M/s Akshay Steel Works Pvt. Ltd., Jharkhand V. DCIT, CIR-3, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 823/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1898 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOUMYAJIT DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: KARTIK KURMY SHRI S B SHARMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Question of law; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM] I.T.A NO. 823/KOL/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-1 1 M/S AKSHAYA STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. -VS- DCIT, C IRCLE-3, KOLKATA [PAN: AACCA 5821 C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDE NT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI KARTIK KURMY, ADVOCATE SHRI S.B.SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI SOUMYAJIT DASGUPTA, ADDL.CIT. DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.01.2018 ORDER PER M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, KOLKATA [IN SHORT THE LD CIT (A)] IN APPEAL NO.112/CIT(A)- 1/C-3/2013-14 DATED 16.02.2015 AGAINST THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 28.02.2013 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS A S TO WHETHER THE LD CITA WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE TREATMENT OF REPLACEMENT OF STEEL ROLLS AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS AGAINST REVENUE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE LD AR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG STATED THAT HE WOULD PRESS ONLY 2 ITA NO.823/KOL/2015 M/S AKSHAY STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 2 GROUND NO. 2 WHICH IS THE EFFECTIVE GROUND FOR ADJU DICATION OF THE DISPUTE AND OTHER GROUNDS ARE MERELY ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE AND HENC E THE SAME ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 3 TO 12 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF CONVERSION AGENT AND MANUFACTURING OF ANGLES, CHANN ELS, FLATS, BARS AND RODS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 WAS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 12.10.2010 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 69,57,590/ -. THE LD AO ON PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED T HAT IT HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS 95,69,107*/- UNDER SUB HEAD ROLLS IN SCHEDULE N OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER HEAD OPERATING AND OTHER EXPENDITURE. ON PERUSA L OF THE DETAILS FOR THE SAME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AO SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS IT PROVIDES ENDUR ING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THESE ROLLS WERE USED IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING STEEL ITEMS AND IS PURELY CONSUMABLE IN NATURE AND THAT NO ENDU RING BENEFIT IS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ROLLS WERE US ED REGULARLY AND ITS LIFE SPAN IS LESS THAN ONE YEAR AND THE SAME DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REPLIED THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS INC URRED ON A RECURRING BASIS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD AO HOWEVER NOTED THAT SINCE THE IT EM OF STEEL ROLLS IS A SEPARATE LINE ITEM IN THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE AND RATE OF DEPRE CIATION PROVIDED THEREON WAS 80%, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREON WOULD ONLY HAVE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE LD AO ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE SAME AS CAPITAL E XPENDITURE AND GRANTED DEPRECIATION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 3 ITA NO.823/KOL/2015 M/S AKSHAY STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 3 THE LD AO AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS 54,29,8 08/- , MADE NET DISALLOWANCE OF RS 41,39,298/- (9569106-5429808) AS CAPITAL EXPENDITUR E IN THE ASSESSMENT. THIS ACTION 4 ITA NO.823/KOL/2015 M/S AKSHAY STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 4 OF THE LD AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD CITA. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 2. THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT EXPENDITU RE IN THE STEEL ROLLS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND EARNING PROFIT AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPAN SION, INCREASING THE PRODUCTION CAPACITY OR DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT OR F OR EARNING GREATER PROFIT AND ALSO THE SAID EXPENDITURES ARE NOT MEANT FOR AN Y ENDURING BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE, HENCE, THE SAID EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE CL ASSIFIED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BY ANY PROCESS OF REASONING. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD INSTALLED ONE ROLLING MILL FOR MANUFACTURE OF ROLLED PRODUCTS I.E ANGLES, CHANNELS, ROUND BAR, FLAT BAR, SQUARE BAR, OCTAGONAL BAR, HEXAGONAL BAR ETC . IN THE ROLLING MILL, THE ASSESSEE USES STEEL ROLLS WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MACHINERY. IN THE PROCESS OF MANUFACTURE OF ROLLED PRODUCTS, THE RAW MATERIALS ( MILD STEEL BILLETS / MILD STEEL INGOTS) ARE FED INTO THE HEATING FURNACE WHERE IT IS HEATED AT THE REQUISITE TEMPERATURE. THE RED HOT RAW MATERIALS (INGOTS AND BILLETS) ARE THEN PASSED THROUGH A SERIES OF ROLLING STANDS FITTED WITH STEEL ROLLS WHICH KEEPS ROTATING AND EXERTS PRESSURE ON THE HOT RAW MATERIAL WHICH ELONGATES THE STOCK TO DESIRED SHAPE S AND SIZES FOR MANUFACTURE OF DESIRED ROLLED PRODUCTS. IN THE PROCESS, THE RED H OT RAW MATERIALS ARE COMPRESSED BETWEEN TWO ROTATING STEEL ROLLS FOR REDUCING ITS C ROSS SECTION. AFTER THE ROLLING PROCESS, THE HOT ROLLED PRODUCTS ARE SUBJECTED TO P ROCESS OF COOLING AND THEREAFTER SENT FOR SIZING, BUNDLING , ETC. FROM THE AFORESAID MA NUFACTURING PROCESS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD AR THAT THE STEEL ROLLS GET WORN OUT WARR ANTING FREQUENT REPLACEMENT IN 2 TO 6 MONTHS. WE FIND FROM THE EXPLANATION OF THE AFOR ESAID MANUFACTURING PROCESS, STEEL ROLLS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT MACHINERY BUT INSTEAD THE Y ARE ONLY PART OF A ROLLING MILL. IT DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE FOR THE INCREASE IN PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE THERE IS NO ENDURING BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS R EGARD. THE REPLACEMENT OF STEEL ROLLS ARE MERELY OPERATIONAL EXPENSES INCURRED IN T HE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS BY 5 ITA NO.823/KOL/2015 M/S AKSHAY STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 5 THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, FROM THE DETAILS OF REPLAC EMENT OF STEEL ROLLS AS TABULATED HEREINABOVE, IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE STEEL ROLLS WERE REPLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A REGULAR BASIS AND HENCE WE HOLD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE SAME IS FOUND AS A SEPARATE LINE ITEM IN THE APPENDIX I OF DEPRECIAT ION RATES SCHEDULE, IT DOES NOT TAKE THE CHARACTER OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AUTOMATICALLY. WE HOLD THAT SINCE IT IS NOT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AT ALL VIS A VIS THE FACTS OF T HE INSTANT CASE AND THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS INVOLVED THEREIN, THE EXPLANATION TO SECTIO N 30 AND 31 OF THE ACT BROUGHT INTO THE STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2003 WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 4.1. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD AR ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF CHANDIGARH TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MALHOTRA INDUSTR IAL CORPORATION VS DCIT REPORTED IN (2001) 247 ITR (A.T.) 8 (ITAT CHANDIGAR H) DATED 21.9.2000 IS DIRECTLY ON THIS POINT , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, EXAMINED THE FACTS, EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE MAIN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BY US IS, WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPLACEMENT OF ROLLING MILL ROLLS CONSTITUTES A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE EXPENDITURE THE FACTS DETAILED ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL THROUGHOUT BEEN CLAIMING EXPENDITURE ON REPLACEMENT OF ROLLS A S REVENUE EXPENDITURE. UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALLOWED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION. IN NONE OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE EXPENDITURE WA S TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE NOW, THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US IS THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE APPENDIX CITED SUPRA PRESCRIBE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION OF ROLLS PRIOR T O SEPTEMBER 3D, 1991, AS 100 PER CENT. AND THEREAFTER AT 50 PER CENT. WOULD SHOW THA T THE LEGISLATURE HAD INTENDED TO TREAT THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT IF THE IN TENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS NOT TO TREAT SUCH EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE, THE RE WAS NO NECESSITY IN PROVIDING THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ROLLS FOR THE SIMPLE RE ASON THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ROLLS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS WOU LD BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON ROLLS SO THAT DEPRECIATION AT THAT RATE COULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPLACEMENT OF ROLLS SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMMENCEM ENT OF THE BUSINESS WOULD ALSO BE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE JUDGMENT OF THE KARNA TAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE SPUN CONCRETEPIPE PVT. LTD. [1992] 194 ITR 1 59, IS DIRECTLY ON THIS ISSUE. IN THAT CASE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS ON REPLACEM ENT OF DAMAGED MOULDS AND WAS 6 ITA NO.823/KOL/2015 M/S AKSHAY STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 6 CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, THOUGH PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, EXPENDITURE ON MOULDS WAS CAPITALISED. IT MAY BE ME NTIONED THAT THE SAME APPENDIX, REFERRED TO ABOVE, PRESCRIBED DEPRECIATION AT 40 PE R CENT. ON MOULDS USED IN RUBBER AND PLASTIC GOODS FACTORIES AND THIS ITEM FIGURES A T (III) UNDER THE HEAD 'MACHINERY AND PLANT'. THIS ONLY SHOWS THAT THE RATE OF DEPREC IATION MENTIONED IN THE APPENDIX PROVIDES DEPRECIATION WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS CONSI DERED AS CAPITAL AND NOT IN THE CASE WHERE THE EXPENDITURE ITSELF IS REVENUE IN NAT URE. NOW, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS IS SUCH THAT IT R EQUIRES FREQUENT REPLACEMENT OF ROLLS. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREON WOULD CERTAINLY FA LL IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT REPAIRS AS THE SAME DOES NOT RESULT IN CREATING A CAPITAL A SSET OR BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE. IT MAY FURTHER BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS CEMENT LTD. [1992] 42 175, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS, HAD HELD THA T THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPLACEMENT OF PART OF CAPITAL ITEM, THOUGH CAPITAL ISED, WOULD STILL BE IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT REPAIRS. ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT FOR TREATING THE EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL WOULD NOT BE A DECISIVE TEST TO DETERMINE T HAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF JAGATJIT INDUSTRI ES LTD. [2000] 241 ITR 556, THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON REPLACE MENT OF DAMAGED MOULDS WAS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN THE CASE OF CO-OPERATIVE SU GARS LTD. [1999] 235 ITR 343, THE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT EXPENDITURE ON 'MAC HINERY MAINTENANCE' OF SUGAR PLANT BY REPLACING SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE PLANT WA S REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS NO NEW ASSET WAS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE. EVEN THE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, IN THE CASE OF KHALSA NIRBHAI TRANSPORT CO . (P.) LTD. [1971] 82 ITR 741, HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED REPLACEMENT OF PETROL ENGINES BY DIESEL ENGINES IN ITS BUSES WAS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN THE LIGH T OF THE LEGAL POSITION DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED REPLAC EMENT OF DAMAGED ROLLS WAS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND NOT CAPITAL IN NA TURE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION AS CURRENT REPAIRS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND DIR ECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEDUCTION ON THE REPLACEMENT COST OF ROLLS AS CURRE NT REPAIRS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.2. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION OF C HANDIGARH TRIBUNAL HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MALHOTRA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION REPORTED IN (2002) 254 ITR 635 (P&H) . THE QUESTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT AND THE D ECISION RENDERED THEREON ARE AS UNDER:- IN THIS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), THE REVENUE MAINTAINS THAT THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION O F LAW ARISES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT : 7 ITA NO.823/KOL/2015 M/S AKSHAY STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 7 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN TREATING THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE PURCHASE OF ROLLS AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH ROLLS HAVE BEEN TERMED AS CAPITAL ASSETS OF THE CONCERN ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE U NDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT ITSELF AT THE PRESCRIBED RATES ?' 2. WE HAVE HEARD MR. R.P. SAWHNEY, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE DEDUCTION CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A STEEL ROLLING MILL. IN P ARA 4 OF THE PETITION OF APPEAL, IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ROLLS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO PREPARE THE FINISHED PRODUCTS IN THE CASE UNDER REFERENCE. YET THE REVENUE ALLEGES THAT THE ROLLS CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THAT MACHINERY OR PLANT. 4. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS SUCH THAT IT REQUIRES FREQUENT REPLACEMENT OF ROLLS. THE EXPE NDITURE INCURRED THEREON WOULD CERTAINLY FALL IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT REPAIRS, AS THE SAME DOES NOT RESULT IN CREATING OF CAPITAL ASSET OR BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE. 5. WE FIND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS JUST AND REASONABLE. IT IS NOT SHOWN TO BE CONTRARY TO ANY P ROVISION OF LAW. IN FACT, IT IS THE REVENUES OWN CASE THAT THE FREQUENT CHANGE OF ROLL S IS ESSENTIAL FOR PREPARING THE FINISHED PRODUCTS. THUS, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARIS ES. 6. MR. SAWHNEY SUBMITS THAT THE ROLLS WERE PURCHASED AFTER OCTOBER 1, DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THUS, ONLY 50 PER CENT DEPRECIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED. 7. NO SUCH QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. THUS, THE PLEA CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. 8. NO OTHER POINT HAS BEEN RAISED. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPE AL. IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED IN LIMINE. E MORE 4.3. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS ON FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT THE REPLACEMENT OF STEEL ROLLS IN THE INSTANT CASE WOULD HAVE TO BE TREATED ONLY AS REVEN UE EXPENDITURE AND WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. HENCE THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 14 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 8 ITA NO.823/KOL/2015 M/S AKSHAY STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD. A.YR. 2010-11 8 6. THE GROUND NO. 13 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS STA TED TO BE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD AR. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05.01.2018 SD/- SD/- [S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI] [ M.BAL AGANESH ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED : 05.01.2018 SB, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S AKSHAYA STEEL WORKS PVT. LTD., B-37/38, 2ND PHASE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, ADITYAPUR, JAMSHEDPUR, JHARKHAND-832109. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, KOLKATA, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE , KOLKATA-700069. 3..C.I.T.- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVAT E SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O., ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHE S