M/s ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd., Yamunanagar V. DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar

ITA 797/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4944 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Wholly owned subsidiary; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 797/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, RADAUR ROAD, YAMUNANAGAR VS. ! THE DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR ' # ./ PAN NO: AAACT5540K '$/ APPELLANT &' '$ / RESPONDENT ()*+ /ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE *+ / REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDERSHAN, JCIT DR , -*) .# /DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2020 /0 *) .# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2020 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX-4, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4 , LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 63,21,6 54/- ( AS REDUCED BY ASSESSING OFFICER FROM RS. 1,42,26,765/- BY PASSING ORDER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT), BEING DISALLO WANCE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS PER PARA 6.1 OF HIS ORDER. ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FA CT THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND, AS SUCH, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14-A WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RECE NT JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT V/S SINTEX INDUSTRIE S [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 24 (SC), IN WHICH, IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T WHERE THERE ARE SURPLUS FUNDS, NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY DISALL OWANCE OR EXPENDITURE U/S 14A WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. 4. THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION FILED DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF. 3. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 79,05,111/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') READ WITH RULE 8D(2) (III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IN RESPECT OF THE ADMINI STRATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING OF TAX EXEMPT INCOME OF RS. 7, 53,76,223/- WHICH INCLUDE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 7,45,55,286/- EARNED FROM INVESTMENT IN WHOLLY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY M/S SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS LTD., RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 8,20, 937/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID TAX EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANC E U/S 14A OF THE ACT ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 3 READ WITH RULE 8D ARE NOT MADE IN VIEW OF THE INVE STMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLO WING SUBMISSIONS:- 1.00 DETAILS O F EXEMPT INCOME: WITH REGARD TO DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 7,45,55,286/W E SUBMIT THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THI S DIVIDEND INCOME, WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, AS TH E DIVIDEND IS FROM WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND DIVIDEND IS TRA NSFERRED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. AS FAR AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 8,20,937/- IS CONCERNED, A SEPARATE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FROM THE FARM OPERATIONS HAS BEEN ENCLOSED AS NOTE NO. 21.1 TO STATEMENT OF PROFIT & LOSS. YOU WILL NO TE THAT AGAINST FARM INCOME OF RS. 12,86,800/- THERE IS AN EXPENDITURE O F RS.4,65,864/- AND THE INCOME CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPTED IS ONLY RS. 8,20,937/ -, THE COST OF THE FARM LAND IS RS. 1,47,908/-, WHICH WAS BOUGHT SEVERAL YE AR BACK AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY INTEREST ELEMENT APPLICABLE TO THAT. AS PER THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CTT V. H ERO CYCLES LTD., 2010- (323)-JTR-0518 (SEE ANNEXURE-II), INVESTMENT OUT OF TAX FREE INCOME WILL NOT ATTRACT SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT. HERE WE CAN INVEST FUNDS WORTH FARM LAND FROM FARM INCOME EVERY YEAR. THEREFORE, NO PART OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. 2.00 DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS IN COMPANIES: REGARDING INVESTMENTS IN COMPANIES AS MENTIONED IN THE NOTE NO. 1J OF THE BALANCE SHEET WE HAVE TO CLARIFY AS UNDER :- 2.01 INVESTMENT IN ISGEC COVEMA LIMITED - RS.2,00,0O,000/-: THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1.99.99.000/- WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 1996 OR BEFORE AND THERE IS NO BORROWING OUTSTANDING AS ON DATE RELATING TO THAT PERIOD. BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,000/- WAS MADE IN YEAR ENDED 31.03.2014. 2.02 INVESTMENT IN ISGEC EXPORT LIMITED - RS. 10,00,000/ -: THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 10.00,000/- WAS MADE IN THE Y EAR 1996 AND THIS INVESTMENT IS ALSO OUT OF COMPANY'S OWN FUNDS ARID THERE IS NO BORROWING OUTSTANDING AS ON DATE RELATING TO THAT P ERIOD. 2.03 INVESTMENT IN SARASWATI SUGAR MILL S LIMITED - RS.70,09.99,000/-: I) OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 70,09,99,000/-, ONLY INVESTMENT OF RS.9,99,000/- WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 2000 BY WAY OF C ASH AND THE SAME WAS OUT OF COMPANY'S OWN FUNDS. ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 4 II) THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS.70,00,00,000/- WAS MAD E FOR CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN CASH BY WAY OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LI ABILITIES OF SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS UNIT TO SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED ( SSML) IN THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 2003. THE INVESTMENT REPRESENTS ISSUE OF SHA RES FOR CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN CASH A COPY OF RETURN OF A LLOTMENT FLED WITH REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-III SHOWING ISSUE OF SHARES FOR CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN CASH. TRANSFER ASSETS TO WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S 47 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2.04 INVESTMENT IN ISQEC ENGINEERING & PROJECTS LIMITED - RS. 3,30,00,000/-: THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS MADE IN THE. Y EAR 2007 AND INVESTMENT OF RS. 3,00,00,000/- WAS MADE IN THE YEA R 2012 AND BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS. 25,00,000/- WAS MADE IN YEAR ENDE D 31.03.2014. THESE INVESTMENT ARE OUT OF COMPANY'S OWN RETAINED EARNIN GS AND FUNDS. DURING THE YEAR THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME FROM THIS INVEST MENT. AS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN C1T VS. LAKH ANI MARKETING, IF THERE IS NOT TAX FREE INCOME THERE WILL BE NO DISALLOWANC E, COPY OF JUDGMENT ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-V. 2.05 INVESTMENT IN ISGEC HITACHI ZOSEN LIMITED-RS. 51,00 ,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WAS ENTER ED INTO BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND HITACHI ZOSEN CORPORATION, JAPAN. I N PURSUANT TO THAT A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY NAMELY ISGEC HITACHI ZOSEN LT D. WAS FORMED AND THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS CONTRIBUTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 51,00,00,000/- AS SHARE CAPITAL OF THIS JOINT VENTURE COMPANY. THE SA ID INVESTMENT IS OUT OF COMPANY'S OWN SURPLUS FUNDS AND RETAINED EARNINGS. FURTHER IT IS STRATEGIC INVESTMENT TO ENTER INTO JOINT VENTURE BUSINESS AND JOINT INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE AS DECIDED IN CASE OF JM FINANCIAL LIMITE D VS ACIT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CAN HE MADE. WE FURT HER SUBMIT THAT PURPOSE OF THIS INVESTMENT IS TO GET SUPPORT FROM H ITACHI ZOSEN CORPORATION, JAPAN FOR BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. THE COMPANY RECE IVED LOTS OF ORDER BECAUSE OF THIS BUSINESS SUPPORT. . 2.06 THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE IN CASH IN THESE COM PANIES IS RS. 56,49,99,000/ - AS PER BREAK-UP GIVEN BELOW:- INVESTMENTS BEFORE 2002: ISGEC COVEMA LIMITED RS. 1,99,99,000/- ISGEC EXPORTS LIMITED RS. 10,00,000/- SARASIWATI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED RS. 9.99,000/- RS. 2,19,98.000/- INVESTMENTS AFTER 2002: ISGEC COVEMA LIMITED - RS. 1,000/- ISGEC ENGINEERING & PROJECTS LTD RS. 3,30,00,00 0/- ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 5 ISGEC HITACHI ZOSEN LTD. RS. 51,00,00,000/- RS. 54,30,01,000/- GRAND TOTAL - RS. 56,49,99,000/- I) THESE INVESTMENTS HAS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED BEING OUT OF OWN SOURCES OF FUNDS PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS. II) PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES IS ST RATEGIC AND NOT INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE, AS DECIDED IN CASE OF JM FINANCIAL LIMITED VS. ACIT NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CAN BE MADE. III) ALL THESE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE EITHER FROM TH E TAX FREE DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND OUT OF OWNED FUNDS I.E. NET WORTH GENERATED OUT OF RETAINED EARN INGS I.E. EARNINGS AFTER TAX RESULTING IN INCREASE IN NET WOR TH AND OWNED FUNDS. A STATEMENT OF DIVIDEND- INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-VJ. FROM THIS STATEMENT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IN CASH IS OUT OF THESE FUND S AND NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR MAKING THESE INVE STMENTS. HENCE, NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WITH REGARD TO FUNDS INVESTED IN THESE COMPANIES. IV) IN SUPPORT OF OUR CONTENTION WE REFER TO THE JUDGME NT OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA COURT IN THE- CASE OF HERO CYCLES WHERE NO EXPENDITURE WAS HELD TO BE INCURRED IN CASE INVESTM ENT IN FROM TAX FREE INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS. WE SUBMIT TH AT INVESTMENTS ARE FROM SURPLUS REPRESENTED BY NET WOR TH OF THE COMPANY RS.646,82,21,076 AS ON 31.03.2014 WHICH IS NON- INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. IT. IS SETTLED LAW THAT IF ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT RESERVES AND SURPLUS FOR MAKING INVESTME NT IN TAX FREE SECURITIES, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OUT O F INTEREST EXPENDITURE CAN BE MADE. V) FROM THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION YOU WILL APPRECIATE T HAT ALL THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND HEN CE THERE IS NO EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THESE INVESTMENTS AN D THERE IS NO CAUSE OF DISALLOWANCE OF ANY DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT O F EXPENDITURE, INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH D OES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THERE I S NO POSITIVE NET INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS POSSESSED OF SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2) WAS ATTRACTED . ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 6 4. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE OLD INVESTM ENTS AND THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTM ENTS MADE IN THE PAST, DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXP ENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. HOWEVER, HE HE LD THAT EVEN IN CASE OF OLD INVESTMENTS, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UND ER RULE 8D(2)(III) READ WITH SECTION 14A WAS ATTRACTED TO COVER THE AD MINISTRATIVE AND OTHER MISC. EXPENSES INCURRED FOR MANAGING THE INV ESTMENTS MADE EARLIER FOR EARNING OF TAX EXEMPT INCOME. HE, ACCO RDINGLY MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,42,26,765/- UNDER RULE 8D(2) (III) READ WITH SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, IN THE MEANTIME, ON AN RECTIFICATION APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 154 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CALCULATION MISTAKE, REDUC ED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 79,05,111/-. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS APPEAL HAS AGITATED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH W RONGLY MENTIONED THE FIGURE AS RS. 63,21,654/- INSTEAD OF RS. 79,05, 111/-. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE OLD INVESTMENTS AS DETAIL ED IN THE ABOVE REPRODUCED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 51 ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 7 CORES MADE IN ISGEC HITACHI ZOSEN LTD. THE LD. COUN SEL IN THIS RESPECT HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE YEAR A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HITACHI ZOSEN CORPORATION, JAPAN IN PURSUANT TO WHICH A JOINT VENTURE COMPANY NAMELY ISGEC HITACHI ZOSEN WAS FORMED AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONTR IBUTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 51,00,00,000/- AS SHARE CAPITAL OF THIS JOIN T VENTURE COMPANY. THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS OUT OF THE COMPANYS OWN SURPLU S FUNDS AND FURTHER IT WAS A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT TO ENTER INTO A JOINT VENTURE BUSINESS AND NOT AN INVESTMENT TO EARN TAX EXEMPT INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING OF THE AFORESA ID TAX EXEMPT INCOME, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS ATTRACTED. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED UPON T HE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD. THE MAIN STRESS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE WERE OLD INVESTMENT AND THAT THE S AME WERE OUT OF THE OWN SURPLUS FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF T HE INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THE ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 8 DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE A DMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) INCURRED IN THE MANA GEMENT OF THE EARLIER INVESTMENTS MADE FOR EARNING OF TAX EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS RESPECT HAS APPLIED RULE 8D(2)(III) DIRECTLY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN THIS RESPECT AN D THAT ALL THE INVESTMENT WERE STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE I.T. ACT, BEFORE PROCEEDING TO CALCULATE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D( 2)(III), THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS FINDINGS / REASONING THAT HE IS NOT SATI SFIED WITH THE PLEA / SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH EXERC ISE HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 7,45,55,286/-, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 7,45,49,286/- HAS B EEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM OLD INVESTMENTS IN WHOLLY OWNED SUBS IDIARY COMPANY M/S SARASWATI SUGAR MILLS LTD. THE REMAINING OF ONLY R S. 6,000/- HAS BEEN EARNED FROM OTHER COMPANY M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES L TD. HOWEVER, THE FACT IS ALSO ON THE FILE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAIN TAINED / MANAGED NOT ONLY OLD STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE IN WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY / SISTER CONCERN BUT ALSO MADE OLD INVES TMENTS IN OTHER COMPANIES. ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 9 8. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOT MUCH EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MANAGE THE OLD INV ESTMENTS AND FURTHER CONSIDERING THAT THE MAJOR CHUNK OF THE DIV IDEND AMOUNT WAS EARNED FROM STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE SUBSI DIARIES, IN OUR VIEW, A LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5 LACS WILL BE REASO NABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR MANAGEMENT OF OLD INVESTMENTS. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IS ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED TO RS. 5 LACS ONLY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.10.2020 SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( / SANJAY GARG) !'# / VICE PRESIDENT $% / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13.10.2020 .. 2*&)3454) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. &' '$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. , 6) / CIT 4. , 6) ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 47 &)8 , . 8 , 9:;< / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. ;= - / GUARD FILE 2 , / BY ORDER, > / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 797-CHD-2019- M/S ISGEC HEAVY ENGINEERING LTD, LUDHIANA 10