The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. Torrent Power Grid Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 524/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7934 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Question of law
• Section: 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH EGKOHJ EGKOHJ EGKOHJ EGKOHJ IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U;KF KFKF KF;D LNL; , ;D LNL; , ;D LNL; , ;D LNL; ,OA OAOA OA OLHE OLHE OLHE OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.524/AHD/2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.61/AHD/2015 (IN ITA NO.524/AHD/2015) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD. / VS. TORRENT POWER GRID LTD., TORRENT HOUSE, OFF ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCT 2930 P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / CROSS OBJECTOR REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VARTIK CHOKSHI & P. M. MEHTA, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING 20/06/2018 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12/07/2018 #$ / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL ALONG WITH CROSS OBJECTION (CO ) HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE RESPEC TIVELY AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS)-8, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- 8/DC.CIR.8(OSD)/492/2013-14 DATED 09/12/2014 ARISIN G IN THE ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 31/01 /2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1). WHETHER THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS) IS RIGHT IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.39,29,249/- U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D( II) OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE 'INTEREST' PAID ON TERM L OANS IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY INCOME OR RECEIPT LAID DOWN IN RULE 8D(II). 2). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3). IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SET-A-SIDE AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS CO: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,00,154 /- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S. 14A ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPE NSES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.47,29,403/- TO TH E BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.47,29,403/- U/S.14A, WHEN HE HIMSELF HAD DELETED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.39,29,249/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTERE ST EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S. 14A. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ENTERTAINING THE GROUND RAISED BEFORE HIM REGARDING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B, 234C AND 234D ON THE GRO UND THAT INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTIONS IS MANDATORY BUT WITH OUT ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE V ERY LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE IT. ACT. 4. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE SAME. 4. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL AN D THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUND OF CO IS COMMO N, AND THEREFORE WE ARE CLUBBING THEM TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. 5. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL I S THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR R S. 39,29,249/- U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. THE ASSES SEE IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RS. 8,00,154/- U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D(III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. 6. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRAN SMISSION OF ELECTRICITY. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS EARNE D DIVIDEND INCOME FOR RS.13,12,976/-, WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPTED INCOM E U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLO WANCE OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH EXEMPTED INCO ME. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLAI MED THAT ITS OWN FUNDS EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, N O DISALLOWANCE ON ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES CAN BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SPENT ANY TIME AND ENERGY FOR EARNING SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CAN BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D(2 )(III) OF INCOME TAX RULE. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE TOP MANAGEMENT IN RELATION TO THE INVESTMENT ARE VERY S TRATEGIC/ MIND- BOGGLING. THEREFORE THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE TOP MANA GEMENT IN THESE DECISIONS IS VERY ESSENTIAL. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INVESTMENT AND EARNED EXEMPTED INCOME THE REON. THEREFORE SOME ELEMENT OF EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING COMBINED BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS FOR ITS EXEMPTED AS WELL AS TAXABLE INCOME. THEREFORE THE E XPENSES NEED TO BE DISALLOWED AS PER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. A CCORDINGLY, THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISION OF 8D AND MADE THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES: S. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. DIRECT EXPENSES NIL 2. INTEREST EXPENSES 39,29,249 3. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 8,00,154 TOTAL 47,29,403 ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - THUS, THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCES FOR RS.47,29,40 3/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT ITS O WN FUNDS EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. WITH REGARD TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS, WHI CH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE GRANTED THE RELIEF IN PART BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.4 THE SUBMISSION ARE CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A APPLYING RULE 8D. IT IS PERTIN ENT TO NOTE THAT IN A.Y. 2010-2011, APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY INTER EST EXPENDITURE HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS ONLY MADE WITH REFER ENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY IT UNDER RUL E 8D (III) WHEREAS IN PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, DISALLOWANCE IS MADE UNDER RULE 8D(II) FOR INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND 8D(III) FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE. SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.39,29 ,249/- IS CONCERNED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT SUCH INTEREST IS PAID ON TERM L OAN TAKEN FOR PROJECT PURPOSE AND THIS FACTS WERE ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE A SSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS NOT FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. CONSIDERING THE SE FACTS, INTEREST PAID ON SUCH LOAN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING PRO PORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AS PER RULE 8D(II). THE HO N'BLE CHENNAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S BEST & CROMPTON ENGINEERING LIMITED (ITA NO 36 TAXMAN.COM 555 HAS HELD AS UNDER. 'II. SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. 1962 - EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX [BANK INTE REST] - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE C OMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D, I NCLUDED ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - BANK INTEREST AND INTEREST ON TERM LOAN - COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) EXCLUDED SAID INTEREST FROM CALCULATION O F DISALLOWANCE AS ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED BOTH LOANS FO R PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF MACHINERIES AND FOR EXPANSION OF PROJEC TS AND THESE LOANS WERE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIONED FOR THESE PROJEC TS - WHETHER COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD RIGHTLY EXCLUDED SUCH IN TEREST FROM PURVIEW OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8 D(2) - HELD, YES [PARA 11] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE]' RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION REFERRED SUPRA AND FACTS OF APPELLANT'S CASE, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDIT URE FOR RS.39,29,249/- IS DELETED. SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIV E EXPENDITURE IS CONCERNED, CIT(A)-I IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y . 2010-11 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23 RD DECEMBER 2013 HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT FOR EARN ING EXEMPT INCOME, APPELLANT IS BOUND TO INCUR DEMAT CHARGES, BANK CHA RGES, EXPENSES ON POST AND TIME OF MANAGEMENT ETC HENCE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT THAT NO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED CANNOT BE AC CEPTED. FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,00,154/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED, THESE GROUN DS OF APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BOTH THE REV ENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US AGAINST THE DELETION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE AO FOR RS.39,29,249/- ONLY. THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RS.8,00,154/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. 8. FIRST, WE TAKE REVENUES APPEAL: THE LD. DR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO, WHEREAS THE LD. AR RETREATED THE SUBMISSION AS MERELY TO LD. CI T(A). ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT TH E OWNED FUND OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31-03-2011 IS AMOUNTING TO RS. 96,90 ,77,999/- AND THE INVESTMENT AS ON 31-03-2011 IS AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,0 0,00,000/- ONLY, THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT OWN FUND OF THE ASSESSEE EXC EEDS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE S, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UTI BANK LTD. REP ORTED IN 32 TAXMANN.COM 370 HAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT THEN NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES IS WARRANTED UNDER SEC TION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 3. THE ISSUE PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 1 4A OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS PARTIALLY DELETE D BY THE CIT(A). SUCH ORDER OF CIT(A) GAVE RISE TO CROSS APPEALS AT THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE. TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE VIEW OF THE CIT(A) MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: '33. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YE AR THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INTEREST OF RS. 17.45 CRORE ON TAX FREE BOND AND DEBENTURES AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO MOTU DISALLOWED RS. 5.53 CRORE BEING THE INTEREST EXPENSES U/S. 14A AS AGAINST WHICH THE AO HAS WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 32.76 CRORE. AFTER GIVING THE C REDIT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5.53 CRORE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DISALLO WED RS. 27.23 CRORE U/S. 14A. AS ON 31ST MARCH, 2003, THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3404 CRORE (COMPRIS ING OF SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 230 CRORE RESERVES OF RS. 689 CRORES AND INTERE ST FREE DEMAND DEPOSITS AND RS. 2485 CRORES) AS AGAINST WHICH THE TAX FREE INVESTMENTS WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 589 CRORE. THUS THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE FAR IN EXCESS OF THE INVESTMENTS. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE FA CTS IN AY 2003-04 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN AY 2002-03 AN D ACCORDINGLY HE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF CIT(A) FOR AY 2002-03. THE SE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. D.R. NOR HAVE THEY BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY FACTS TO THE CONTRARY. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 8 - UTILITIES & POWER LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT IF THE RE ARE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS INV ESTMENTS AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LOAN IT CAN BE PRESU MED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE FROM INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE. IN THE PRE SENT CASE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUO MOTO DISALLOWED RS. 5.53 CRORE U/S . 14A, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO FURTHER DISALLOWA NCE OVER AND ABOVE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CALLED FOR. AS FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IS CO NCERNED, THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE AO WITHOUT GIVING A FINDING AS TO HOW MUCH ADMINISTRATIVE EXPE NDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY SOME EXPENDITURE IS ALWAYS I NCURRED WHICH MUST BE DISALLOWED U/S. 14A CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. DISALLOWANC E U/S. 14A REQUIRES FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE INCURRED EXPE NDITURE TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OF INCU RRING OF EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF A DMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CAN BE MADE. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT FOR THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE.' 4. IN OUR OPINION THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED NO ERROR . BASICALLY THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS EM ERGING ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. [2009] 31 3 ITR 340/178 TAXMAN 135 . ADDITIONALLY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD, WITHOUT GIVING A FINDING AS TO HOW MUCH ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE H AVE BEEN INCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME, HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE. IN T HE EARLIER YEARS ALSO, SIMILAR POSITION OBTAINED. THAT BEING THE FACT, NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THUS IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE OWN FUND OF THE AS SESSEE EXCEEDS THE INVESTMENT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREFORE, GIVEN ABO VE, WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D (2)(II) IN THE GIVEN FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 9 - 10. NOW COMING TO ASSESSEES GROUND RAISED IN THE CO: THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITTE D THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON ESTIMATED BASIS. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY IT REPRESENTS LESS THAN 10% OF ITS INTEREST-FREE OWNED CAPITAL. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS A MINOR INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE NO DEDUCTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE U/S 14A R.W.R 8D IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELIED ON THE JUDGME NT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 82 TAXMANN.COM 171, WHEREIN, IT WAS HEL D AS UNDER: CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, MORE PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY HAVING ITS O WN SURPLUS FUND AND THAT TOO TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2319.17 CRORES AGAINS T WHICH INVESTMENT WAS MADE OF RS. 111.09 CRORES, THERE WAS NO QUESTIO N OF MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14A AND, THEREFORE, THERE WA S NO QUESTION OF ANY ESTIMATION OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AN D ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D OF THE RULES. UNDER THE CIRC UMSTANCES AND IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITU RE OF RS. 54,39,916 INCURRED IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBU NAL IS TO BE AGREED. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SLP FILED AGAINST THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WAS DISMISSED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME CO URT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 93 TAXMANN.COM 24. ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 10 - SIMILARLY THE LD. AR BEFORE US ALSO RELIED ON THE J UDGMENT OF KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. GULSHAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED REPORTED IN 31 TAXMANN.COM 113 WHERE THE HEAD NOTE READS AS UNDER : SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 - EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RE LATION TO INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME [SHARES] - ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 - WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE INDEED ATTRAC TED WHETHER OR NOT SHARES ARE HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE OR AS INVESTMENTS , EVEN THOUGH PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(II) AND (III) OF 1962 RULE S CANNOT BE INVOKED IN SUCH A CASE, AND EVEN THOUGH PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D( 2)(I) ARE MUCH NARROWER IN SCOPE THAN SCOPE OF SECTION 14A SIMPLIC ITOR - HELD, YES - WHETHER, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IN A SITUATION IN WHICH EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING ASSET, SUCH AS SHARES IS HELD AS STOCK-IN- TRADE, AND NOT AS INVESTMENT, WILL BE OF RELATED DI RECT AND INDIRECT EXPENDITURE, WHEREAS DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D WIL L BE RESTRICTED TO DISALLOWANCE OF ONLY DIRECT EXPENSES - HELD, YES [P ARAS 8 AND 10] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSES SEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH WAS EXEMPTED U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO SUCH DIVIDEND I NCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENSES IN REL ATION TO SUCH DIVIDEND INCOME. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF ITS FINANCIAL STATEM ENT, WE NOTE THAT THERE WERE SALE AND PURCHASE OF INVESTMENT AS EV IDENT FROM SCHEDULE 6 OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT, PLACED ON PAGE 37 OF TH E PB. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SCHEDULE 6 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 11 - SCHEDULE 6 INVESTMENT (AT COST) AS AT 31 ST MARCH, 2011 AS AT 31 ST MARCH, 2010 CURRENT INVESTMENT (NON - TRADE) IN UNITS (UNQUOTED) NO OF UNITS RS. NO. OF UNITS RS. KOTAK FLOATER LONG TERM PLAN DAILY DIVIDEND - - 9,923,121 100,023,075 HDFC CASH MANAGEMENT FUND TREASURY ADVANTAGE PLAN - - 3,988,546 40,011,100 BIRLA SUN LIFE SAVINGS FUND INSTITUTIONAL DAILY DIVIDEND - - 4,998,104 50,015,025 BIRLA SUN LIFE CASH PLUS INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM GROWTH 5,109,666 80,000,000 - - ICICI PRUDENTIAL FLEXIBLE INCOME PLAN DAILY DIVIDEND - - 473,001 50,012,753 80,000,000 240,061,953 YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2011 YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 CURRENT INVESTMENTS PURCHASED AND SOLD DURING THE YEAR: NO OF UNITS RS. NO. OF UNITS RS. KOTAK LIQUID (INSTITUTIONAL PREMIUM) DAILY DIVIDEND - - 8,178,781 100,010,950 HDFC LIQUID FUND DAILY DIVIDEND 3,922,607 40,003,530 3,922,645 40,003,922 BIRLA SUN LIFE CASH PLUS INSTITUTIONAL DAILY DIVIDEND 1,851,590 20,001,433 4,629,186 50,005,855 ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIQUID SUPER INSTITUTIONAL PLAN DAILY DIVIDEND 399,947 40,003,530 499,939 5,000,498 HDFC CASH MANAGEMENT FUND - TREASURY ADVANTAGE PLAN 4,022,009 40,346,788 - - BIRLA SUN LIFE SAVINGS FUND INSTITUTIONAL DAILY DIVIDEND 2,040,922 20,423,094 - - ICICI PRUDENTIAL F LEXIBLE INCOME PLAN DAILY DIVIDEND 382,134 40,404,934 - - KOTAK FLOTER LONG TERM PLAN DAILY DIVIDEND 13,707 138,161 - - ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 12 - FROM THE ABOVE SCHEDULE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 240,061,953/- WHICH H AS BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR. SIMILARLY, THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE MUTUAL FUND FOR RS.80,000,000/-. THEREFORE, THE PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS NOT SPENT ANY TIME AND ENERGY ON SUCH INVEST MENT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CORRECT. IT IS BECAUSE THE TOP MANAGEMENT IS CERTAINLY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF INVESTMENT. THE REFORE, WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS DERIVED THE SATISFACTION BY ISSUING SHOW -CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15-10-2013 AS REPRODUCED BELOW: 4.2 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE NOTIC E DATED 15.10.2013 AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAV E EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX AND NO EXPENSES HAV E BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING THIS INCOME. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISION OF RULE 8D FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RE LATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. IN THE CASE OF SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.52,000/- FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME. H OWEVER, IN THE CASE ON HAND ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCES, TH EREFORE, WE ARE OF ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 13 - THE VIEW THAT THE RATIO OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGME NT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. SIMILARLY, THE ORDER RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR IN T HE CASE OF GULSHAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED (SUPRA) DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS BECAUSE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN SUCH CASE WAS BASED ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES IN RELATION TO THE SHA RES HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE THOUGH SUCH FACTS ARE NOT THERE IN THE CASE O N HAND. THEREFORE WE ARE RELUCTANT TO TAKE ANY GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT FROM SUCH A CASE, I.E. GULSHAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED (SUPRA). THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MAD E BY THE AO AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF INCOME TAX RULE. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ITS CO IS DISMISSED. 12. NOW COMING TO CROSS OBJECTION NO.61/AHD/2015: THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJEC TION IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO FOR RS.47,29,403/- WHILE DETERMINING THE PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS MADE T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.47,29,403/- UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A R .W.R. 8D OF INCOME TAX RULE. THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO WERE ACC ORDINGLY ADDED IN THE BOOKS OF PROFIT WHILE DETERMINING THE PROFIT U/ S 115JB OF THE ACT. ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 14 - 13. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE D ISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT COUL D NOT BE APPLIED WHILE DETERMINING THE PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6.2 THE SUBMISSION ARE CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/ S 115JB AS PER CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION ATTACHED TO SAID SECTION WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT SUCH CLAUSE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO NO TIONAL DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED APPLYING RULE 8D. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY SP ECIFIC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE BUT HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE APPLYING M ATHEMATICAL FORMULA PRESCRIBED IN RULE 8D. THE ASSESSEE AS POIN TED OUT TO THIS SPECIFIC FACT. IT IS SEEN THAT IN CIT V. GOETZE (IN DIA) LTD. [2014] 361 ITR 505 (DEL.)(HC), TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD. V. ADDTL CIT, ITA NO. 8126, 7576/M/2011, DATED 2/1/2014 (ITAT MUMBAI), GODREJ C ONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED V.ADDTL. CIT [2014] 159 TTJ 21 (MU M.(TRIB.). ITO V. RBK SHARE BROKING (P) LTD. [2013] 60 SOT 61 (MUM.)( TRIB.)(URO), DABUR INDIA LTD. V. ACIT[2013] 145 ITD 175 (MUM,) ( TRIB.) ETC. - AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWABLE U/S 14A WAS TO B E ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATI ON (1) TO SECTION 115JB. CONSIDERING THIS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT FOOL EFFECT HAS TO BE GIVEN TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A IRRESPECTIVE OF DIFFER ENT IN LANGUAGE OF DIFFERENT SUBSECTIONS IN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115J B. SECTION 115JB REQUIRES THAT EXPENSES RELATED TO EXEMPT INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT. SECTION 14 A PROVIDES A METHODOLOGY FOR COMPLETING SUCH EXPENDITURE. READING HARMONIOUSLY W ILL REQUIRE, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A TO BE ADDED WHILE C OMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115 JB. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 15 - BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS I N THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR RS.39,29,24 9/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES BUT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT C ONSIDERING THE SAME WHILE DETERMINING THE INCOME U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE O RDER AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A R.W .R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES WHILE DETERMINING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX (MAT) UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER THE NORMAL COMPUTATION OF I NCOME UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF INCOME TAX RULE FOR RS. 47 ,29,403/- WAS ADDED IN DETERMINING THE PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. HOW EVER, WE NOTE THAT IN THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF HONBLE DEL HI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. REPORT ED IN 82 TAXMANN.COM 415 THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISALLOWANCES WHILE DETERM INING THE NET PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE S AID ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2), IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 16 - RESORTING TO THE COMPUTATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A, READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IS SQUA RELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THUS IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D CANNOT RESORT WHILE DET ERMINING THE EXPENSES AS MENTIONED UNDER CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO S ECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE NEE DS TO BE MADE IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (F) TO SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WHILE DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFIT. IN HOLDING SO, WE DRAW OUR SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAYSHREE TEA INDUSTRIES LTD. IN GO NO.1501 OF 2014 (ITAT NO.47 OF 2014) DATED 19.11.14 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ABOUT EXEMPTED INCOME NEEDS TO BE MADE AS PER THE CLAUSE (F) TO EX PLANATION-1 OF SEC. 115JB OF THE ACT INDEPENDENTLY. THE RELEVANT EXTRAC T OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- WE FIND COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE R ELATABLE TO EXEMPTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE MUST BE MADE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED SUCH EXPENDITURE TO BE NIL. SUCH COMPUT ATION MUST BE MADE BY APPLYING CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION 1 UNDER SECTI ON 115JB OF THE ACT. WE REMAND THE MATTER FOR SUCH COMPUTATION TO BE MAD E BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL. WE ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF MR. KHAITAN, LEARNED SE NIOR ADVOCATE THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 115JB IN THE MATTER OF COM PUTATION IS A COMPLETE CODE IN ITSELF AND RESORT NEED NOT AND CAN NOT BE MADE TO SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 17 - GIVEN ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE IT RULES, CANNOT BE AP PLIED TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 115JB OF THE ACT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF TH E HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAYSHREE TEA INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO NE EDS TO WORK OUT THE DISALLOWANCES IN TERMS OF THE CLAUSE (F) TO EXPLANA TION-1 OF SEC. 115JB OF THE ACT INDEPENDENTLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPENSE S DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS MANDATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THEREFORE WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF A O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION BY LAW AND IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION. THUS T HIS GROUND OF CO THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12/07/2018 SD/- SD/- EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF U;KFU;KF U;KF ;D LNL; YKS[KK LNL; ;D LNL; YKS[KK LNL; ;D LNL; YKS[KK LNL; ;D LNL; YKS[KK LNL; (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/07/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.524/AHD/2015 & CO N O.61/AHD/15 DCIT VS. TORRENT POWER GRID. ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 18 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. %&' ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( () / THE CIT(A)-8, AHMEDABAD. 5. +,- ..&' , &'' , 01#%# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. -23 4 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, + . //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 02/07/2018(DICTATION PAD 7 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 04/07/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 10/07/2018 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER