Kumaran System Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 906/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8227 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , . ' # , $ #% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER /ITA NO. 906/MDS/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. KUMARAN SYSTEMS P. LTD., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIO NER OF NO.4, TIDAL PARK, A BLOCK, V. INCOME-TAX, 5 TH FLOOR, NORTH WING, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI - 113. PAN AABCK3992P ( /APPELLANT) CHENNAI 34. RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.R.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT !' / DATE OF HEARING : 18.11.2015 #$ !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.01.2016 & / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DATED 7.11. 2014. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT( APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TPO IN REJECTIN G TWO OF THE 2 ITA 906/15 COMPARABLE SELECTED BY THE ASSESSE (I.E. M/S. QUIN TEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD. AND M/S. VAMA INDUSTRIES LTD.) 3. REGARDING M/S. QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD., THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EXTRA ORDINARY EVENT TAK EN PLACE. ACCORDING TO THE LD., AR, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS N OT MERGED WITH THE HOLDING COMPANY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008- 09. AS SUCH, QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD AND VAMA INDUSTRIES ARE COM PARABLE COMPANIES TO THE ASSESSEES CASE WHILE DETERMINING THE ALP BY THE TPO. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DUR ING THE YEAR, THE GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE, MINISTRY OF LAW HAS WO UND UP THIS SUBSIDIARY PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF COURT DATED 9.1. 2009 AND SUBSIDIARY HAS BEEN MERGED WITH THE HOLDING COMPANY AS PER US LAWS. BEING SO, IT WAS REJECTED BY THE TPO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EXTRA ORDINARY EVENT TOOK PLACE IN THE CASE OF QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD. AND IT WAS ONLY WITH THE CASE OF SINGAPORE COMPANY. BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE TPO TO SEE WH ETHER ANY MERGER TAKEN PLACE IN THE CASE OF QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD . OR NOT. IF ANY MERGER TAKEN PLACE IN SOME OTHER SUBSIDIARY THEN, Q UINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD. IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE CASE. 3 ITA 906/15 ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE TPO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 6. REGARDING M/S. VAMA INDUSTRIES LTD., CONSIDERING AS COMPARABLE, IT MAINLY DEALS WITH SOFTWARE SERVICES AND THE ASSESSE IS DEALING IN GLOBAL IT SOLUTIONS, OFFERING MULTIPL E SERVICE OFFERINGS RANGING FROM APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANC E, APPLICATION RE-ENGINEERING TO APPLICATION TESTING AND OUTSOURCE D SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. BEING SO, THESE ARE ULTIMATELY DIFFER ENT. ACCORDINGLY, REJECTION OF THE TPO IS JUSTIFIED. 7. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSE, BODHTREE CONSULTING LT D. IS FUNCTIONALLY NOT COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. THERE IS FLUCTUATING MARGINS AND IT HAS SUPER NORMAL PROFITS IN CERTAIN YEARS AND BEING SO, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. ON THE OTHE R HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TPO AND SUBMITTED THAT BO DHTREE CONSULTING LTD. IS ALSO ENGAGED IN GLOBAL IT CONSUL TING AND PRODUCT ENGINEERING SERVICES PROVIDER AND OFFER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS AND IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE SO AS TO DETERMINE THE ALP. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUN AL, BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT . LTD. IN IT(TP)A NO. 271/BANG/14 DATED 14.8.2014 WHEREIN BOD HTREE IS NOT 4 ITA 906/15 CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE ONE AND THE TRIBUNAL HEL D IN PARAGRAPH 26.1 AS FOLLOWS: 26.1 BODHTREE CONSULTING LTD.:- AS FAR AS THIS COMP ANY IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES CHOSEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THIS COMPANY WA S ALSO INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVE R, SUBMITS BEFORE US THAT LATER ON IT CAME TO THE ASSE SSEES NOTICE THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT BEING CONSIDERED AS A COMPARABLE COMPANY IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES RENDERI NG SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTI CE THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NETHAWK NETWORKS PVT. LTD. V. ITO, NO. 7633/MUM/2012, ORDER DATED 6.11.2013. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE MUMB AI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WILLS PROCESSI NG SERVICES (I) P. LTD., ITA NO.4547/MUM/2012. IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN THE VIE W THAT BODHTREE CONSULTING LTD. IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFT WARE PRODUCTS AND WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING OPEN & END TO END WEB SOLUTIONS SOFTWARE CONSULTANCY AND DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE USING LATEST TECHNOLOGY. TH E DECISION RENDERED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF NETHAWK NETWORKS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS I N RELATION TO A.Y. 2008-09. IT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THEASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO REMAINS IDENTICAL TO THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS IT PREVAILED IN AY 08-09 AS FAR AS THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY IS CONCERNED. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL, WE HOLD THAT BODHTREE CONSULTING LTD. CANNOT BE REG ARDED AS A COMPARABLE. IN THIS REGARDS, THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF PROPOSED THIS COMPANY AS COMPARABLE, IN OUR OPINION, SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS ON WHICH THE SAID COMPANY SHOULD BE RETAINED AS A COMPARABLE, WHEN FACTUALLY IT IS SHOWN THAT THE SAI D COMPANY IS A SOFTWARE PRODUCT COMPANY AND NOT A SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPANY. 5 ITA 906/15 9. THE SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI B ENCH IN THE CASE OF CIENA INDIA PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.1453/DEL./1 4 DATED 24.4.2015, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 9.6. COMING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND FROM SCHEDULE 12 THAT THERE IS A MENTION OF SIGNIFI CANT ACCOUNTING POLICY AT SL. NO.3, WHICH PROVIDES THAT : REVENUE FROM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT IS RECOGNIZED BA SED ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND BILLED TO CLIENTS. IF SOME SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS INCOMPLETE AT THE E ND OF THE YEAR, THIS NOTE MAY ENTAIL TWO SITUATIONS , VIZ ., THE FIRST, IN WHICH THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT OF SUCH S OFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE CAPITALIZED, WHICH APPEARS TO BE A MORE RATIONAL MANNER OF DEPICTING THE TRUE AND FAIR VIEW OF THE PROFITABILITY OF THE ENTERPRISE; AND THE SECOND , IN WHICH SUCH EXPENSES MAY BE STRAIGHTWAY TAKEN AS REVENUE C OST FOR THE YEAR OF ITS INCURRING ITSELF, WHICH MAY NOT REFLECT A TRUE AND FAIR VIEW OF THE PROFITS ON YEAR TO YEAR B ASIS. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT WHEREAS BODHTREE F ELL INTO THE SECOND SITUATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE FIRST SITUATION. THOUGH THIS CONTENTION ABOUT BODHTREE ACCOUNTING FO R EXPENSES IN THE YEAR OF INCURRING BUT CONSIDERING I NCOME ONLY ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROJECT IN THE SUBSEQ UENT YEAR SOUNDED A LITTLE AWKWARD, WE ATTEMPTED TO FIND OUT THE AMOUNT OF CAPITALIZED EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF INCOMP LETE PROJECTS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. APPARENTLY, WE COU LD NOT FIND OUT ANY SUCH CAPITALIZED VALUE OF WORK-IN-PROG RESS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY ON STANDALONE BASI S. WE DIRECTED THE LD. DR TO EXAMINE THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPANY AND POINT OUT THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES CAPITA LIZED IN RESPECT OF INCOMPLETE WORK AT THE END OF THE YEA R. ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR FAILED TO SPECIFIC ALLY POINT OUT ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH CAPITALIZED EXPENSES WITH TH E OPENING OR CLOSING BALANCE. THIS PRIMA FACIE SHOWS THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT OF INCOMPLETE PROJECTS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR, BUT BI LLED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, WERE, IN FACT, TREATED AS EXPE NSES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR ALONE. IN THE SAME MANNER, EXPENSE S INCURRED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR FOR THE CONTRACTS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT REMAINING INCOMPLETE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, ALSO MUST HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE EXPENSES OF THE LAST 6 ITA 906/15 YEAR ALONE, BUT, THE INCOME GETTING RECOGNIZED ON T HE RAISING OF BILLS IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THIS ALBEIT, PATENTLY DEFORMS THE CORRECT PROFITABILITY ON YEAR TO YEAR B ASIS, YET, BUT WE CANNOT HELP THE SITUATION. WHEN THE POSITION OF ACCOUNTS OF BODHTREE IS SUCH THAT IT DOES NOT PROPE RLY MATCH EXPENSES WITH REVENUE, IT LOSES ITS CREDIBILI TY FOR MAKING A LOGICAL COMPARISON WITH A COMPANY THAT ACC OUNTS FOR EXPENSES MATCHING WITH THE REVENUE. ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THE PROFITS OF BODHTREE CONSULTING LTD. DO NOT REPRESENT FAIR PROFITABILITY ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS, THIS COMP ANY LOSES ITS TAG OF AN EFFECTIVE COMPARABLE. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE EXCLUSION OF THIS COMPANY FROM THE FINAL LIST O F COMPARABLES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE POSITION, WE ARE INCLINED TO H OLD THAT BODHTREE IS NOT CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSSEES CASE TO DETERMINE THE ALP BY TPO. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 10. NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A WITH RULE 8D AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT IN COME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE 11. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SEGREGATED ANY EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH INV ESTMENTS. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D AND DETERMINED THE EXPEND ITURE ATTRIBUTABLE FOR EARNING SUCH EXEMPT INCOME AT ` 1,69,083/- AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) C ONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONS IDERATION 7 ITA 906/15 BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVE ST LTD. IN ITA NO. 749/2014 DATED 2.9.2015, WHEREIN THEIR LORD SHIPS HELD THAT SEC.14A WILL NOT APPLY IF THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOU S YEAR. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE SAME ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACCEL FRONTLINE LTD. IN ITA NOS.2780 TO 2782/MDS/2014 DATED 27.11.2015, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNA L HAS HELD AS UNDER: 11. COMING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10, THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES COUN SEL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT U SED ANY INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT. ON THE C ONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SU FFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INC URRED FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ITS CASE. I N OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.5592/MUM/2012 DATED 1.1.2015 AND THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS P VT. LTD. VS. CIT IN ITA NO.117 OF 2015 DATED 25.2.2015 IS HA VING BEARING ON THIS ISSUE, WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS U NDER: 6. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE FIND TH AT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WI TH RULE 8D CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, DR. K.SHIVARAM ALONG WI TH SHRI RAHUL HAKANI, LD. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED THEIR ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE 8 ITA 906/15 GROUND RAISED BY SUBMITTING THAT NO EXPENDITURE DIR ECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARN ING EXEMPT INCOME AND FURTHER THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 1 4A R.W. RULE 8D IS TO BE MADE. 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI AKHILENDRA YADAV STRON GLY DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY CONTENDING THAT A WELL REASONED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE L D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS DON E AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT WAS PLEADED TH AT SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY, ENGAGED IN TRADING OF BULK AND FINE, CHEMICALS, SOL VENT AND PHARMACEUTICAL RAW MATERIALS DECLARED ITS INCOM E AT RS.74,40,000/- ON 26/09/2009. THE ASSESSEE CREDITED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,82,262/- IN ITS PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMI NG THE ASSESSMENT INVOKE SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D BY CONTENDING THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES WHICH ARE RELATED TO EXEMPT INCOME IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND DISALLOWED RS.14,58,412/-. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BROADLY THE STAND TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS AFFIRMED AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER A PPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE TOTALITY OF FACTS CLEARLY INDICATES, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO BORRO WED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME B Y THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE DIVIDEND WERE DIRECTLY CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED. WHAT IT MAY BE, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE ONLY RECEIVED RS.1,82,362/- AS DIVIDEN D INCOME, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.14,58.412/- BY INVOKING SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D UNDER THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ON 9 ITA 906/15 IDENTICAL FACT IN EARLIER YEARS, NO DISALLOWANCE WA S MADE. IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES OR FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME . AT BEST, IF ANY DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE THAT CAN BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,485/- WHICH WERE CL AIMED AS DEMAT CHARGES. DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS FA CT, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE U /S.14A R.W. RULE 8D SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE MUMBAI BENCH IN ITS ORDER SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANC E ON APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A R.W. RULE 8D . HOWEVER, THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT DISALLOWANCE IF AT ALL SHOULD BE MADE, IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED AND NOT BEYOND T HAT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO LOOK AT THIS ISS UE ON THIS ANGLE AND DECIDE IT AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOV E DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS GROUND IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO ON SIMILAR DIRECTION. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 6 TH OF JAN., 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( % & ) ( ' ( ) %! ) * +,-,./01,2345,.62,+778,29 3 : ;< /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ;<=>>70.?,.?@A1BA2 ': /CHENNAI, C; /DATED, THE 6 TH JAN., 2016. MPO* 10 ITA 906/15 ;D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H 3 /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. JLM /GF.