DCIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI V. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5436/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2942 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MIHIR NARIWADEKAR
• Section: 115JB; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 5436 /MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI 400020 APPELLAN T VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD., RECTIFIER HOUSE, 570, NAIGUM CROSS ROAD, MUMBAI 400031 RESPONDENT & C.O. NO. 18/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD., RECTIFIER HOUSE, 570, NAIGUM CROSS ROAD, MUMBAI 400031 APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI 400020 RESPONDENT PAN: AAACI1040B ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 2 / BY REVENUE : MR. JAVED AKHTAR, D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : MR. MIHIR NARIWADEKAR, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.06.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THESE TWO APPEALS OF WHICH ONE IS FILED BY REVENUE AND THE OTHER APPEAL I.E. CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE A RE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-14, MUMBAI, DATED 24.06.2014 FO R A.Y. 2010-11. 2. IN ITA NO.5436/MUM/2014, REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LOW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE O RDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWAS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. AND THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VANDANA PROPERTIES WHILE ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE DECISIONS OF THE H IGH COURTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SLPS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THEM. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING TO WER NOS T1 TO T3 (PART OF THE PROJECT OF 6 TOWERS) INDEPENDENT OF REMAINING TOWERS NOS T4 TO T6 BASED ON DIFFERENT COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES WHILE ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 3 ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON THE PROFIT IN RESPECT OF TOWE RS NO. T1 TO T3, TOTALLY IGNORING THE FACTS THAT WHILE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10), THE TOWERS NO T4 T O T6 WERE STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION & SECTION 80IB(10) STIPULATES THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT SHALL BE COMPL ETED WITHIN FOUR YEARS. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) BY HOLDING THAT THE CONDITIO N FOR DEDUCTION IS THAT THE MINIMUM PLOT AREA ON WHIC H HOUSING PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN ONE ACRE AND IT WAS NOT RELEVANT T HAT THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE HOUSING PROJECT ON THE SOME PLOT (INDIVIDUALLY HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE PL OT AREA OF ONE ACRE), WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON PART ' OF THE PROJECT I.E T1 TO T3 OUT OF TOTAL PROJECT OF SI X TOWERS IN THE PRESENT CASE. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THA T PRO -RATA DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE FLATS IN BUILDING T2 EXCEEDS THE STIPULATED MAXIMUM AREA CONDITION OF 1,500 SQ.FT., WHERE AS SECTION 80IB(10) LAID DOWN THE CONDITION THAT NONE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT SHALL BE OF AREA EXCEEDING 1,5 00 SQ.FT. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING T HAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I T ACT AS REVENUE NEUTRAL FOR THE REASON THAT THE INCO ME WAS ASSESSABLE U/S 115JB OF THE IT ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO AVAIL MAT CREDIT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 3. IN C.O. NO.18/MUM/2016, ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE A PPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [C.I.T .-(A)] OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 4 3,15,00,929/- AS CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IB [10] OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER SAID THE 'ACT'). THE LEARNED C.I.T.[A] HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPE CT OF PROFITS ARISING ON SALE OF UNITS IN TOWERS T2 AND T 3 ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT ALL THE TENEMENTS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. THE AFORESA ID FINDING BEING ARBITRARY, PERVERSE, AND DEVOID OF ME RITS THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE VACATED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80IB(10) O F RS.1 70,09,616/- IN RELATION TO THE TOWER T2 AND TOWER T3 OF THE KAPIL MALHAR INTELLIGENT HOME PROJE CT ON THE GROUNDS THAT SOME OF THE UNITS OF THE HOUSIN G PROJECT HAVE A BUILT-UP AREA EXCEEDING 1500 SQ.FT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80IB OF THE ACT ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS IN RESPECT O F UNITS HAVING BUILT-UP AREA NOT EXCEEDING 1500 SQ.FT . IN RELATION TO THE TOWER T2 AND TOWER T3 OF THE KAPIL MALHAR INTELLIGENT HOME PROJECT. 4. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB (10) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,15,00,929/-. ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED THE PROJECT AT KAPIL MAIHAR INTELLIGENT H OMES, BANER, PUNE BY DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 10.04.2006. ASSESSEE COMPLETED PROJECT T1, T2 AND T3 AND CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT PRESENTLY ASSESSEE IS IN THE PROJECT OF T4, T5 & T6 . FROM THE ABOVE DEEDS, IT WAS PLACED THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF TRE ATED T1, T2 & T3 AS ONE PHASE AND T4, T5 AND T6 AS ANOTHER PHAS E. THUS, ACCORDINGLY, THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, T HE PROFIT ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 5 WAS RECOGNIZED ONLY AT THE END OF THE PROJECT AND T HE 80IB DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY ON THE RECOGNIZED PRO FIT AND NOT ON THE ESTIMATED PROFIT. ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT MANY OF THE FLATS IN BUILDING T2 LIKE 103, 303, 503 , ETC. WERE OF 1831SQ.FT. SIMILARLY MANY OF THE FLATS IN BUILDI NG T3, LIKE 101, 301, 501, ARE OF 1831SQ.FT. AND ASSESSEE ITSEL F SUBMITTED IN THEIR SUBMISSION DATED 15.03.2013, SINCE 2/3 OF FLATS WERE ADMEASURING LESS THAN 1500SQ.FT. AT LEAST TO ALLOW 2/3 RD OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB. BUT IT WAS FOUND IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB IS FOR ONE S INGLE UNDERTAKING AND DEDUCTION CANNOT BE GIVEN ON PROPOR TIONATE BASIS. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR 80IB HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS. BUT AS PER THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS COMPLETED ONLY PHASE I AND YET TO COMPLETE PHASE II . THUS, IT FAILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS OF COMPLETION. IN VIEW OF THIS, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASS ESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,15,00,929/-. 5. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) GRANTED RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REV ENUE INTER ALIA SUBMITTING THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING RELIEF IN DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 6 APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER H AND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CI T(A). 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERI AL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ALL FLATS IN TOWER T1 IS LESS THAN 1500 SQ.FT. HENCE, AS PER THE REVISED WORKING SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION O F RS.1,44,91,313/- U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT BEING ELIG IBLE PROFIT U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. CIT(A) OBSERVED FROM THE ABOV E THAT SOLE REASON FOR DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE AC T IS THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT OF ASSESSEE IS NOT YET COMPLETE IN THIS REGARD AND DEDUCTION CANNOT BE GIVEN ON PROPORTIONA TE BASIS. ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANCE ON ITAT CHENNAI B ENCH IN CASE OF M/S. VISWAS PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. 126 ITD 263 . THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN REVERSED BY HONBLE MADRAS H IGH COURT IN M/S. VISWAS PROMOTERS (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT T.C. (APPEAL) NOS. 1014 OF 2009, 857 OF 2010 & 190 TO 19 2 OF 2012, W.A. NO.471 OF 2010, M.P. NOS. 1,1,1,2 AND 2 OF 2012 DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2012 WHEREIN ISSUE HAS BEEN DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 7.1 AS FAR AS ASSESSEES ENTITLEMENT ON PROPORTIONA TE BASIS U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN CASE OF M/S. VANDANA PROPERTIES IN APPEAL NO. ITA 3633 OF 2009 HELD AS UNDER: FACTS THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS A, B, C AND D OVER ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 7 A PERIOD OF MANY YEARS ON A PLOT 01 LAND, ADMEASURI NG 2.36 ACRES SITUATED AT KANDIVALI (WEST), MUMBAI. PU RSUANT TO AN ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE Y EAR 2001 PERMITTING CONVERSION OF THE STATUS OF THE LAN D, THE ASSESSEE BECAME ENTITLED TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING YON THE AFORESAID PLOT OF LAND. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED BUILDING E ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND AND ESTIMATED ITS PROFITS FROM 'E' BUILDING BY FOLL OWING THE WORK IN PROGRESS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB (10) AT RS.71,42,590/- AND RS.71,73,660/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004 -05 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB (10) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- A. THE APPROVAL FOR 'E' BUILDING WAS GRANTED ON 11T H OCTOBER 2002 AS AN EXTENSION OF THE APPROVALS GRANT ED FOR A, B, C AND D BUILDINGS COMMENCING FROM 9TH JUNE 19 93 AND, THEREFORE, 'E' BUILDING BEING CONTINUATION OF A, B, C AND D BUILDINGS, THE PROJECT MUST BE HELD TO HAVE COMMENCED PRIOR TO 1ST OCTOBER1998. B. A, B, C, D AND E BUILDINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED ON A PLOT AD-MEASURING 2.36 ACRES AND IF 2.36 ACRES OF LAND I S PROPORTIONATELY DIVIDED BETWEEN FIVE BUILDINGS, THE LAND PERTAINING TO 'E' BUILDING WOULD BE LESS THAN ONE A CRE DECISION: THE COURT NOTED THAT SECTION 80IB(10)(B) SPECIFIES THE SIZE OF THE PLOT OF LAND BUT NOT THE SIZE OF TH E HOUSING PROJECT. THE OBJECT OF SECTION 80IB (10) IN GRANTIN G DEDUCTION OF THE PROFITS OF AN UNDERTAKING ARISING FROM DEVELOPING AND CONSTRUCTING A HOUSING PROJECT WAS T O BOOST THE STOCK OF HOUSES FOR LOWER AND MIDDLE INCOME GROUPS. COURT NOTED THAT SECTION 80IB (10) DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE MUST BE VACANT. THE SAID SECTION ALLOWS DEDUCTION TO A HOUS ING PROJECT CONSTRUCTED ON A PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE AND IT IS IMMATERIAL AS TO WHETHER ANY OTH ER HOUSING PROJECTS ARE EXISTING ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND OR NOT. THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT T AXES ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 8 (CBDT) BY ITS LETTER DATED 4TH MAY 2001 ADDRESSED T O THE MAHARASHTRA CHAMBER OF HOUSING INDUSTRY HAD STATED THAT ADDITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT ON EXISTING HOUSING PROJ ECT SITE CAN QUALIFY AS INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY UNDER SECTIO N 10(23G) PROVIDED IT IS TAKEN UP BY A SEPARATE UNDERTAKING, HAVING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SO AS TO ENSURE THAT CORRECT PROFITS CAN BE ASCERTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IB. IT WAS NOT THE MANDATE OF THE SECTION THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT MUST BE ON A VACANT PLOT OF LAND HAVING MIN IMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE. IT WAS HELD THAT ON A PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE, THERE CAN BE ANY NUMBER OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND SO LONG AS THOSE HOUSING PROJE CTS ARE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND FULFIL THE CONDITIONS SET OUT UNDER SECTION 80IB (10), THE DEDUCTION THERE UN DER CANNOT BE DENIED TO ALL THOSE HOUSING PROJECTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO FULFILLING OTHER CONDITIONS BEC OMES ENTITLED TO SECTION 80IB (10) DEDUCTION ON CONSTRUC TION OF A HOUSING PROJECT ON A PLOT HAVING AREA OF ONE ACRE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THERE EXIST OTHER HOU SING PROJECTS OR NOT ACCORDINGLY HIGH COURT HELD THAT TH E DEDUCTION U/S 80IB SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 7.2 CIT(A) ALSO DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF ACIT VS. BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHER DECISIONS , WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE SAME, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AREA OF PROJECT IS MORE THAN ONE ACRE AND THE FLAT IN BUILDING T1 I S LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FEET. THE DEFINITION OF HOUSING PROJECT U/S.80HHBA OF THE ACT, TO MEAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDI NG AND GOING BY THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE U/S.80-IB OF THE A CT TO BE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJE CT COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITION, EACH BLOCK IN THE LAR GER PROJECT BY NAME T1, HAS TO BE TAKEN AS AN INDEPENDENT BUI LDING AND ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 9 HENCE A HOUSING PROJECT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDE RING A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE UNDERTAKING QUALIFYING FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT IS AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AN D BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS AND THE DEDUCTION IS IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT, SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE CLAUSE THEREIN. THUS, WITHIN A COMPOSITE HOUSING PROJECT, WHERE THERE ARE ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE UNITS, ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION IN R ESPECT OF ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE PROJECT AND EVEN WITHIN THE B LOCK, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PROPORTIONATE RELIEF IN THE UNITS SATISFYING THE EXTENT OF BUILT-UP AREA. CIT(A) RIG HTLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT FOR TOWER T1 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,44,91,313/- BEING ELIGIB LE PROFIT U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF DED UCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB I.E. RS.1,70,09,616/- (RS.3,15,00, 929/- MINUS RS.1,44,91,313/-) ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF TOWERS T2 AND T3 OF KAPI L MALHAR INTELLIGENT HOME WOULD BE REVENUE NEUTRAL AS REGULA R TAX LIABILITY IS LESS THAN TAX PAID ON THE BOOK PROFIT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SPECIFIC SUBMISSION OR DETAILS FOR TO WER T2 AND T3 REGARDING THE CLAIM MADE FOR 80IB OF THE ACT. S INCE THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION WOULD BE TAX NEUTRAL THE ADJUDIC ATION OF BALANCE AMOUNT BECOMES MERE ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND SAME WAS NOT DIRECTED. ABOVE REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE, WHEREBY CIT(A) HAS ALLO WED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. SAME IS UPHE LD. ITA NOS.5436/MUM/14 & C.O. NO.18/MUM/16 A.YS. 10-11 [DCIT VS. M/S. INDORIGIN ELECTRIC LTD.] PAGE 10 8. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT PRESS THE ISSUE RAISED IN C.O. SO, SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESS ED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSE D AND CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRE SSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R MUMBAI: DATED 24/06/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. !- / CIT (A) 5. )*+ ,--, , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +12 34 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / , / , ,