASIS AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR AY 2010-11 IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143( 3). HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN AP PEAL OR CROSS- OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEES ONLY REQUEST IS THAT THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RE CORDED THE SATISFACTION FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A IS FACTU ALLY INCORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER S ECTION 14A FROM PAGES 2 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS GIVEN A DEQUATE REASONS FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR HAS ALSO DISPUTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT IS A CASE OF A ONE TIME INVESTMENT IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY . SHE REFERRED TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AN D POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS COMPANIES AN D NOT ONE COMPANY AND WHICH HAS ALSO INCREASED. SHE POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES AT THE END OF 31 ST MARCH, 2007 WAS ` 33.63 CRORES WHICH HAS INCREASED AT THE END OF 31 ST MARCH, 2008 TO ` 43.48 CRORES. THUS, MORE THAN ` 10 CRORES WAS INVESTED DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO APPLY THE MIND FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND THE CLERICAL AND FINANCIAL STA FF HAS TO DO NECESSARY FORMALITIES OF MAKING APPLICATION FOR ALLOTM ENT OF SHARES, ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 4 GETTING BANK DRAFTS ETC. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FACTUALLY IN CORRECT. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE INSERTION OF RULE 8 D, THERE WAS THE DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF EXE MPT INCOME. TO AVOID THE UNCERTAINTY AND LITIGATION WITH REGARD TO QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EARNI NG OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED RULE 8D WHICH IS BINDING UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. LEARN ED CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE BELOW THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOW ANCE WORKED OUT UNDER RULE 8D, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMMITTED ANY MISTAKE IN AY 2010-11 AND PASSED AN ORDER WHICH IS LEGALLY INCORRECT, THE SAM E CANNOT BE BINDING ON THE ITAT. SHE STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR AY 2010-11 IS DATED 27 TH MARCH, 2012 AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT TIME WITH THE REVENUE FOR TAKING REMEDIAL ACTION UNDER SECTION 15 4, 147 & 263 OF THE ACT. SHE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AFTER CON SIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, FOUR QUESTIONS ARISE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION :- (I) WHETHER THE INCURRING OF SOME EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME IS ESSENTIAL FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 14A? (II) WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE WORKING O F THE ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 5 ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE FO R EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME? (III) IF THE REPLY TO QUESTION NOS.(I) & (II) IS IN THE AF FIRMATIVE, WHETHER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 14A? (IV) WHETHER FROM AY 2008-09, IT IS MANDATORY TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER/APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN WORK OUT THE DISALLO WANCE AT A FIGURE DIFFERENT THAN PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D? 7. REGARDING QUESTION NO.(I) SECTION 14A AS APPLICABLE DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 READS AS UNDER:- 14A. 14A. 14A. 14A. [(1)] FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL IN COME UNDER THIS CHAPTER, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELAT ION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCO ME UNDER THIS ACT.] [(2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHIC H DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATIO N TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCO ME UNDER THIS ACT. (3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL ALSO APPLY IN RELATION TO A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY HIM IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER T HIS ACT :] [PROVIDED PROVIDED PROVIDED PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER TO REASSESS UNDER SECTION 147 OR PASS AN ORDER ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT OR ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 6 REDUCING A REFUND ALREADY MADE OR OTHERWISE INCREASIN G THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154, FOR AN Y ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2001.]. 8. FROM SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 14A, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE AL LOWED IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE , INCURRING OF SOME EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOM E IS ESSENTIAL SO AS TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(1) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS. CIT [2 012] 347 ITR 272 (DELHI) AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- THE EXPRESSION IN RELATION TO DOES NOT HAVE ANY EMBEDDED OBJECT. IT SIMPLY MEANS IN CONNECTION WITH OR PERTAINS TO. IF THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS A R ELATION OR CONNECTION WITH OR PERTAINS TO EXEMPT INCOME IT C ANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION EVEN IF IT QUALIFIES UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE THAT IS IN CONTEMPLATION UNDER SECTION 14A(1) OF THE ACT IS THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO OR IN CONNECTIO N WITH OR PERTAINING TO EXEMPT INCOME. THE COROLLARY TO THIS IS THAT IF NO EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. 9. HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ALSO CONSID ERED THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD. [ 2010] 323 ITR 518 (P&H) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST WAS SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FROM INTEREST AN D THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES AND FUNDS WERE OUT OF THE DIVIDEND PROCEEDS. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING OF FACT, ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 7 DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WHETHER, IN A GIVEN SITUATION, ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHICH WAS TO BE DISALLOWED, WAS A QUESTION OF FACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOME EXPENDITURE WAS ALWAYS INCURRED WHICH MUST BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A AND THE IMPACT O F EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SE T OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME WHICH MAY NULLIFY THE MANDATE OF SECTION 14A, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A REQUIRED FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND WHERE IT WAS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A COULD NOT STA ND. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 10. SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. FROM A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 14A(1) AND ALSO THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IT IS CLEAR THA T INCURRING OF SOME EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOM E IS ESSENTIAL FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A. ACCORDIN GLY, ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.(I) IS IN AFFIRMATIVE. 11. REGARDING QUESTION NO.(II) - AS PER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME PROVIDED HE I S NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. AS PER SUB-SECTION (3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO DETERMINE THE EXPE NDITURE EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INC URRED BY HIM IN RELATION TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME PROVIDE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM A COMBINED READING OF SUB-SECTION (2) & ( 3) OF SECTION 14A, IT IS EVIDENT THAT FIRST THE ASSESSEE HAS TO STATE WHE THER ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY HIM FOR EARNING OF EXEMP T INCOME, IF YES, ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 8 THEN, HE HAS TO SPECIFY THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS INCU RRED FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO INCURRING OF NO EXPENDITURE OR WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDI TURE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF EXEMP T INCOME. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE, THEN, NO FURTHER ACTION UNDER SECTION 14A IS REQUIRED EXC EPT TO DISALLOW THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE, IF ANY, WHICH ASSESSEE CLAIMED T O HAVE INCURRED FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. HOWEVER, WH EN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WI TH REGARD TO INCURRING OF NO EXPENDITURE OR THE AMOUNT OF EXPEND ITURE SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME, THEN, HE IS R EQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. SUCH EXPENDI TURE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS M AY BE PRESCRIBED. THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA ) AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EMBARKING UPO N A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURR ED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME WOULD BE TRIGGERED ONLY I F THE ASSESSING OFFICER RETURNS A FINDING THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIE D WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESP ECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION PRECE DENT FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENTERING UPON A DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST RECORD THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 14A(2) AND (3) AND ALSO RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD., WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 9 REQUIRED TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION THAT HE IS NOT SATI SFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO INCURRING OF NO E XPENDITURE OR THE AMOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE AS SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME BEFORE EMBARKING UPON THE DETERMINATI ON OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMP T INCOME UNDER SECTION 14A(2). ACCORDINGLY, ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.( II) IS ALSO IN AFFIRMATIVE. 13. REGARDING QUESTION NO.(III) SINCE OUR ANSWER TO QUESTION NOS.(I) & (II) BOTH IS IN AFFIRMATIVE, IT LEADS US TO Q UESTION NO.(III), I.E., WHETHER IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REC ORDED THE SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 14A. WE HAVE PERU SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES IN THIS REGARD. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PARAGRA PH 4.1, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 1 4A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES SHOULD NOT BE MADE FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXE MPT INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT SUCH A DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED FOR AS NO EXPENDITURE HAS B EEN INCURRED FOR EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSI DERED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FACTUALLY AS WELL AS LEGALLY AND, IN PAR AGRAPH 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE FINDING THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF INCURRING CERTAIN EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCO ME CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HE FURTHER RECORDED THAT NOT ONLY THE D IRECT EXPENSES LIKE RECEIVING AND DEPOSITING THE DIVIDEND WARRANT HAVE T O BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BUT ALSO THE INDIRECT EXPENSES INCLUDING MAJOR MANAGERIAL/CLERICAL EXPENSES ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING A ND IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION FOR INVESTMENT. LEARNED DR, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 10 US, HAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET SPECIALLY S CHEDULE-9 WHICH IS AT PAGE 55 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. SHE HA S POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007 AT ` 33.63 CRORES HAS INCREASED TO ` 43.64 CRORES AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008. SHE STATED THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE MADE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN TH E EQUITY SHARES OF FIVE DIFFERENT COMPANIES. THEREFORE, APART FROM INVOLVEMENT OF THE MANAGERIAL LEVEL PEOPLE IN TAKING THE DECISIO N OF INVESTMENT, THE CLERICAL STAFF IS ALSO INVOLVED FOR IMPLEMENTING THE D ECISION OF INVESTMENT IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. HE FURTH ER DISCUSSED THE LEGAL ISSUE AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN PARAGRAPHS 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREAFTER, IN P ARAGRAPH 4.5, CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- 4.5 HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OF T HE PREVIOUS YEAR, I AM NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FOR M PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT OF THE PREVIOUS YE AR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME IS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S OF SUB-RULE (2) OF RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES, 1962. 14. THEREAFTER, IN PARAGRAPH 4.6, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. THEREFORE, FROM A PERUSAL OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMI NED THIS ISSUE AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE AND THEREAFTER HAS RECORDED THE SATISFACTION THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRE D ANY ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 11 EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. ACCORDIN GLY, ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.(III) IS ALSO IN AFFIRMATIVE. 15. REGARDING QUESTION NO.(IV) - BEFORE COMING TO THE LEGAL ASPECT, I.E., WHETHER FROM AY 2008-09 IT IS MANDATORY TO CO MPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D OR NOT, IT WOULD BE ESSENTI AL TO NARRATE THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHICH ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF ` 19,96,242/- UNDER SECTION 14A. THE DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER RULE 8 D. LEARNED CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` 1,93,054/- BEING 0.05% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL AGAINST THE REDUCTION IN DISALLOWANCE BY THE CIT(A) WHILE TH E ASSESSEE IS NEITHER IN APPEAL NOR IN CROSS-OBJECTION. THEREFORE , EVEN AS PER LEARNED CIT(A), THE DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MA DE UNDER SECTION 14A BUT HE MODIFIED THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE WORK ED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER RULE 8D. SINCE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A PPEAL OR CROSS-OBJECTION, IT BECAME FINAL THAT SOME DISALLOWANC E IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE CI T(A) THAT THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE IN THE WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 8D BUT HE REDUCED THE DISALLOWANC E ON ESTIMATED BASIS. HE WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 0.05% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH THIS FACTUAL BACK GROUND, NOW WE COME TO QUESTION NO.(IV) WHETHER IT IS PERMISSIBLE F OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A), AFTER COMING INTO EFFECT OF RULE 8D, TO WORK OUT THE DISALLOWANCE IN ANY OTHER MANNER THAN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D. IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A, IT IS PROVIDED THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL SHALL SHALL SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS MAY SUCH METHOD AS MAY SUCH METHOD AS MAY SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BE PRESCRIBED BE PRESCRIBED BE PRESCRIBED . THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED RULE 8D WITH EFFECT F ROM ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 12 24 TH MARCH, 2008 AS THE METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF AMO UNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. BY USING THE WORD SHALL IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A, THE LEGISLAT URE HAS MADE IT MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE AM OUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME A S PER THE PRESCRIBED METHOD I.E. RULE 8D. BEFORE THE INSERTION OF RULE 8D, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE SUCH EX PENDITURE ON A REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE BETWEEN THE TAXABLE INCOME AND EXEMPT INCOME. BUT, WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED IN RULES THE METHOD FOR APPOR TIONMENT OF THE EXPENDITURE BETWEEN THE EXEMPT INCOME AND TAXABLE I NCOME, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE OTHER STATUT ORY AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO DETERM INE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AS PER THE METHOD PRESCRIBED IN THE RULES. WHILE TAKING THIS VIEW, WE D ERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BHA RAT HARI SINGHANIA VS. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1 (SC). IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS A DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF SHARES AS PER RULE 1D OF THE WEALTH TAX RULES, 1957. HONBLE APEX COURT HELD AS UNDER:- RULE 1D HAS TO BE FOLLOWED IN VALUING EACH AND EVER Y CASE OF UNQUOTED EQUITY SHARES OF A COMPANY (OTHER THAN AN INVESTMENT COMPANY OR A MANAGING AGENCY COMPANY). I T IS NOT A MATTER OF CHOICE OR OPTION. THE RULE-MAKIN G AUTHORITY HAS PRESCRIBED ONLY ONE METHOD FOR VALUING THE UNQUOTED EQUITY SHARES. IF THIS METHOD WERE NOT TO B E FOLLOWED, THERE IS NO OTHER METHOD PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES. WHERE THERE IS A RULE PRESCRIBING THE MANNER IN WHICH A PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS TO BE VALUED, THE AUTHORITIE S UNDER THE ACT HAVE TO FOLLOW IT. THEY CANNOT DEVISE THEIR OWN WAYS AND MEANS FOR VALUING THE ASSETS. 16. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT, WE HOLD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDS THE SATISF ACTION THAT HE ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 13 IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF INCURRI NG OF NO EXPENDITURE OR THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE SPECIFIED B Y THE ASSESSEE, HE IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME AS PER RULE 8D. TH E CIT(A) AS WELL AS ITAT ARE ALSO EQUALLY BOUND BY RULE 8D AND, THEREFOR E, IN OUR OPINION, FOR AY 2008-09, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUC ING THE DISALLOWANCE AT A FIGURE WHICH WAS DIFFERENT THAN TH E DISALLOWANCE DETERMINED AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. W E, THEREFORE, REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE T HAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL FO R AY 2008-09 IS ALLOWED. 17. REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2007 -08 VIDE ITA NO.3463/DEL/2011, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPE AL READS AS UNDER:- THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN RESTRI CTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D TO ` 1,59,479/- AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF ` 19,45,505/-. LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTIO N 14A WHICH SPECIFIES THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN EARNING THE EXEMPTED INCOME, SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A SHALL APPLY, MEANING THEREBY, DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A(1) IS CAL LED FOR. 18. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER APPEAL IS 2007-08. FOR THIS YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCO ME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER, RECORDED THE FOLLOWING SATISFACTION:- 3.6 FURTHERMORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, I AM NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 14 CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM P ART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME IS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH METHODOLOGY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-RULE (2) OF RULE 8D OF THE IT R ULES, 1962. 19. THEREAFTER, IN PARAGRAPH 3.7, HE WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES WHICH WAS AMOUNTI NG TO ` 19,45,505/-. ON APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` 1,59,479/- BEING 0.05% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT. THE R EVENUE, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER IN APPEAL NOR IN CROSS-OBJECTION, THER EFORE, THE ONLY DISPUTE THAT REMAINS IN THIS APPEAL BEFORE US IS WITH RE GARD TO COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. 20. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WERE IDENTI CAL AS WERE ADVANCED IN AY 2008-09 WITH THE ONLY MODIFICATION, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THAT IN AY 2007-08, RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE W ORKED OUT AS PER RULE 8D AS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND TH AT HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE ASPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO COMING INTO FORCE OF RULE 8D IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND HELD AS UNDER:- HAVING DONE SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN REL ATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCO ME UNDER THE ACT. HE IS REQUIRED TO DO SO ON THE BASIS OF A REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT. ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 15 21. THEREFORE, IN AY 2007-08, WHEN RULE 8D WAS NOT A PPLICABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A ON THE BASIS OF REASONABLE APPORTIONMENT OF THE EXPENDITURE BETWEEN THE EXEMPT INCOME AND OTHER INC OME. THE CIT(A) HAS WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE BY APPORTIONIN G THE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AT ` 1,59,479/- WHICH IS DETERMINED AT THE RATE OF 0.05% OF AVERAGE INVESTMEN T. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AY 2010-11 IN AN ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 143(3) HAS ALSO COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 0.05% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF HIS ORDER READS A S UNDER:- IT CANT BE DENIED THAT THE ENTIRE SET UP OF THE BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UTILIZED TO OBSERVE THE POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEALING IN THE INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSE E HAS UTILIZED THE AMOUNT FOR MAKING INVESTMENT WHICH OTHERWISE COULD BE USED FOR EARNING INCOME TAXABLE UN DER THE ACT. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND RATIONALE OF SECTION 14A, AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,44,865/- IS DISALLOWED U/S 14A WHICH IS CALCULATED ON 0.05% OF AVERAGE INVESTMEN T. 22. THOUGH WHILE DECIDING THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A Y 2008-09 WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT FROM AY 2008-09 WHEN RULE 8D HAS C OME INTO FORCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO COMPUTE THE DIS ALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D ONLY AND, THEREFORE, THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR AY 2010-11 WAS NOT ACCEPTED IN AY 2008-0 9, HOWEVER, THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT IN AY 2007-08 BECAUSE, IN THIS YEA R, RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE AND WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THE REASONABLE APPO RTIONMENT OF THE EXPENDITURE BETWEEN THE EXEMPT INCOME AND OTHER INC OME. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS OF THE OPINION THAT 0.05% OF THE AV ERAGE INVESTMENT IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME, THEN, SO FAR AS AY 2007-08 IS CONCERNED , THE SIMILAR ESTIMATE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNREASONABLE. IN ITA-3463 & 4697/D/2011 16 VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVEST MENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNE D CIT(A) FOR AY 2007-08. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2007-08 IN ITA NO.3463/DEL/2011 IS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 IN ITA NO.4697/DEL/2011 IS ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR I.C. SUDHIR) )) ) (G.D (G.D (G.D (G.D.AGRAWAL) .AGRAWAL) .AGRAWAL) .AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 17.01.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- -- -2(1), NEW DELHI. 2(1), NEW DELHI. 2(1), NEW DELHI. 2(1), NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : M/S ACB (INDIA) LIMITED, M/S ACB (INDIA) LIMITED, M/S ACB (INDIA) LIMITED, M/S ACB (INDIA) LIMITED, (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL BENEFICATIONS ( (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL BENEFICATIONS ( (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL BENEFICATIONS ( (FORMERLY M/S ARYAN COAL BENEFICATIONS (P) LTD.), P) LTD.), P) LTD.), P) LTD.), C CC C- -- -102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, 102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, 102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, 102, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, ROHTAK ROAD, NEW MULTAN NAGAR, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 056. 110 056. 110 056. 110 056. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Mehul