The ITO, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad V. M/s. CLP Power Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 499/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 49920514 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K VOHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SN SOPARKARAR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., !' #$ #$ #$ #$ %% % &, ' ( ' BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER $./ I.T.A. NO.499/AHD/2007 WITH CO NO.85/AHD/2007 ( * * * * / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) CLP POWER INDIA PVT.LTD. 6 TH FLOOR, CHANAKYA OFF ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD-380 009 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3) AHMEDABAD '+ (, $./- $./ PAN/GIR NO. :AAACP 6900 B ( +. / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( /0+. / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K. VOHRA, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.SOPARKAR A.R. %1 2 &, / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 13/09/2011 34* 2 &, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2011 (5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CRO SS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A)-V, AHMEDABAD DATED 15.11.2006. FIRST, WE SHAL L TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 2 - 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIR ECTING TO DELETE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES OF RS.78,52,255/-, WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELATIO N TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME U/S.10(23G) AND DISALLOWED U/S.14A OF THE I.T.ACT. 2.1. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDI NG ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 22/02 /2006 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS ORIGINALLY FORMED BY THE NAM E OF POWER GEN INDIA LTD. THE SAID COMPANY WAS A WHOLLY OWNED SU BSIDIARY COMPANY OF POWER GEN PLC, A UK BASED COMPANY. THE SAID UK BASED COMPANY HAD APPLIED TO THE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNME NT OF INDIA TO ESTABLISH A COMPANY INDIA I.E. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY . AN APPROVAL WAS GRANTED AND THEREUPON 100% FOREIGN EQUITY PARTICIPA TION WAS ALLOWED. A MONETARY LIMIT OF RS.1,500 CRORES WAS FIXED AS PAID UP CAPITAL TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY POWER GEN, UK IN ITS SUBSIDIARY. AF TER THE SAID FORMATION, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO FUL FILL ITS OBJECTIVE TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN INDIA IN ELECTRICITY SECTOR. THE REFORE, TO FULFILL THE SAID OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS PURCHASED 33,73,40,000 EQUITY SHARES OF M/S.GUJARAT TORRENT ENERGY LTD. (G TEL). THE AO HAS THEREAFTER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A PROFIT OF RS.142.66 CRORES, WHICH INCLUDED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.137.20 CRORES. THE SAID DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED FROM GUJARAT PHAGUTHAN CORPOR ATION PVT.LTD. (GPEC LTD.) , OLD NAME M/S.GUJARAT TORRENT ENERGY L TD. (GTEL, SUPRA). THE CONTROVERSY AS RAKED UP BY THE REVENUE WAS THAT ON ONE HAND THE ENTIRE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.137.20 CRORES WAS CLAI MED AS EXEMPT U/S.10(23G) OF I.T.ACT. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH EXEMPTED INCOME WERE ALSO CLAIMED. THE AO HAS ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 3 - THEREFORE MENTIONED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO A NON- TAXABLE INCOME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.14A OF I.T. AC T. THE BREAK-UP OF TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE INCOME WAS AS FOLLOWS:- 3. THE BREAK-UP OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION INTO TAXABLE AND N ON-TAXABLE INCOME IS AS UNDER. (A) TAXABLE INCOME (I) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FEES 8,52,44,784/- (II) OTHER INCOME 3,23,69,225/- ------------------ 11,76,14,009/- ------------------ (B) NON-TAXABLE INCOME DIVIDEND INCOME FROM GPEC PVT.LTD. 1,37,20,35,000/- 2.2. THEREAFTER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE AFO RESTATED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.137.20 CRORES WAS AN EXEMPTED INCOME W HICH WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S.GPEC LTD. AS PER AO, GPEC IS 100% SUBSI DIARY OF THE ASSESSEE-GROUP. THE INVESTMENT IN SHARE CAPITAL OF GPEC LTD. WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1172 LACS. THE SAID INVESTMENT WA S MADE FROM THE SHARE CAPITAL FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE HOLDING COMPANY, I. E. POWER GEN PLC UK. AOS ALLEGATION WAS THAT TO GENERATE THE SAI D CAPITAL AND TO ARRANGE THE FUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENSE S WHICH WERE IN RESPECT OF THE EXEMPTED DIVIDEND INCOME. AS PER AO , THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES WERE THE EXPEND ITURE COMMON IN NATURE THEREFORE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE EXCLUSIVEL Y INCURRED ONLY TO EARN TAXABLE INCOME. THE BREAK-UP OF SUCH AN EXPENDIT URE WAS NOTED BY THE AO AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 4 - SR.NO. NAME OF EXPENDITURE TOTAL EXPENDITURE (1) RENT RS. 33,74,188/- (2) BANK CHARGES FOR RS. 19,09,102 /- (3) TELEPHONE & FAX RS. 6,80,902/- (4) PAINTING, STATIONERY & COURIER RS. 3,75,665/- (5) EMPLOYEES COST RS.2,50,6 9,164/- ---------------------- RS.3,14,09,021/- 2.3. FINALLY, IT WAS HELD THAT OUT OF THE SAID ALLE GED COMMON EXPENDITURE, 1/4 TH WAS TO BE DISALLOWED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A BEING INCURRED FOR EARNING NON-TAXABLE INCOME. THE AO HAS THEREFORE CALCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.78, 52,555/- AND TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE CONCLUDING PAR AGRAPH NO.4.3; REPRODUCED BELOW:- 4.3. THUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES AS MENTIONED ABOVE, ONE CAN SAY THAT A FAIR PART OF AD MINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELAT ION TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME COVERED U/S.10(23G). THEREFORE, AS PROPOSED IN PARA NO.6 OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT.6.1.2006 AN AM OUNT OF RS.78,52,255/- IS HEREBY DISALLOWED U/S.14A OF THE IT ACT. [ DISALLOWANCE OF RS.78,52,255/-] 2.4. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL ASPECT IN DETAIL AND THEREAFTER HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 5 - 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INVESTED IN SHA RES OF GUJARAT PAGUTHAN ENERGY CORPORATION PVT.LTD. AND DI VIDEND EARNED FROM IT WAS EXEMPT U/S.10(23G) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ENTIRE DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED BY A SINGLE CHEQU E AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF NOTED THAT ENTIRE FUN DS INVESTED IN THESE SHARES WERE OUT OF ASSESSEES OWN FREE FUNDS. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED IN A SINGLE LINE THAT THIS WAS A COLOURABLE DEVICE IN VIEW OF D ECISION OF MCDOWELLS CASE. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION AS TO HOW THIS DEVICE WAS A COLOURABLE ONE. IF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY IS SEEN, IT WOULD BE NOTICED THAT THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY ARE AS UNDER:- I) TO CARRY ON ANY OR ALL OF THE BUSINESS OF THE GENERATING, PRODUCING, TRANSFORMING, CONVERTING ETC . OF ELECTRICITY IN ANY FORMS OF ENERGY OR ANY PRODUC TS DERIVED OR CONNECTED WITH THESE ACTIVITIES IN INDIA OR ELSEWHERE. II) TO PLAN, LOCATE, DESIGN, ESTABLISH, EQUIP, ADMINIST ER ETC. WORK IN RESPECT OF THE ELECTRICITY GENERATING STATION. III) TO CARRY ON ALL OR ANY OF THE BUSINESS OF PROCURERS , SUPPLIERS, DISTRIBUTORS IN FUEL AND FUEL HANDLING EQUIPMENTS. IV) TO EXPLORE FOR, PRODUCE, ACQUIRE ETC. OF ANY FUEL O R OTHER RAW MATERIAL OF ENERGY OF ANY KIND FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY. THUS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY WAS MANAGEMENT AND GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY AND NO T THAT OF INVESTMENT AND EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. EVEN AS PE ER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ONLY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATIO N TO EARNING EXEMPT INCOME HAS TO BE DISALLOWED. FOR THIS PURPO SE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO PINPOINT AS TO HOW T HE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE RELATED TO EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. FROM THE DETAILS FILED, IT IS NOTICED THAT NONE OF THE LEGAL EXPENSE S AND PROFESSIONAL FEES ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING OF DIVIDEND. ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 6 - BASICALLY THEY ARE EITHER IN RELATION TO ADVICE REL ATED TO TRANSFER PRICING REGULATION OR CONSULTANCY CHARGES ATTRIBUTA BLE TO LEGAL CHARGES FOR CORPORATE WORK OR IN RESPECT OF CERTIFY ING REMITTANCE OF DIVIDEND BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND NOT IN ANY CASE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY. SIMILARLY, IT IS NOT AT ALL UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW PA YMENT FOR TRANSFER PRICING PROVISION AND CORPORATE FILING HAS BEEN CON SIDERED TO BE EXPENSES, PART OF WHICH RELATE TO EARNING OF DIVIDE ND. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION FOR THE EXPENSES ON FOREIGN TRAVEL. I T IS ALSO NOTICED THAT EMPLOYEES SALARY ARE BASICALLY FOR THE OTHER I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ITS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FE ES ETC. IT ALSO CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY RENT IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID FOR DIVIDEND AND AT BEST, SOME PART OF BANK CHARGES AND SOME PART OF ACCOUNTANTS SALARY ETC CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE RELATED TO EARNI NG OF DIVIDEND. SINCE DIVIDEND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY A SINGLE CHEQUE SUCH CHARGES INCLUSIVE OF SALARY WILL IN TO CASE EXCEED RS.15000 TO 20000 AND THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT NONE OF THE OTHER EXPENSE S ARE RELATED TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND WHICH WAS EXEMPT AND SOME OF TH E EXPENSES IN THE NATURE OF BANK CHARGES, ACCOUNTANTS SALARY CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE RELATED TO EARNING AND COLLECTION OF DIVIDEND . SUCH EXPENSES ARE ESTIMATED AT RS.20,000/-. SINCE THESE DISALLOWANCES HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO RS.20,000/-, SIMILAR TREATMENT WILL H AVE TO BE GIVEN IN WORKING OUT BOOK PROFIT AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER WILL ACCORDINGLY RESTRI CT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.20,000/- AND WORK OUT BOOK PROFI T AS WELL AS OTHER INCOME. BEING AGGRIEVED, NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. FR OM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.DR MR.R.K.VOHRA APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY ARGUING THAT THE ENTIRE CONTROL OF THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE UK BASED COMPANY. THE FINANCIAL ARRAN GEMENTS WERE MADE WITH THE HELP OF PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE BEEN P AID PROFESSIONAL CHARGES AND THOSE WERE NOTHING BUT ADMINISTRATIVE E XPENSES. THEREFORE THE EMPLOYEES COST, RENT, BANK CHARGES WERE THOSE TYPE OF EXPENSES ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 7 - WHICH WERE INCURRED TO EARN THE IMPUGNED DIVIDEND I NCOME. THE AO WAS VERY MUCH FAIR AND REASONABLE TO DISALLOW 1/4 TH OF SUCH COMMON EXPENDITURE, HENCE LD.CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT IN DELET ING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE LD.AR MR.S.N.SOPARKAR HAS STATED THAT ALL THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ADMITTED FAC TUAL POSITION WAS THAT THE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE WAS TAKEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE -COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN THE YEAR 1995, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A.Y. 2003-04. LD.AR HAS ALSO VEHE MENTLY STATED THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITU RE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAPPENED TO BE DIVIDEND INCOME. AN ANOTHER FACT HA S ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE INVESTMEN T AMOUNT AS PER THE BALANCE-SHEET DRAWN ON 31/03/2002 AND 31/03/2003 WH ICH HAS REFLECTED THE FIGURES RESPECTIVELY OF RS.9,092,827,771 & RS. 9,096,827,771/-. THEREFORE, LD.AR HAS PLEADED THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO WAS NOT BASED ON CORRECT FACTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITUR E WAS INCURRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TOWARDS ARRANGEMENT OF INVESTMENTS. LASTLY, LD.AR HAS PLEADED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE AT A LL SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BECAUSE THE ENTIRE DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE-COMPANY THROUGH A SINGLE BANK TRANSACTION, HENCE THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. 