DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI V. GHARDA CHEMICALS LATD, MUMBAI

ITA 559/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3891 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B JAYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Valuation report; Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENC H MUMBAI , , BEFORE S/SHJOGINDER SINGH,JUDICIA L MEMBER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A./559/MUM/2011 , /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020. VS. GHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITED 5/6, JER MANSION, W.P. VARDE MARG, OFF TURNER ROAD, BANDRA (W),MUMBAI-50. PAN: AAACG 1255 E ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) /C.O/.NO.266/M/2012 , / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A./559/MUM/2011 GHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITED MUMBAI-400 050. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 9(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020. (CROSS OBJECTOR) ( / RESPONDENT ) ./I.T.A./4922/MUM/2012 , /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ACIT, RANGE - 9(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN,MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S.GHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITED MUMBAI-400 050. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI B. JAYA KUMAR ASSESSEE BY: MS. VASANTI PATEL / DATE OF HEARING: 09.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.05.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF THE CS.IT(A)THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED THE APPEALS/CROSS OBJECTIONS FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED AS SESSMENT YEARS (AY.S.),RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL.ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PESTI- CIDES,INSECTICIDES, WEEDICIDES,VETERINARY-DRUGS AND POLYMERS.THE DETAILS OF FILING OF RETURNS, RETURNED INCOMES,ASSESSED INCOMES ETC.CAN BE SUMMAR ISED AS UNDER: A.Y. ROI FILED ON RETURNED INCOME(RS.) ASSESSMENT DT. ASSESSED INCOME(RS.) DT. OF ORDERS OF CIT(A) 2007-08 15.11.2007 100,24,39,340/- 22.12.2009 166,2 4,71,480/- 27.10.2010 2009-10 29.09.2011 106,07,32,139/- 27.12.2011 157,5 2,79,790/- 15.05.2012 ITA/559/MUM/2011,AY.2007-08: 559/M/11 & 4922/M/12+C.O.GHARDA CHEMICALS 2 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT INTEREST ON CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS,AMOUNTING TO RS.11.94CRORES.DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA - TIVE(AR)STATED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDE D AGAINST THE AO BY THE TRIBUNAL,WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR THE AY.S.2004-05,2005-06 A ND 2006-07 (ITA.S/ 1375,2321&6588 / MUM/2011,DTD.29/04/2016).WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER: 2.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE(AR)AND DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)AGREED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY.S.2000-01,2001-02 AND 2003-04. WE WOULD LIKE TO RE-PRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DEALING WITH THE ISSUE DE ALT WITH IN THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2003-04 (ITA/4405&4246/MUM/2007-DTD.16.01.2015)AND SAME REA DS AS UNDER: 9.2. BEFORE US,REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER YEARS.(ITA/2146-47/M/2007/ -DATED 12.12.2008,AY.2000-01,2001-02.).WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION.WE FIND THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER: 6.WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD.WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED B Y THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CORE HEALTH LTD. (SUPR A),ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THAT WE CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 200 1-02. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE,WE DECIDE GROUND.N O.1-3 AGAINST THE AO. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNA L,WE DECIDE THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR THE EARLIER YE ARS,FIRST GROUND IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 3. SECOND GROUND PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS. 23.20 CRO RES OF UNUTILISED MODERATE CREDIT TO CLOSING STOCK.REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS,ON 29/04/2016 THE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A IN ENTIRETY AND N OT RESTRICTING ITS OPERATION TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK ALONE. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEA RS,SECOND GROUND IS ALLOWED,IN PART. 559/M/11 & 4922/M/12+C.O.GHARDA CHEMICALS 3 4. NEXT GROUND IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS. 27.54 CRORES O F EXCISE DUTY TO CLOSING STOCK. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORE D BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO,WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR AY.S.2004-05 AND 2005-06. FOLLOWING THE SAME,THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.THIRD GROUND STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON IPR,OF RS. 3.24 CRORES IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF GROUND FOUR.IT IS FOUND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.S.2005-06 AND 2008-09,THE TRIBUNAL HAD,ON 29/04/2016, DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE AO IN FOL LOWING MANNER: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDY OF THE ASSESSEE HELD REGISTRATION RIG HTS IN TWO PRODUCTS,THAT IT HAD PAID REGISTRATION CHARGES FOR SELLING THOSE PRODUCTS IN THE US MARKET S,THAT IT HAD ALSO PAID OTHER FEES AS REQUIRED BY THE US LAWS,THAT IT HAD INCURRED TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF USD 1,58,79,306 UNDER THE HEAD REGISTRATION CHARGES,THAT THE AE GOT THE ASSETS REVALUED AS ON 0 1.01.2204,THAT REGISTRATION RIGHTS WERE REVALUED FROM RS. 44.29 CRORES TO RS. 67.99 CRORES BY THE IN DEPENDENT VALUER,THAT ON 30.09.2004 THE AE WAS DISSOLVED,THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK OVER THE ASSET S AND LIABILITIES OF THE AE AT THE REVALUED PRICE,THAT THE PAYMENT FOR REGISTRATION RIGHTS AND OTHER FEES WERE PAID MUCH BEFORE THE REVALUATION,THAT IT ADOPTED LESSER VALUE OF THE RIG HTS AS COMPARED TO THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUER,THAT FURTHER CLARIFICATION WERE CALLED FROM THE VALUER,THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE TPO AGREED THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE AE FOR THE RIGH TS IN EARLIER YEARS,THAT THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE METHOD OF VALUATION,THAT THE TPO POINTED OUT ELEMENT OF NON TRANSFERABILITY IN THE VALUATION REPORT FOR SUPPORTING THE ADJUSTMENT, THAT THE FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FACT THAT THE TPO WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN ARRIVI NG AT THE CONCLUSION OF NON TRANSFERABILITY, THAT THE AE HAD RIGHT TO TRANSFER THE RIGHTS TO OTHERS A LSO.CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS,WE ARE OF THE OPINION,THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER F ROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY. THEREFORE, CONFIRMING HIS ORDER,WE DECIDE GROUND NO .8 AGAINST THE AO. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER GROUND NUMBE R FOUR IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 6. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL DEALS WITH DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.2(22)(E)OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.46.96 CRORES.IT WAS AGREED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE S OF BOTH THE SIDES THAT TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER,DATED 29/04/2016, FOR THE AY.S.2005-06, HAD D ISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL F OR THE AY.2005-06 AND SAME READS AS UNDER: 559/M/11 & 4922/M/12+C.O.GHARDA CHEMICALS 4 16. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETION OF ADDITION O F RS.44.52 CRORES MADE U/S.2(22) (E) OF THE ACT.IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IDENTI CAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL,WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2002-03(ITA/916/MUM/ 2010 DTD. 03. 12.2010).RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER READS AS FOLLOW: 11.EVEN ON MERITS THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE REVENUE . IN FACT THE CIT(A) HAS ANALYSED THIS ISSUE ELABORATELY AND CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT PROVISION S OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE SAME PRIN CIPLE WAS UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJ KUMAR 318 ITR 462 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE WAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED AS UNDER: - 'SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SHOW S THAT A PAYMENT WOULD ACQUIRE THE ATTRIBUTES OF A DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION I F THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED : (I) THE COMPANY MAKING THE PAYMENT IS ONE IN WHICH THE PUBL IC ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED ; (II) MONEY SHOULD BE PAID BY THE COMPANY TO A SHARE HOLDER HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT. OF THE VOTING POWER OF THE COMPANY. IT WOULD MAKE NO D IFFERENCE IF THE PAYMENT WAS OUT OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE ; (III) THE MONE Y SHOULD BE PAID EITHER BY WAY OF AN ADVANCE OR LOAN OR IT MAY BE 'ANY PAYMENT' WHICH THE COMPAN Y MAY MAKE ON BEHALF OF OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF ANY SHAREHOLDER OR ALSO TO AN Y CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE IS SUBSTANTIALL Y INTERESTED ; AND (IV) THE LIMITING FACTOR BEING THAT THESE PAYMENTS MUST BE TO THE EXTENT OF ACCUMU LATED PROFITS, POSSESSED BY SUCH A COMPANY. THE IMMEDIATE PRECURSOR TO SECTION 2(22)(E) IS FOUN D IN SECTION 2(6A) OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922. THE PURPOSE OF INSERTION OF SUB-CLAUSE (E) TO SECTI ON 2(6A) IN THE 1922 ACT WAS TO BRING WITHIN THE TAX NET MONIES PAID BY CLOSELY HELD COMPANIES T O THEIR PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDERS IN THE GUISE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX. THEREFO RE, SUB-CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE 1961 ACT, WHICH IS IN PARI MATERIA WITH SUB-CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 2(6A) OF THE 1922 ACT, PLAINLY SEEKS TO BRING WITHIN THE TAX NET, ACCUMULATED PROF ITS WHICH ARE DISTRIBUTED BY CLOSELY HELD COMPANIES TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS IN THE FORM OF LOANS. THE PURPOSE BEING THAT PERSONS WHO MANAGE SUCH CLOSELY HELD COMPANIES SHOULD NOT ARRANGE THEI R AFFAIRS IN A MANNER THAT THEY ASSIST THE SHAREHOLDERS IN AVOIDING THE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY HA VING THESE COMPANIES PAY OR DISTRIBUTE, WHAT WOULD LEGITIMATELY BE DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS' MONEY IN THE FORM OF AN ADVANCE OR LOAN. THE WORD 'ADVANCE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJU NCTION WITH THE WORD 'LOAN'. USUALLY ATTRIBUTES OF A LOAN ARE THAT IT INVOLVES THE POSIT IVE ACT OF LENDING COUPLED WITH ACCEPTANCE BY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MONEY AS LOAN : IT GENERALLY CARR IES INTEREST AND THERE IS AN OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ITS WIDEST MEANING THE TERM 'ADVANCE' MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE 559/M/11 & 4922/M/12+C.O.GHARDA CHEMICALS 5 LENDING. THE WORD 'ADVANCE' IF NOT FOUND IN THE COM PANY OF OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A WORD 'LOAN' MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE THE OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT. IF IT DOES, THEN IT WOULD BE A LOAN. THUS, ARISES THE CONUNDRUM AS TO WHAT MEANING ONE WOULD A TTRIBUTE TO THE TERM 'ADVANCE'. THE RULE OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH ANSWERS THIS CONUNDRUM IS NOSCIT UR A SOCIIS. THE RULE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BOTH BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN THE CASE OF ANGUS ROBERTSON V. GEORGE DAY [1879] 5 AC 63 BY OBSERVING 'IT IS LEGITIMATE RULE OF CONSTRUCTION TO CONSTRUE WORDS IN AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT WITH REFERENCE TO WORDS FOUND IN IMMEDIATE CONNECTION WITH THEM' AND THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHIT PULP AND PAPER MILLS LTD. V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL E XCISE, AIR 1991 SC 754 AND STATE OF BOMBAY V. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA, AIR 1960 SC 610. THE PRI NCIPLES WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ARE BRIEFLY AS FOLLOWS : ( I) DOES THE TERM IN ISSUE HAVE MORE THAN ONE MEANING ATTRIBUTED TO IT, I.E., BASED ON THE SETTIN G OR THE CONTEXT ONE COULD APPLY THE NARROWER OR WIDER MEANING ; (II) ARE THE WORDS OR TERMS USED FO UND IN A GROUP TOTALLY 'DISSIMILAR' OR IS THERE A 'COMMON THREAD' RUNNING THROUGH THEM ; (III) THE PU RPOSE BEHIND INSERTING OF THE TERM. IN THE INSTANT CASE (I) THE TERM 'ADVANCE' HAS UNDOUBTEDLY MORE THAN ONE MEANING DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS USED ; (II) BOTH THE TERMS, THAT IS, 'ADVANCE' OR 'LOAN' ARE RELATED TO THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF THE COMPANY ; AND (III) THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE INSERTION OF THE TERM 'ADVANCE' WAS TO BRING WITHIN THE TAX NET PAYMENTS MADE IN THE GUISE OF LOAN TO SHAREHOLDERS BY COMPANIES IN WHICH THEY HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST SO AS TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE WORD 'ADVANCE' WHICH APPEARS IN THE COMPANY OF THE WORD 'LOAN' COULD ONLY MEAN SUCH ADVANCE WHICH CARRIES WITH IT AN OBLIGATI ON OF REPAYMENT. TRADE ADVANCES WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF MONEY TRANSACTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING C USTOMIZED KITCHEN EQUIPMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND HELD NEARLY 65 P ER CENT. OF THE PAID-UP SHARE CAPITAL OF C. A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, W HICH WAS NEARLY 90 PER CENT. WAS OBTAINED THROUGH C. FOR THIS PURPOSE, C WOULD PASS ON THE AD VANCE RECEIVED FROM ITS CUSTOMERS TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXECUTE THE JOB WORK ENTRUSTED TO THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF A LOAN GIVEN BY C TO THE ASSESSEE WHO ADMITTEDLY HELD MORE THAN 10 PER CENT. OF THE SHARES IN C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). THE COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL SUSTAINED THE DECIS ION OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS).ON APPEAL : 559/M/11 & 4922/M/12+C.O.GHARDA CHEMICALS 6 HELD, THAT THE TRADE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY C COULD NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E).' 12. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN FACT FOLLOWED T HE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAGINDAS M. KAPAD IA 177 ITR 393. THE SAME PRINCIPLES WERE ALSO REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. AMBASSADOR TRAVELS P. LTD. 318 ITR 376. IN VIEW OF THESE PRINCIPLES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN TWO COMPANIES COULD NOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE PURVI EW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). ACCORDINGLY ON MERITS ALSO WE FIND NO CASE TO INTER FERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUNDS 1,2 & 3 ARE THEREFORE REJECTED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL,SO,GROUND NO.6 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER,FIFTH GROUND IS DECIDED A GAINST THE AO. C.O/266/M/2012,AY,2007-08: 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AR DID N OT PRESS GROUND 3-5,RAISED IN THE CO.THEREFORE,SAME STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED.FI RST AND SECOND GROUNDS ARE ABOUT MISTAKES APPEARING IN THE ORDER OF THE FAA.THE AO IS DIRECTE D TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FIGURES AND TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AS PER LAW.BOTH THE GROUNDS A RE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA/4922/MUM/2012,AY,2009-10 8. THE SOLITARY GROUND,RAISED BY THE AO FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION IS ABOUT IPR.FOLLOWING OUR ORDER,FOR THE EARLIER YEAR WE DECIDE THE GROUND AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEAL BY THE AO AND CO OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.2007-08 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. APPEAL FILED BY THE AO,FOR THE AY.2009-10 STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH MAY,2016. 9, 2016 SD/- SD/- /JOGINDER SINGH) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09.05.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 559/M/11 & 4922/M/12+C.O.GHARDA CHEMICALS 7 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.