DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s Britannia Industries Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 557/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6507 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G HANSHING LD
• Assessee Lawyers: D S DAMLE
• Keywords: Business income; Advance ruling; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63

Judgement Text

, D , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.557/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AAYAKAR BHVAN, 5 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 5/15, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 / V/S . M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD., 5/1A, HUNGERFORD STREET, KOLKATA-17 [ PAN NO.AABCB 2066 P ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI G, HANSHING, LD. CIT-DR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI D.S. DAMLE, FCA /DATE OF HEARING 05-04-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25-04-2018 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-16, KOLKATA DATED 26.12.2016. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY JCITO RANGE-7, KOLKATA U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 26.03.2013 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE PER ITS APPEAL IS AS U NDER:- 1. THE ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS ON THE JU DGEMENT OF LD. ITT IN THE SAME CASE WHERE THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE PR. CIT U/S. 263 WAS QUASHED BY THE ITAT. ITA NO.557/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-7(1) KOL VS. M/S BRITANNIA INDS. LTD. PAGE 2 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF 23 DAYS THOUGH REVENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY CONDONATIO N PETITION. ON QUERY, FROM THE BENCH LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OPPOSED THE CONDONATION RATHER HE CONCEDED THAT DELAY CAN BE CONDONED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS GIVEN AND CONCESSION GIVEN BY LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE CON DONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY TH E LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS FRAMED BY THE LD. JCIT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.03.2013. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.3.2015. ACCORDINGLY THE AO PASSED GIVING EFFECT ORDER U/S 143(3)/263 DATED 17-7- 2015 OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS ISSU ED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVISION ORDER PASSED U /S 263 OF THE ACT PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.775/KOL/2015 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY AO DATED 26.03.2013. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS HELD UNSUS TAINABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2016. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR BEFO RE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT BY THE AO HAS NO LEG TO STAND. THEREFORE, SUCH ORDER BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS / NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 775/KOL/2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS QUASHED V IDE ORDER DATED 28.10.2016. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- ITA NO.557/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-7(1) KOL VS. M/S BRITANNIA INDS. LTD. PAGE 3 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY EX AMINED TH4E RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. LEARNED CIT IN HIS ORDER OBSERVED THAT THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND M/S GROUP DANONE IS IN THE NATURE O NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT, NOT TO LAUNCH T HE BISCUIT PRODUCTS UNDER THE TRADE MARK TIGER IN SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA AND TH E AMOUNT THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TOWARDS LOSS OF PROFITS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY'S INABILITY TO LAUNCH ITS PRODUCTS IN SINGAPORE AND M ALAYSIA, IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW ITS RIGHT TO EXPAND BUSINESS IN S INGAPORE AND MALAYSIA, AND CONSEQUENTLY INCURRED LOSS OF FUTURE PROFIT, WHICH THEY COULD HAVE OTHERWISE ARRANGED, THE COMPENSATION WAS PAID. IN HIS ATTEMPT TO REFUTE THESE OBSERVATIONS OF LEARNED CIT, LD. AR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT DATED 14.04.2009 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND GROUP DANONE SA. UNDER CLA USE 5 AND 6 OF THIS AGREEMENT BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE ON T HE TERMS SET OUT IN SCHEDULE 2 THEREOF AND THE PARTIES THEREAFTER WILL NOT BRING A NY CLAIMS AGAINST EACH OTHER IN THIS RESPECT. VIDE CLAUSE 7 (B) AND (C) THEREOF, THE PAR TIES AGREED THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED THAT THEY SHALL NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION FOR THE OTHE R PARTY INVESTING OR PARTICIPATING BY ANY MEANS IN ANY ENTITY IN INDIA ENGAGED IN ANY ACT IVITY WHATSOEVER BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SAME FIELD AS ANY BUSINESS OF BIL ETC., AND IF ANY TIME THEREAFTER ANY NOTICE WAS SERVED BY GROUP DANONE AND AFFILIATES ON THE ASSESS EE REQUIRING ANY CERTIFICATION OR CONFIRMATION, WITHIN THREE WEEKS THEREOF THE ASSESS EE WILL ISSUE SUCH CERTIFICATION OF CONFIRMATION. CLAUSES 4 AND 11 OF SCHEDULE 2, THE T ERMS OF AGREEMENT THEREOF READ AS FOLLOWS: '4. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT THE RELEASE AND PA YMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE: (A) IS WITHOUT ANY ADMISSION BY DANONE, ITS AFFILIA TES OR THE DANONE INDIVIDUALS THAT THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE IP PROCEEDI NGS OR RAISED IN THE IP DISPUTES ARE VALID; (B) IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE KRAFT PARTIES IN RESPECT OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF GEN ERALE BISCUIT AND THE OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE I P PROCEEDINGS; (C) DOES NOT RELEASE ANY CLAIM BY BIL AGAINST THE K RAFT PARTIES OR THEIR AFFILIATES EXCEPT AS SET OUT IN PARAGRAPH I(C) ABOV E (THE KRAFT DAMAGES CLAIMS); (D) (IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD COMMENCING 1 DECEMBER 2007), IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO BIL'S RIGHT TO (I) CONTINUE AND/OR INITIATE ANY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY COURT IN RESPECT OF INFRINGEMENTS OF ITS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS A GAINST THE KRAFT PARTIES OR THEIR AFFILIATES OTHER THAN THE KRAFT DAMAGES CL AIMS (INCLUDING CLAIMS FOR AN INJUNCTION OR OTHER REMEDIES REQUIRIN G THE KRAFT PARTIES TO CEASE SUCH INFRINGEMENTS OR TO CLAIM DAMAGES FOR SU CH INFRINGEMENTS); AND (II] CONTINUE THE IP PROCEEDINGS (OTHER THAN IN RES PECT OF THE KRAFT DAMAGES CLAIMS) AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRADE MA RKS REGISTRY IN MALAYSIA AND TO BRING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE KRAFT PARTIES OR THEIR AFFILIATES IN OTHER COUNTRIES INCLUDING IN INDONESI A, PAKISTAN AND EGYPT; BUT (E) DOES EXTEND TO ANY FORMER OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE O F GENERALE BISCUIT OR KRAFT FOODS PTE. LTD. WHO WAS OR IS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYE E OF DANONE OR ANY OF THEIR AFFILIATES. ' ITA NO.557/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-7(1) KOL VS. M/S BRITANNIA INDS. LTD. PAGE 4 11. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 10 ABOVE, (A) B1L AND ITS AFFILIATES MAY USE THE B1L TIGER LO GO IN ANY COUNTRY AND DANONE AND ITS AFFILIATES WILL NOT TAKE ANY STE PS TO PREVENT THE REGISTRATION OR USE THEREOF (B) BIL AND ITS AFFILIATES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO US E THE WORD ' TIGER ' OR ANY MNEMONIC DEPICTING A TIGER WITHOUT RESTRICTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AND DANONE AND ITS AFFILIATES WILL NOT TAKE A NY STEPS TO PREVENT THE REGISTRATION OR USE THEREOF, PROVIDED THAT SAVE AS PROVIDED IN (A) ABOVE, NEITHER BIL NOR ITS AFFILIATES ARE HEREBY PE RMITTED TO USE ANY LOGO OR MARK SIMILAR TO OR LIKELY TO BE CONFUSED WI TH ANY DANONE MARK OR LOGO. ' 10. A READING OF THE ABOVE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS SET OUT IN SCHEDULE 2 INDICATES THAT AT ANY POINT OF TIME THE GROUP DANONE NEITHER CONCEDED THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ADMITTED TO HAVE INFRINGED THE TRADE M ARK RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SURRENDER OR PART W ITH ANY PART OF THEIR RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE TRADE MARK EITHER IN BRAND NAME OR I N LOGO IN FAVOUR OF EITHER DANONE OR ITS AFFILIATES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SETTLEMEN T WAS REACHED NEITHER OF THE PARTIES RELINQUISHING THEIR CLAIMS PUT FORTH BEFORE THE ADJ UDICATORY FORUMS. IN OTHER WORDS, NEITHER DANONE ADMITTED TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY BREAC H OF TRADE MARK OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO FOREGO ANY OF ITS RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE BRAND NAME AND LOGO OF 'TIGER'. 11. TAKING STRENGTH FROM THIS FACTUAL POSITION, LEA RNED AR SUBMITTED IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT EITHER OF THE PARTIES HAS GIVEN ANY CON CESSION TO THE OTHER IN CONSIDERATION OF WHICH SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY DANONE TO THE ASS ESSEE AND ONLY AS A CONSIDERATION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE UP THEIR RIG HT TO SUE THE DANONE PAID THIS AMOUNT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE MATTER W AS ARGUED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASING ON FACTS AND LAW, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER CONSIDERED ALL THESE FACTORS AND HAS REACHED A VIEW THAT THE INCOME IN DISPUTE IS CH ARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD ' CAPITAL GAINS '. PLACING RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF A COORDINATE B ENCH OF HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL IN ORIENT BLACKSWAN (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (2016) 71 TAX MANN.COM 319 WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE QUESTION AROSE AS TO WHET HER THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED UNDER COMPROMISE IN RESPECT OF PUTTING AN END TO LI TIGATION AND NEITHER OF THE PARTY PRECLUDED FROM USING THE TRADE MARK THEN SUCH A COM PENSATION CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE CIT ALSO IS EQUALLY LOPSIDED. 12. NOW COMING TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, WE FIND FROM THE PAPER BOOK THAT PAGE NO. 46 THEREOF IS THE LETTER D ATED 05.12.2012 WHERE UNDER THE AO SOUGHT SOME INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND SU CH INFORMATION INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING QUESTION ALSO: 'WHAT IS THE NATURE OF CAPITAL RECEIPT TOWARDS THE SETTLEMENT OF LITIGATION OF RS.22. 79 CR. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR? ALSO FURNI SH THE DETAILS, NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES WITH WHOM SUCH TRANSACTION S WERE MADE. ' 13. TO THIS QUERY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN ELABORA TE REPLY WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN PAGE NOS. 50 TO 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THIS REPLY , THE ASSESSEE SET-FORTH THE BACKGROUND OF THE MATTER VIDE PAGE NOS. 50 TO 53, R EASONS FOR THEIR REQUEST TO TREAT IT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT IN PAGE NOS. 54 TO 55, THE REASO NS FOR THEIR OBJECTION TO TREAT IT AS ITA NO.557/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-7(1) KOL VS. M/S BRITANNIA INDS. LTD. PAGE 5 BUSINESS INCOME IN PAGE NOS. 56 TO 58 AND THE REASO NS NOT TO CONSIDER THE SAME AS CAPITAL GAIN IN PAGE NO. 59 TO 62. AO IN HIS ORDER VIDE PAGE NOS. 7 TO 10 ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D WHILE BRUSHING ASIDE THEIR SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL RECEIPT AND B USINESS INCOME AO PREFERRED TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT SUCH AN AMOUNT IS TO BE TAXED UN DER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON SO MANY DECISIONS IN RESPECT OF THEIR C ONTENTIONS TO OBJECT THE TREATMENT OF THE AMOUNT EITHER AS BUSINESS INCOME OR AS CAPITAL GAIN. HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THESE FACTS AND ALSO THE LAW LAID DOWN IN SUCH DECISIONS, THE AO CONSCIOUSLY REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPI TAL GAIN BUT NOT AS EITHER CAPITAL RECEIPT OR BUSINESS INCOME. THIS IS ONE OF THE PROB ABLE VIEWS THAT COULD HAVE VALIDLY BE TAKEN. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION COULD IT BE SAID THAT THE AO MECHANICALLY PASSED THIS ORDER TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME H AS TO BE CHARGED AS CAPITAL GAIN. THE AO MADE ENQUIRIES, CALLED FOR DETAILS OF SUCH I NCOME AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE T HREE PROBABLE VIEWS I.E. CAPITAL RECEIPT, BUSINESS INCOME AND CAPITAL GAIN, THE AO F OR THE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE NOS. 7 TO 10, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME IN DISPUTE HAS TO BE CHARGED AS CAPITAL GAIN BUT NOT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT OR BUSINESS INCOME. IN THIS FACTUAL CONTEXT, WE ARE CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN TERMING THE ORDER OF AO AS ERRONEOUS AND WITHOUT PR OPER ENQUIRY OR ON WRONG ASSUMPTION OF THE FACTS. 14. SINCE AT THIS STAGE WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH T HE LEGALITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DE LVE DEEPER INTO THAT ASPECT CANVASSED BY THE LEARNED AR BASING ON THE FOLLOWING CITATIONS: 1) DCIT VS. MLS. ARIMGANJ ESTATES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 7351KO1J2012 DATED 05.09.2014 2) AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME-TAX), NEW DELHI, LEAD COUNSEL OF QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND (QSF) REPORTED IN (2016) 65 TAXMANN.COM 197 3) ABERDEEN CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION INC. REPORTED I N 381ITR 55 (AAR) 4) SATYAM FOOD SPECIALITIES P. LTD. VS. DEIT 57 TAX MANN.COM 194 (JAIPUR). SUFFICE FOR US TO SAY THAT IT IS ONLY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT SHALL DECIDE WHICH ONE OF THE THREE VIEWS AMONGST C APITAL RECEIPT, CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME IS CORRECT AND THE AO HAS ELABOR ATELY CONSIDERED ALL THESE THREE ASPECTS BEFORE REACHING ONE OF THE PROBABLE V IEW THAT THIS PARTICULAR INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CHARGED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS BUT NOT OTHERWISE. 15. IN JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. PR. CIT, CENTR AL (2016) 67 TAXMANN.COM 258 (GUJARAT), HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE POWER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE EXERCISED WHEN THOUGH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE FOOTING OR THE PREMISE WHICH ARE NOT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE ADDITIONS ON BETTER PREMISE WITH BETTER REASONING OR ON DIFFERENT APPLICATION O F LEGAL PRINCIPLES. 16. FOR THESE REASONS, WE ARE OF THE FIRM CONCLUSIO N THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT THE RESULT OF NON APPLICATION OF MIND OR WRONG ASSU MPTION OF FACTS OR WITHOUT ANY PROPER ENQUIRY. AND IT, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT ASS UMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT IS UNWARRANTED AND THE ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE, THEREFORE, QUASH THE SAME. APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ITA NO.557/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 DCIT CIR-7(1) KOL VS. M/S BRITANNIA INDS. LTD. PAGE 6 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. FROM THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, THERE REMAINS NO DOUBT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS HELD AS UNSUSTAIN ABLE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED IN CONSEQUENT TO DIRECTION ISSUED U/S. 263 OF THE A CT BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. HENCE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/263 OF THE AC T IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THUS BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. HENCE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY T HE AO IN HIS GIVING EFFECT ORDER ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. THUS WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25/04/2018 SD/- SD/- ( % ') ( ') (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP, SR.P.S ) - 25/04/2018 / KOLKATA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-DCIT,CIRCLE-7(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.5/15 P-7, CHOW RINGHEE SQUARE, KOLAKTA-69 2. /RESPONDENT-M/S BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. 5/1A, HUN GERFORD ST. KOLKATA-17 3. , - / CONCERNED CIT 4. - - / CIT (A) 5. . %%, , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO ,,