5.1. WITH THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE ALSO CON SIDERED FEW CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DHANLAKSHM I BANK LTD. 10 TAXMAN.COM 213 (KER.) A VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED IN RESPECT OF PROPORTIONATE ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 8 - ADJUSTMENT PERTAINING TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TH AT, QUOTE SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE IS CONCE RNED, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THAT THERE IS NO PRECISE FORMULA FOR P ROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE. NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR PROPORTIONATE ADMINISTRA TIVE COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF TAX FREE INCOME UNTIL RULE 8D CAME INTO FORCE. WE, THEREFORE, DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THAT OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THIS ISSUE AND REM AND ALL THE ASSESSMENTS BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REWORKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IN THE CASE OF EACH ASSESSEE FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A SHOULD BE LIMITED TO ONLY INTEREST LIABILITY AND NOT OVERHEADS OR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE, WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D FROM 2007-08 ONWARDS. UNQUOTE. 5.2. IN RESPECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AN ANOTH ER DECISION HAS ALSO BEEN CITED OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. 237 CTR 164 (KER.), WHERE IN AS WELL THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE COURT. IN THE LI GHT OF THESE DECISIONS, WE HEREBY CONCLUDE THAT SINCE THE IMPUGNED DIVIDEND WA S RECEIVED BY A SINGLE CHEQUE AND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IN RESP ECT OF PROFESSIONAL CHARGES WERE NOT IN RESPECT OF THE DIVIDEND EARNED DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE INV ESTMENT PATTERN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE ASSESSEES MA JOR SOURCE OF INCOME WAS DIVIDEND INCOME THEREFORE THE PROPORTIONATE DISALLO WANCE AS COMPUTED BY THE AO WAS IN APPROPRIATE THUS DESERVES TO BE OVERRULED . RESULTANTLY, WE HEREBY APPROVE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A). THIS GRO UND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER : ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 9 - 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIR ECTING TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS.20,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 6,23,000/- MADE U/S.14 A IN RESPECT OF THE LEGAL & PROFESSIONA L CHARGES AND FOREIGN TRAVELING EXPENSES ETC. 6.1. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES , SINCE LD.CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED A FIGURE OF RS.20,000/- ONLY AND BEIN G TRIFLE IN NATURE, THEREFORE NEED NOT TO BE DISTURBED. EVEN THIS GROU ND OF THE REVENUE HAS NO FORCE, HENCE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMIS SED. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.85/AHD/2007 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.499/AHD/2007) 8. GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SOME DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A WAS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN QUANTIFYING DISAL LOWANCE U/S.14A IN A SUM OF RS.20,000. 8.1. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND CONSI DERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE DISALLOWANCE AFFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A), THE CRO SS OBJECTION HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ITA NO.499/AHD/2007 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.85/AHD/2007 (BY ASSESSEE) ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 10 - 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WE LL AS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/ 10 /2011 PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT SD/- SD/- (AM) (JM) AKG MKS 31.10.11 6.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS (5 2 /&7 (7*& (5 2 /&7 (7*& (5 2 /&7 (7*& (5 2 /&7 (7*&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0+. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $$ & %8 / CONCERNED CIT 4. %8() / THE CIT(A)-V, AHMEDABAD 5. 7;< /& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. < =1 / GUARD FILE. (5% (5% (5% (5% / BY ORDER, 07& /& //TRUE COPY// / // / $ $ $ $ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION.. 19.10.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.10.2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 31.10.11. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.10.11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER