M/s. Toshiba India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5011/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4873 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN KOTRU
• Assessee Lawyers: UPAN GUPTA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Revised return; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5011 & 5291 /DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 ) TOSHIBA INDIA (P) LTD, 3 RD FLOOR, BUILDING NO. 10, TOWER B, DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE - II, GURGAON PAN:AABCT4829N VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 16(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UPAN GUPTA, CA REVENUE BY: SHRI SHRAVAN KOTRU, SR DR DATE OF HEARING 24/08 / 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 / 08 / 2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. TH ESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), NEW DELHI DATED 02.04.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5011/DEL/2014 : - 1. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN AS MUCH AS IT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS INVOLVED AND LAW THEREON. 1.1 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON MERITS IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO AS IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2014 ON THE ISSUES APPEALED HEREIN. 1.2 TH AT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO TO THE EXTENT APPEALED HEREIN EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS BASED ON HIS SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 1.3 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE DETAILS/EVIDENCE/SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FILED/ PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES 2.1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, BY DISALLOWING 25% OF THE TOTAL LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSE S ON AD - HOC BASIS, AND THEREBY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 31,38,066. PAGE 2 OF 12 2.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UP - HOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROV IDE DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. 2.3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY DISCOUNTING THE DETAILS AND INFORMATION BROUGHT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF L EDGER ACCOUNT FOR THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. 2.4 THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE DATA FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER HELD TO BE UNRELIABLE OR INCORRECT BY THE AO, HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO SIMPLY REJECTS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,25,52,264/ - INCURRED ON LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS MORE THA N THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES AS THE LD. AO HAD NEVER ASKED FOR REASONS FOR INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE FROM THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, NOR WAS THE APPELLANT REQUIRED BY LAW TO EXPLAIN THE INCREASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT PROVIDED ALL THE RELEVANT AND REQUISITE IN FORMATION AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AS HAD BEEN SOUGHT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2.6 THAT FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT EVEN THOUGH THE INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE A REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE, THE APPELLANT FULLY EXPLAINED AND JUSTIFIED THE RISE IN LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES AS A RESULT OF ADDITION OF NEW LINE OF BUSINESS. 2.7 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ERRONEOUSLY PRESUMING THAT THE INCREASE OF EXPENDITURE IS A SINE QUA NON FOR ITS DISALLOWANCE EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER IN THE PRESENT YEAR WHICH INCLUDED SALES DUE TO ADDITION OF NEW LINE OF BUSINESS. 2.8 WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INCREASE IN LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES WAS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED AND COMMENSURATE WITH THE INCREASE IN SCALE OF OPERATIONS & TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT? 2.9 WHETHER THE INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS A GROUND OF DISALLOWANCE OF ON LEGAL AND PROFESSION AL EXPENSES ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENSES U/S 37 (1) OF THE ACT? 2.10 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF THE LEGAL AN D PROFESSIONAL CHARGES IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IN TERMS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, WHEREAS A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS/DOCUMENTS/LEDGER ACCOUNT MADE BY THE APPELLANT SHOWS THAT, THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURE SO PROVID ED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IS EXPENDITURE UNDERTAKEN FOR BUSINESS. 2.11 WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED AND DULY SUBMITTED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TDS ON PROFESSIONAL PAYMENTS TO THE AO IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. 2.12 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PAGE 3 OF 12 EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED TO EARN SERVICE INCOME BY THE APPELLANT, EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS OFFERED TO TAX. 2.13 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SERVICE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE APPELLANT AT ARMS LENGTH, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY THE JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, AND THEREFORE, NO UNDER LYING EXPENDITURE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF 3.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWIN G ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF, AND THEREBY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,000/ - . 3.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME WAS A GENUINE BUSINESS ADV ANCE WHICH WAS WRITTEN OFF ON ACCOUNT OF IRRECOVERABILITY. 3.3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO(S) PREMISE FOR DISALLOWING THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 2,75,000/ - IS MERE AN ASSUMPT ION THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED TO THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS. 3.4 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSES OF RS. 2,75,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF ON THE ENORMOUS PRESUMPTION THAT THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN FOR EXPLORING FRESH BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR SISTER CONCERNS. 3.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE WHI CH HAS BEEN INCURRED TO EARN SERVICE INCOME BY THE APPELLANT, THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. 3.6 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SERVICE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE APPELLANT AT ARMS LENGTH, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER, AND THEREFORE, NO UNDER LYING EXPENDITURE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. 3.7 THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON MERITS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO NEVER DOUBTE D THE TRANSACTION VIZ. ACTUAL PAYMENT, BUSINESS NEXUS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, ALBEIT REJECTED THE CLAIM ON EXTRANEOUS GROUNDS. TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES 4.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 8,77,940/ - , EVEN THOUGH THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF ITS EMPLOYEES AS PER TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT OF SUCH EMPLOYEES. 4.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE HEAD OF TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AS RELO CATION OF DIRECTORS ALONG WITH FAMILY MEMBERS AND ANNUAL HOLIDAYS OF DIRECTORS AS PER COMPANY POLICY OF THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO THE FACILITIES TO BE PROVIDED TO ITS DIRECTORS IS TO BE ALLOWABLE PAGE 4 OF 12 AS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSIN ESS PURPOSE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR IS A REASON FOR REJECTION OF OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE CLAIM IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR? 4.3 THAT LD.CIT(A)/AO HAVE ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, BY ARBITRARILY REJECT ING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS HIGHER THAN THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4.4 WHETHER THE INCREASE IN EXP ENDITURE FROM IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR IS A REASON FOR REJECTION OF OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE CLAIM IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR? 5. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 5.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO/CIT(A) HAVE ERRED IN INITIATIN G THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. INTEREST UNDER 234 B OF THE ACT 6.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234 B OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5011/DEL/2014: - BASED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE APPELLANT, RESPECTFULLY CRAVES LEAVE TO PREFER AN APPEAL UNDER SECT. 253 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (ACT) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2014, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - APPEALS - 19, NEW DELHI ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.1 THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS BAD IN AS MUCH AS IT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS INVOLVED AND LAW THEREON. 1.2 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO, EVENTHOUGH THE AO IN HER REMAND REPORT DATED 06.02.2014 DID NOT COMMENT ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE AP PELLANT FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 1.3 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO TO THE EXTENT APPEALED HEREIN EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS BASED ON HIS SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 40(A)(1A) WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON MERITS IS DISALLOWING EXHIBITION EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS 6,06,616/ - U/S 40(A) (LA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961? 3. LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES 3.1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 39,83,815, WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TO EARN SERVICE INCOME FROM ITS HOLDING AND ITS OTHER GROUP COMPANIES. PAGE 5 OF 12 3.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. C IT (A) HAS ERRED IN UP - HOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE, MADE BY THE A.O ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE RELATED TO A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN TOSHIBA CORPORATION (JAPAN) AND JSW FOR A POWER PROJECT IN HYDERA BAD AND HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT PROVIDING MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF INCOME FOR THE APPELLANT. 3.3 THAT ON THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TO EARN SERVICE INCOME BASED ON ITS ORDER FOR AY 2007 - 08 EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENDITURE IN THAT YEAR WAS DISALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 25% AND THAT TOO ON THE SOLE REASON OF THE ALLEGED NON - FURNISHING OF BREAK - UP OF DETAILS. [WITHOUT PREJUDICE] 3.4 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TO EARN SERVICE INCOME BASED ON ITS ORDER FOR AY 2007 - 08, AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT, AND AN APPEAL FOR AY 2007 - 08 HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THIS LD. TRIBUNAL. [IN ALTERNATE] 3.5 THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED, AS THOUGH THE LD.CIT(A) CHOOSES TO RELY ON THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 02.04.2014 FOR AY - 2007 - 08, IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COPY OF THE SERVICE AGREEMENT, ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) IN PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2007 - 08, BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND ITS HOLDING COMPANY, WHEREIN IT IS IMPLICITLY STATED THAT THE APPELLANT PROVIDES SALES, MARKETING AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES AMONGST OTHERS TO ALL TOSHIBA GROUP COMPANIES. 3.6 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE TO EARN SERVICE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES, AS THE INCOME THEREFROM HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE APPELLANT AT AN ARMS LENGTH, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE JURISDICTION AL TPO. 3.7 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES FOR WHICH THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED. 4. PROVISION FOR WARRANTY 4.1 THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TREATING THE PROVISION OF WARRANTY INCURRED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, AS DEDUCTIBLE, IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED POSITION IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62(SC). 4.2 THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF PROVISION OF WARRANTY ON THE GROUND THAT, THE APPELLA NT HAS NOT PLACED COMPLETE DETAILS FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM, WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR FILING THE SAME. 4.3 THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED BY NOT GRANTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT, AS THE APPELLANT FILED FOR THE ADMISSION OF 29.05.2014 AND AGAIN ON ALBEIT, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ON 18.07.2014, CIT (A) SUMMARILY DISMISSED THE GROUND VIDE ORDER DATED 21.07.2014/28.07.2014 WITHOUT ASKING FOR DETAILS, THEREBY VIOLATING THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. PAGE 6 OF 12 4.4 THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY ON THE GROUND OF NON - FURNISHING OF DETAILS EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A PROCEDURAL FAILURE IN LAW, AS THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO FIRST ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, AND THEN AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO SUPPLEMENT THE GROUND WITH DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS, RATHER THAN DECIDING THE GROUND IN HASTE. 4.5 THAT IN LAW AND ON MERITS, SHOULD NOT THE LD. CIT (A) HAVE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO FILE DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ADMISSIBLE TO IT UNDER LAW? 5. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 5.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO/CIT (A) HAVE ERRED IN INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. INTEREST UNDER 234 B OF THE ACT 6.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION S 234 B OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY SUBSIDIARIES AND ITS ASSOCIATES. DURING THE YEAR, IT STARTED BUSINESS OF TRADING OF HOME APPLIANCES SUCH AS REFRIGERATORS AND WASHING MACHINE MANUFACTURED BY ITS ASSOCIATE COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.11.2007 FOR RS. 15436200/ - . THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS MADE ON 29.12.2010 ON RS. 22574110/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE LD AO MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCE WHICH ARE CONTESTED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) UNSUCCESSFULLY AND THEREFORE FURTHER APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE US. 5. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF 25% LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES ON ADHOC BASIS AMOUNTING TO RS. 3138066/ - . DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE INCURRED RS. 12552264/ - AS LEGAL AND PROFESS IONAL FEES. D URING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM IT IS PAID. THE LD AO HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IN LAST YEAR INCURRED EXPENSES OF RS. 3262514/ - BUT IN CURRENT YEAR SUCH EXPENSES IS OF RS. 12552264/ - WHICH HAS INC REASED MORE THAN 400% AND THEREFORE HE DISALLOWED 25% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3138066/ - . THE LD CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHE RE THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS NATURE OF THE S ERVICES WERE PROVIDED ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF TDS PAGE 7 OF 12 PAID. HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES WHICH INCLUDED FEES FOR LEGAL AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY, INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION REPORT AND DATA BASE, MODERN QUANTITATIVE TECHNICAL CASE, LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING OF STAFF, TAXATION AND AUDIT SERVICES, HUMAN RESOURCE, CONSULTANCY MANAGEMENT, CONSULTANCY AND INDUSTRIAL MARKETING RESEARCH SERVICES. MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE. THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES COULD NOT SAY THAT ANY OF THE SERVICES OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE NAMES OF THE CONSULTING COMPANIES WHICH ARE DEFINITELY OF NECESSARY SERVICES LOOKING TO THE SIZE AND NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE BUSINESS OF MARKETING OF WASHING MACHINES AND REFRIGERATORS THE MARKET RESEARCH ANALYSIS SERVICE AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL REPORTS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 21 TO 28 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHERE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF RETAINERSHIP CHARGES WAS SHOWN . NONE OF THE EXPENSES CAN BE SAID TO BE DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED DETAILS OF MAJOR EXPENSES OF LEGAL FEES FOR TRIL LEGAL AS WELL AS KPMG B OTH THE SERVICES ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE LD AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED WHEN THE DETAILS OF LEGAL EXPENSES ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WH ERE EACH AND EVERY PARTY TO WHOM THE FEES IS PAID IS MENTIONED . LD AO COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINE SS . LOOKING AT THE DETAILS BEFORE US ALOS NONE OF THE NATURE OF EXPENSES WERE SHOWN TO BE NOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS. M ERELY ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN DETAILS SHOWING THAT IT IS NOT RELATED TO T HE BUSINESS , SUCH DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 275 000 / - WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUM BECOME S IRRECOVERABLE. THE CLAIM OF THE PAGE 8 OF 12 ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS SUM WAS GIVEN TO ONE OF THE COMPANY NAMED FROST AND SUILLIVEN FOR PREPARING A REPORT FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. THIS ADVANCES WERE WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR AS THE SERVICE PROVIDER DID NOT PROVIDE FURTHER I NFORMATION ABOUT THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE WORK. THE LD AO DISALLOWED THE SAME WH ICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE ASSIGNMENT TO THE ABOVE PARTY FOR STRATEGIC ANALYSIS OF POWER SECTOR IN INDIA AND MAPPING OF SELECTED COMPETITORS FOR THE POWER EQUIPMENT SECTOR. THE ORIGINAL FEES OFFERED WAS FOR RS. 550000/ - WHICH WAS ACCEPTED VIDE LETTER DATED 01.08.2006 ACCORDING TO THAT OFFER LETTER 5 0% OF SUCH SUM WAS PAYABLE AS ADVANCE. THE ASSESSEE PAID THE SAME ADVANCE AND SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE ABOVE ASSIGNMENT IS NOT TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND HENCE WRITTEN OFF THE ABOVE SUM. THE LD AO HAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF THIS AMOUNT OF ADVANCE HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LD CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE AS THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS GENERAL IN NATURE. ACCORDING TO US THE ASSESSEE IS EXPLORING THE NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY IN THE POWER SECTOR AND FOR THAT IT HIRES A CONSULTANCY TO CARR Y OUT CERTAIN STUDIES AS T HE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPORT SERVICES . THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THIS PROJECT DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE LEGAL FEES PAID WAS WRITTEN OFF. ACCORDING TO US THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES AS IT HAS INCURRED IT FO R THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND FOR CONSULTANCY EXPENSES TO BE ALLOWED I.E. DEDUCTION OF INCOME TAX NOWHERE PROVIDED THAT CORRESPONDING CREDIT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN. IN VIEW OF THIS WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE LD AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 275000/ - . 9. GROUND NO. 4 IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 877940/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TRAVELLING AND CONVE YANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 22030193/ - AND SUBMITTED DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENSES AS PER ANNEXURE 13. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS THE LD AO HELD THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE EXPENSES COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEAR AND FURTHER CERTAIN EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PAID THROUGH CREDIT CAR D AND ALSO FOR TRAVELLING OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE STAFF. HENCE, IT WAS DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 877940/ - . ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED VIDE PARA NO. 10. THEREFORE SAME IS CONTESTED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS. PAGE 9 OF 12 16518633/ - IS PAID FOR CLUB EXPENSES THROUGH CREDIT CARD WHICH ARE RELATED TO TRAVELLING EXPENSES. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 387584/ - WAS PAID FOR A DIRECTOR, WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS FOR TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND FURTHER RS. 325170/ - WAS ALSO PAID FOR AIR TICKET FOR TOK Y O. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELOCATION OF EMPLOYEE WHO ARE DESIGNATED AS DIRECTORS BY THE COMPANY WITH THEIR FAM ILY AS WELL AS IN CONNECTION WITH ANNUAL HOLIDAY OF THE DIRECTORS . THESE EXPENSES ARE IN TERMS OF EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF A JAPAN COMPANY, THEREFORE, A PERSON SUCH AS DIRECTOR CAN BE TRAVELLING FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ETC BY THE EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY TO JAPAN AND THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES ARE NECESSARILY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. NONE OF THE EXPENDITURE OF TRAVELLING ARE RELATED TO THE SHARE HOLDER OWNERS OF THE APPELLAN T COMPANY. AS THE RELOCATION EXPENDITURE AND TRANSFER EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS IS NOT THE PERQUISITE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, NATURALLY THEY ARE NOT ENTERING INTO THE FORM NO. 16 ISSUED TO THOSE EMPLOYEES . IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT MERELY BECAUSE FB T IS NOT PAID DOES NOT MAKE THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWABLE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE ALSO SEE CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRE CIATED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND MERELY COMPARED THE INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE WITH THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEN DISALLOWED THE SAME. THEY HAVE COMPLE TE LY OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR COMPANY HAS STARTED TRADING AC TIVITIES OF REFRIGERATORS AND WASHING MACHINE. IN VIEW OF THIS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE LD AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 877940/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING AND CONVENIENCE EXPENSES. 10. GROUND NO. 5 OF T HE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS PREMATURE AND HENCE, DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO. 6 IS WITH RESPECT TO INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. NOW WE COME TO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE DISMISSED. PAGE 10 OF 12 14. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO EXHIBITION EXPEND I TURE OF RS. 606616/ - U/S 40(A)(I A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS. 606616/ - TOWARDS EXHIBITION EXPENSES. THE LD AO ASKED THE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AND TAX DEDUCTED THEREON. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE SAME AND HENC E, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER FURTHER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL VIDE GROUND NO. 2 DISPOSED OFF BY THE LD CIT(A) VIDE PARA NO. 4 ON THE SAME BASIS. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED IT IS A EXHIBITION EXPENDITURE THEREFORE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED 15. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT IT WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND THEREFORE NOW THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO PRESS IT HERE. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT WHE N A GROUND NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THIS ONCE AGAIN BEFORE US WITHOUT SHOWING THAT ABOVE GROUND WAS WITHDRAW N OR NOT PRESSED DUE TO IGNORANCE. NO SUCH PLEA WAS BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DISALLOWING THE ABOVE SAME. HENCE, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3983815/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE RELATED TO JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN TOSHIBA CORPORATION AND JSW STEEL FOR POWER PROJECT IN HYDERABAD. THE FEE WAS PAID TO TRILEGAL, KPMG AND E&Y ETC. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEES PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME IS OF PROVIDING MARKETING SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES. THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED TO PROVIDE THE MARKET SUPPORT FOR A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES HOLDING COMPANIES AS WELL AS OTHER PARTY. THE ASSESSEES R OLE WAS PRESCRIBED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ENTERED BY THESE PARTIES. ACCORDING TO THAT ASSESSEE WAS PAID $135225/ - FOR CERTAIN SERVICES. FURTHER IT WAS STATED THAT BY BOTH BILLS HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO TOS HIBA CORPORAT ION AT COST PLUS MARK UP , THE SES SUMS ARE ALREADY CREDITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SERVICE INCOME. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT AS AN EXPENDITURE AND SIMILARLY THE ABOVE SUM MARK UP IS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS AS INCOME. THE AO DISALLOWED THE PAGE 11 OF 12 ABOVE SUM HOLDING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE THE LD CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION. 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS. AS THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDE MARKET SUPPORT TO ITS HOLDING COMPANY SUCH SERVICES WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITS HOLDING COMPANY WHICH WAS ALSO CHARGED OF HOLDING COMPANY ALONG WITH MARK UP AND TRANSFER P RICING OFFICER ORDER DATED 13.10.2012 HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE PROVISION OF SUCH SERVICES AT ARMS LENGTH . W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON THAT THESE EXPENDITURE CAN BE DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THESE ARE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN T HE RESULT WE REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE LD AO AND DIRECT THE LD AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION FO RS. 3983815/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENDITURE. 18. THE GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE NON GRANTING OF DEDUCTION OF WARRANTY EXPENDITURE DU RING THE YEAR. ASSESSEE WAS MAKING PROVIS I ON OF WARRANTY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS USED. THEREFORE, AS PER THE SCHEDULE 10 OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR MADE THE PROVISION OF RS. 185033 89/ - BUT CLAIMED WARRANTY DURING THE YEAR OF RS. 7842523/ - AS USED. DUE TO THIS AN OUTSTANDING OF RS. 1660867/ - WAS REMAINING AS ON 31.03.2008. C OMPANY IS FOLLOWING THE POLICY OF WARRANTY OF ACTUARIAL VALUATION BAS IS, HOWEVER, DURING THE YEAR WHILE COMPUT ING THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME , ASSESSEE DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 18503389/ - AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 784252 3 / - . THEREFORE THERE WAS AN ERROR WHICH WAS POINTED OUT BEFORE THE LD AO, THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWED AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) ALSO THIS ISSUE WAS NOT ADMITTED AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED THE BENEFIT. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ACCORDING TO US THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED THE DEDUCTION OF ACTUAL WARRANTY PROVISION OF RS. 18503389/ - INSTEAD OF RS. 7842523/ - . THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTO R K CONTRO LS INDIA PVT. LTD VS. CIT IN 314 ITR 62 HAS HELD THAT WARRANTY SERVICES ARE NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND NOT CONTINGENT LIABILITY. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEWS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE LD AO TO WITHDRAW THE DEDUCTION ALREADY GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 7842523/ - AND TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS. 18503389/ - . THE ABOVE A DJUSTMENT MADE MAY ALSO RESULT PAGE 12 OF 12 INTO LOWER ASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THEN RETURNED INCOME. AS THIS HAS HAPPENED DUE TO A FR ESH CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDING , ASSESSEE IS NOT BARRED FROM CLAIMING THE SAME. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 19. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST INSURANCE AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WHICH IS PREMATURE HENC E, DISMISSED. 20. GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE INTEREST U/S 234 WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND HENCE SAME IS DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 / 08 / 2017 . - S D / - - S D / - ( H.S.SIDHU ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 0 / 08 / 2017 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI