M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5416/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0188 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Capital expenditure
• Section: 2(A)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: A: NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS:- 365/DEL/2013 AND 1138/DEL/2013, ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09, 2009-10) B HARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, NEW DELHI. VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), DELHI. PAN NO: AAACB4146P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NOS:- 5416/DEL/2014 AND 5607/DEL/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 AND 2012-13) BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED, NEW DELHI. VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), DELHI. PAN NO: AAACB4146P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. RAJKUMAR, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAKASH DUBE, SR. DR PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY; AND ARE HEREBY DISPOSED OFF THROUGH THIS ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 2 OF 9 CONSOLIDATED ORDER. GROUNDS TAKEN IN THESE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: ITA NO. 365/DEL/2012 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD & D OUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,12,00,000 AS PER SCHEDULE 17, TREATING THE SAME AS HOT ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND IGNORING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 0166. 2(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON LOOSE TOOLS AMOUNTI NG TO RS.48,67,394 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE EXP ENDITURE ON LOOSE TOOLS AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN EARLIER YEARS AND ADDED THE SAME TO TAXABLE INCOME. 2(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXED THE EXPENDITU RE ON LOOSE TOOLS TWICE I.E. IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME WERE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE AND ALSO DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION ON LOOSE TOOLS. 2(C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK TWO' DIFFERENT STA NDS BY TREATING THE LOOSE TOOLS AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION O N THIS. 3(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION RS. 3,17,00,000 ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE I N ACCOUNTING POLICY WHICH WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED. 3(B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT SIMILAR ADDITION WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF AY 2005-06 TO 2007-08 WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) VIDE ORDER NOS.94/07-08 DATED 30.12.2009, 93/08-09 DATED 30.12.2009 & 106/09-10 DATED 31.03.2011 RESPECTIVEL Y. 3(C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS ALSO STATED IN THE NOTES TO AC COUNTS THE IMPACT OF CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING POLICY WHICH RESULTED IN INCREASE OF PRO FIT. 3(D) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN TAKING TWO DIFFERENT STANDS FOR SIMILAR ISSUE AND FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CIT(A) UPHELD ADDITION OF IMPACT DUE TO CHANGE IN ACCOUNTI NG POLICY WHICH RESULTED IN REDUCTION OF PROFIT. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLU DING THAT THE CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING POLICY DOES NOT SHOW TRUE AND CORRECT PROFIT MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS REDUCTION IN PROFITS. THE CIT(A) IGNORED THE CHANGE IN ACCOUNTIN G POLICY WHICH RESULTED IN INCREASE IN PROFIT. ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 3 OF 9 4(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,28,000 ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEMEN T EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. 4(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE F OR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. 4(C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE WHILE CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF TOTAL INVESTMENTS AS APPEARING MITE BALANCE SHEET. 4(D) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS -PERTAINING TO INCOME WHICH ARE E XEMPT OR DO NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. 5(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.36,44,000 ON ACCOUNT OF ROC FEES PAID TO INCREASE THE AUTHORIZED SHARE CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY AND TREATIN G THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 5(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR INCREASING THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY WAS TO MEET THE NEED FOR WORKING FUNDS OF THE COMPA NY WHICH WILL BE CONDUCIVE TO THE BETTER CONDUCT, EFFICIENCY AND PROFITABILITY OF THE BUSINESS. 5(C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT IT IS USED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURP OSE OF THE BUSINESS AND IS ALLOWABLE U/S 37( 1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(L)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT IS PRE-MATURE & REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR I N AMENDING, ALTERING, ADDITION OR DELETING ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BE FORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD. ITA NO. 1138/DEL/2013 1.THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD & D OUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 214,02,00,000 AS PER SCHEDULE 17, TREATING THE SAME AS HOT ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND IGNORING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 0166. ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 4 OF 9 2(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON LOOSE TOOLS AMOUNTI NG TO RS.41,37,285 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE EXP ENDITURE ON LOOSE TOOLS AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN EARLIER YEARS AND ADDED THE SAME TO TAXABLE INCOME. 2(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXED THE EXPENDITU RE ON LOOSE TOOLS TWICE I.E. IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME WERE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE AND ALSO DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION ON LOOSE TOOLS. 2(C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK TWO' DIFFERENT STA NDS BY TREATING THE LOOSE TOOLS AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND NOT ALLOWING DEPRECIATION O N THIS. 3(A) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT EXCLUDING /ALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17,91,36,000 AS SHOWN IN SCHEDULE -12A OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ON ACCOUNT OF LEASE EQUALIZATIO N CHARGES BEING CREDITED WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE COMPANY. . 3(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN EARLIER YEARS THE LEASE EQUALIZATION AMOUNT DEBITED IN ACCOUNTS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3(C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE SAME ITEM IN DIFFERENT YEARS. 4(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 17,85,000 ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEM ENT EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. 4(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDIT URE FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. 4(C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE WHILE CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF TOTAL INVESTMENTS AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 4(D) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS PERTAINING TO INCOME WHICH ARE EX EMPT OR DO NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(L)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT IS PRE-MATURE & REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR IN AMENDING, ALTERING, ADDITION OR DELETING ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BE FORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD. ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 5 OF 9 ITA NO.-5416/DEL/2014 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD & D OUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 497,97,00,000 AS PER SCHEDULE 17, TREATING THE SAME AS NOT ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND IGNORING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 0166. 2(A) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT EXCLUDING / ALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.27,00,00,000 AS SHOWN IN SCHEDULE-12A OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ON ACCOUNT OF LEASE EQUALIZATION CH ARGES BEING CREDITED WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE COMPANY. 2(B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN EARLIER, YEARS THE LEASE EQUALIZATION AMOUNT DEBITED IN ACCOUNTS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2(C) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A DIFFERENT VI EW OF THE SAME ITEM IN DIFFERENT YEARS. 3(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,38,000 ON ACCOUNT OF MANAGEME NT EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. 3(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE F OR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR IN AMENDING, ALTERING, ADDING OR DELETING ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BE FORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD. ITA NO. -5607/DEL/201 6 1(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD & D OUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 399,54,00,000/-, TREATING THE SAME AS NOT ASCERTAIN ED LIABILITY AND IGNORING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 0166. 1(B) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS DOUBTFUL LO ANS & ADVANCES AND DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,21,00,000/-, TREATING THE SAME AS NOT ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND IGNORING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 0166. ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 6 OF 9 1(C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS FOR SHORTFA LL IN PF LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,50,00,000/-, TREATING THE SAME AS NOT ASCERTAINE D LIABILITY. 1(D) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF PROVISIONS FOR OTHERS AMOUNTING TO RS.28,53,00,000/-, TREATING THE SAME AS NOT ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. 1(E) THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARN ED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVISIONS AMOUNTING TO RS.462,78,00,000/-, TREATING THE SAME AS NOT ASCERT AINED LIABILITY. 2(A) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT EXCLUDING / ALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,82,00,000/- AS SHOWN IN NOTE 21 OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ON ACCOUNT' OF LEASE EQUALIZATION CHARGES BEING CRE DITED WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE COMPANY. 2(B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN EARLIER YEARS THE LEASE EQUALIZATION A MOUNT DEBITED IN ACCOUNTS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2(C) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A DIFFERENT VI EW OF THE SAME ITEM IN DIFFERENT YEARS. 3 (A)THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,95,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF MANAG EMENT EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. 3 (B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE F OR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. 4(A) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CSR & SD EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO R S.31,59,00,000/- DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOI GUIDELINES AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED IN THE NOTES TO REVISED I .T. RETURN. 4(B) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT CSR IS A NON-LAPSABLE FUND. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT ALLOWING FULL AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF DONATIONS. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(L)(C) OF INCOME TAX ACT IS PRE-MATURE & REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 7 OF 9 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR IN AMENDING, ALTERING, ADDING OR DELETING ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BE FORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD. (B) AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INFORMED US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED TO SETTLE T HE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, 2020 (VSVS, FOR SHORT) AND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED THE RELEVANT FORMS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALS O DREW OUR ATTENTION TO LETTER DATED 29 TH DECEMBER, 2020 FILED IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL (ITAT, FOR SHORT) GIVING INTIMATION FOR THE SAME. ALONGWITH THE AFORESAID L ETTER DATED 29.12.2020; COPIES OF FORM- 3 OF VSVS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED; INDICATING ACCEPTAN CE OF ASSESSEES DECLARATIONS UNDER VSVS BY REVENUE; AND IMPLYING THAT THE DISPUTES IN THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN SETTLED. (B.1) AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL F OR ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. SR . DR), FOR SHORT) SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THESE APPEALS MAY BE TREATED AS WITHDRAWN BY T HE ASSESSEE; AND DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE AFORESAID VSVS. AFTER DUE CONSIDER ATION, AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING; AND AS BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED TO THIS; ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE BEING TREATED AS WITHDRAWN, AND ARE DISMISSED. (C) IN THE RESULT, ALL OF THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 8 OF 9 THESE ORDERS WERE ALREADY PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2020 IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES; A FTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARINGS. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 30/12/20 POOJA/- COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI ITA NO.- 365/DEL/2013 AND OTHERS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. PAGE 9 OF 9 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER