Diamond Leasing & Finance Ltd., Faridabad V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5712/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1241 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SUDHA KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: R M MEHTA; ARUN BHATIA S
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH B BB B : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.5712/DEL/2012 5712/DEL/2012 5712/DEL/2012 5712/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2009 2009 2009 2009- -- -10 1010 10 M/S DIAMOND LEASING & M/S DIAMOND LEASING & M/S DIAMOND LEASING & M/S DIAMOND LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED, FINANCE LIMITED, FINANCE LIMITED, FINANCE LIMITED, C/O ESCORTS LT C/O ESCORTS LT C/O ESCORTS LT C/O ESCORTS LTD., D.,D., D., CORPORATE TAXATION, CORPORATE TAXATION, CORPORATE TAXATION, CORPORATE TAXATION, 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD FARIDABAD FARIDABAD FARIDABAD- -- -121 003, 121 003, 121 003, 121 003, HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. PAN : AABCD4172D. PAN : AABCD4172D. PAN : AABCD4172D. PAN : AABCD4172D. VS. VS. VS. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -10(1), 10(1), 10(1), 10(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.M.MEHTA AND SHRI ARUN BHATIA, ADVOCATES. RESPONDENT BY : DR.SUDHA KUMARI, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XIII, NEW DELHI DATED 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,03,30,262/- BEING THE ENTIRE I NTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 2. THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT BORROW ED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN GROUP COMPANIES, WHEREAS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS BE EN INCURRED WITHOUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR. ITA-5712/DEL/2012 2 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN REGULARLY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS AC TIVITIES FOR PAST SEVERAL YEARS AND THE BORROWED FUNDS IN QU ESTION WERE TAKEN IN EARLIER YEARS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES A ND A MERE LULL IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN ONE YEAR DOES NOT DISENTITLE THE APPELLANT TO CLAIM NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR. 4. THE APPELLANT RESERVES TO ITSELF, THE RIGHT TO A DD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE, WITHDRAW AND/OR ANY GROUN D(S) OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE INC OME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMS ELF ALLOWED ALL THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT EXCEP T INTEREST INCOME. HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN THE BUSIN ESS OF FINANCING AND INVESTMENT. THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RUNN ING INTO LOSSES YEAR AFTER YEAR AND, THEREFORE, MONEY WAS BORROWED FOR MEETING THE LOSSES AND DAY TO DAY EXPENSES OF THE BUSINESS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT TILL PRECEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN SH ARES AND MERELY BECAUSE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE W AS NO TRADING IN THE SHARES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DIS CONTINUED THE BUSINESS. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR DISCONTINUATION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I) INDERCHAND HARI RAM VS. CIT, UNITED PROVINCES, LUCK NOW 23 ITR 437(ALL). (II) KARSONDAS RANCHHODDASS VS. CIT, BOMBAY 83 ITR 1 (BOM). (III) CIT, DELHI AND RAJASTHAN VS. BHARAT NIDHI LTD. 60 ITR 520 (PUNJAB). ITA-5712/DEL/2012 3 (IV) SHREE DIGVIJAY CEMENT CO.LTD. VS. CIT, GUJARAT-V 138 ITR 45 (GUJ.). (V) LIQUIDATOR, DELTA PLANTATION COMPANY LIMITED VS. ST ATE OF MADRAS 56 ITR 428 (MADRAS). 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE STATED THAT INTEREST CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE MONEY IS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. FRO M THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEBTORS AND STOCK IN TRADE ARE PRACTICALLY NIL, WHILE THE BORROWED MONEY IS AS HIG H AS ` 34.32 CRORES AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS MORE THAN ` 3 CRORES. HE ALSO STATED THAT NONE OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THA T THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE FIR ST POINT RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL WAS THAT THERE WAS NO DISCONTIN UATION OF BUSINESS. AT THE MOST, THERE WAS TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINE SS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT DISALLOWED THE INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS WAS CLOSED OR DISCONTINUED. HE DISALLOWED THE INTEREST BECAUSE THE BORROWED MON EY WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THAT WHILE C OMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, INTEREST IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III), WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 36. (1) THE DEDUCTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FOLLOWI NG CLAUSES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE MATTERS DEALT WITH THEREIN, IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO I N SECTION 28 ITA-5712/DEL/2012 4 (III) THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFES SION : [PROVIDED THAT ANY AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST PAID, IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET FOR EXTENSION OF EXISTING BUSINESS OR PROFESSION (WHETHER CAPITAL IZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR NOT); FOR ANY PERIOD BEGINN ING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAPITAL WAS BORROWED FOR ACQU ISITION OF THE ASSET TILL THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH ASSET WAS FIRST PUT TO USE, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION.] EXPLANATION.- RECURRING SUBSCRIPTIONS PAID PERIODIC ALLY BY SHAREHOLDERS, OR SUBSCRIBERS IN MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCI ETIES WHICH FULFIL SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE CAPITAL BORROWED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CLAUSE; 6. THUS, INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROW ED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 3 6(1)(III). ADMITTEDLY, THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABL ISH THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. NOW , LET US SEE THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE ENDING ON 31 ST MARCH, 2009 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK:- SCHEDULE AS AT AS AT 31.03.09 31.03.08 CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS AND E ADVANCES STOCK-IN-TRADE 80,655 131,476 SUNDRY DEBTORS 138,574 107,328 CASH AND BANK BALANCES 37,882 147,225 LOANS AND ADVANCES 8,212 632,185 -------------- ------------- 265,323 1,018,214 -------------- -------------- LESS : CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISIONS F CURRENT LIABILITIES 23,555,220 25 ,260,766 ---------------- -------------- -- 23,55,220 25,260,766 ---------------- -------------- -- ITA-5712/DEL/2012 5 NET CURRENT ASSETS (23,289,897) (24,242,5 52) PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DEBIT BALANCE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT 308, 028,744 273,181,319 ------------------ ------------------ TOTAL 468,223,621 436,979,310 ------------------ ------------------- 7. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT TOTAL BORROWING BY WAY OF UNSECURED LOANS IS ` 34.31 CRORES. THE MAJOR ASSET IS INVESTMENT WHICH IS ` 18.33 CRORES. AS PER ASSESSEES OWN STATEMENT, THE BORROWED MONEY HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVE STMENTS. IT WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION FURNISHE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AT PAGE 2 AND FOR READY REFERENCE, THE SAME IS BEING REPROD UCED BELOW:- IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING AND INVESTMENTS. THE INVESTMENTS IN EQUITY SHARES OF GROUP COMPANIES HAV E BEEN MADE WITH A VIEW TO EARN INCOME AND APPRECIATI ON IN VALUE. THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWING OF FUNDS AND THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PREPARED A STATEMENT SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF INVESTMENTS AND THE BORROWED FUNDS SINCE 31.03.2003 , WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. AS PER THE SAID STATEM ENT THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THE INVESTMENTS DURING THE SAID PERIOD. THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN DECREASING EVERY YEAR WHEREAS ON THE CONTRARY THE BORROWED FUND HAVE INCR EASED OVER THE PERIOD FROM RS.21.50 CRS TO RS.34.32 CRS. THE MAIN REASON FOR INCREASE IN THE BORROWED FUNDS IN O N ACCOUNT OF CONTINUOUS LOSS SUFFERED BY THE COMPANY OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS. THIS NECESSITATED THE BORROWI NGS IN ORDER TO RUN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THUS, THERE IS NO CASE FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON BORROWINGS. (EMPHASIS BY UNDERLINING SUPPLIED BY US) 8. AS PER THE ASSESSEES ABOVE EXPLANATION, THE ASS ESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING AND INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORRO WING OF FUNDS AND ITA-5712/DEL/2012 6 THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THUS, THE BORROWED MONEY , ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSI NESS OF FINANCING. HOWEVER, FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TOTAL LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE ONLY ` 8,212/-. THE SUNDRY DEBTORS IS ALSO ONLY ` 1,38,574/-. WE HAVE ALREADY STATED THAT THE ONUS I S UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MONEY WAS BORROWED F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED HOW THE HUGE SUM OF ` 34 CRORES WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS BEC AUSE THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES/FINANCI NG IS IN LAKHS. THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN SHARES, SUNDRY DEBTORS, CASH AN D BANK BALANCE AND LOANS AND ADVANCES TAKEN TOGETHER IS ONLY ` 2,65,323/- AS UNDER:- CURRENT ASSETS, LOANS AND E ADVANCES STOCK-IN-TRADE 80,655 SUNDRY DEBTORS 138,574 CASH AND BANK BALANCES 37,882 LOANS AND ADVANCES 8,212 -------------- 265,323 -------------- 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS WHICH LAY UPON IT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE BORROWED MO NEY HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT ON FACTS. 10. IN THE CASE OF INDERCHAND HARI RAM (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MAINTAINING STAFF OF BUSIN ESS WHICH CEASED TO EXIST WAS NOT AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA-5712/DEL/2012 7 11. IN THE CASE OF KARSONDAS RANCHHODDASS (SUPRA), HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS ACTIVITY BEFORE AND AFTER THE INTERREGNUM OR PERIOD OF INACTIVITY AND DURING THE PERIOD OF INACTIVITY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN UP HIS INTENTION TO DO F URTHER BUSINESS. THERE MAY BE A LONG PERIOD OF INACTIVITY BUT STILL THE BUSINESS MAY CONTINUE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DIS ALLOWED THE INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCONTINUED TH E BUSINESS BUT HE HAS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT THE BORROWED MONEY HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE DECISION WOULD BE OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE CASE OF BHARAT NIDHI LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO, THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE CEASED TO EXIST OR NOT. HOWEVER, IT IS NO T THE CONTROVERSY IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. THEREFORE, THIS D ECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB HIGH COURT WOULD ALSO NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE CASE OF SHREE DIGVIJAY CEMENT CO.LTD. (SUPRA), HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, ON THE FACTS, THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE NO PA RT OF THE BORROWINGS COULD BE SPECIFICALLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNTS WITH THE BANK WERE SECURED BY PLEDGE OF THE SHARES AND THE AMOUNTS BORROWED AGAINST THE SECURITY OF SHARES WER E UTILISED FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE ENTIRE P AY6MENT OF INTEREST ON BORROWINGS WAS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS. 14. THUS, IN THE ABOVE CASE, THERE WAS A FINDING TH AT THE AMOUNT BORROWED AGAINST THE SECURITY OF SHARES WAS UTILISE D FOR ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, INTEREST WAS HELD TO BE AL LOWABLE. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US, WE HAVE CONCURRED WITH THE FINDING OF ITA-5712/DEL/2012 8 THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEE N ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE BORROWED MONEY HAS BEEN UTILISED FOR THE P URPOSES OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WOULD ALSO NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LIQUIDATOR, DELTA PLANTATION COMPANY LIMITED (SUPRA) WAS UNDER THE MADRAS AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX ACT, 1955 AND THE QU ESTION WAS WHETHER IN THE CASE OF A COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION, TH E SALE OF ASSETS BY LIQUIDATOR CONSTITUTES BUSINESS. THUS, THE ISSUE B EFORE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE WAS ALTOGETHER DIFFEREN T THAN THE ISSUE BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. AT THE COST OF RE PETITION, WE REITERATE THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DI SALLOWED THE INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS IS DISCONTINUED, BU T, INTEREST IS DISALLOWED BECAUSE BORROWED MONEY HAS NOT BEEN UTIL ISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE SAI D DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIF ICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE SAME IS SUSTAINED AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( (( (CHANDRA CHANDRA CHANDRA CHANDRA MOHAN GARG MOHAN GARG MOHAN GARG MOHAN GARG) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 15.02.2013 VK. ITA-5712/DEL/2012 9 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S DIAMOND LEASING & FINANCE LIMITE D, M/S DIAMOND LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED, M/S DIAMOND LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED, M/S DIAMOND LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED, C/O ESCORTS LTD., CORPORATE TAXATION, C/O ESCORTS LTD., CORPORATE TAXATION, C/O ESCORTS LTD., CORPORATE TAXATION, C/O ESCORTS LTD., CORPORATE TAXATION, 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD 15/5, MATHURA ROAD, FARIDABAD- -- -121 0 121 0 121 0 121 003, 03, 03, 03, HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. HARYANA. 2. RESPONDENT : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -10(1), NEW DELHI. 10(1), NEW DELHI. 10(1), NEW DELHI. 10(1), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR