Nova Properties Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Circle- 5, Ahmedabad

ITA 908/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1117 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , ! BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPEAL(S) B Y APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 908/AHD/2012 2008 - 09 NOVA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. 4 TH FLOOR, COMMERCE HOUSE NR.JUDGES BUNGALOW CROSS ROAD BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD PAN :AABCN 4138 N (ASSESSEE) DCIT, CIRCLE-5 AHMEDABAD (REVENUE) 2. 1091/AHD/2012 2009 - 10 - DO - ASSESSEE ITO, WARD 5(1) AHMEDABAD 3. 1455/AHD/2012 2009 - 10 ITO, WARD - 5 AHMEDABAD NOVA PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. AHMEDABAD ASSESSEE BY : MR. VARTIK CHOKSI, AR REVENUE BY : MR.NARENDRA SINGH,SR.DR ' # / DATE OF HEARING 26/05/2016 $%&' # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/07/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : OUT OF THESE THREE APPEALS; TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSE SSEE AND ONE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE (IN ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012) ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX(APPEALS)-XI ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 2 - AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 02/07/2012 & 27/04/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2008-09 & 2009 -10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THERE ARE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND APPEAL FOR REVENUE IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE TWO YEARS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE AMOUNT INVOL VED AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION MADE BY HIM WHILE ARGUING THE APPEAL FOR ONE YEAR WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER YEARS ALSO. HE THEREFORE SU BMITTED THAT ALL THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. BEFORE US LD.SR.DR D ID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF LD.AR. WE THEREFORE FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS B Y A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2.1. FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD ARE AS UNDER: 2.2. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT. ASSESSEE ELECTR ONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009-10 ON 25.9.2008 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.44,76,490/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961 VIDE ORDER DATED 08/11/2010 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT R S.75,55,030/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 3 - BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 02/03/2012 (I N APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XI/204/DCIT CIR.5/10-11 AY 2008-09) DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF L D.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS:- IN ITA NO.908/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2008-09 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,78 ,541/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.14A OF THE I.T.AC T. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1, ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJE CTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT-COMPANY THAT ONLY NET INTERE ST EXPENDITURE CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF M AKING DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, U/S.14A. 2.2. GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1091/AHD/ 2012 FOR AY 2009-10 READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.71,29,024/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS- COMPANY THAT ONLY NET INTEREST EXPENDITURE CAN BE C ONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, U/ S.14A. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AVERAGE INVESTMENTS CONSIDERED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AS ON 31 /03/2009 FOR RS.26,86,63,398 AND AS ON 31/03/2010 FOR RS.14, 35,58,094/- FROM WHICH TAXABLE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED AND ACCEPTED BY AO AND DISALLOWANCE TO THAT EXTENT IS R EQUIRED TO ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 4 - BE REDUCED AS NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED FROM SUCH INVESTMENT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE ADDITION OF RS.71, 29,024 TO BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB. 2.3. GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1455/AH D/2012 FOR AY 2009-10 READS AS UNDER: 1) THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO MAKE ADJUSTMENT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.71,29,024/- U/S.14 A OF THE ACT, WHILE COMPUTING MAT PROFITS U/S.115JB OF THE A CT. 2.4. BEFORE US, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE IN ALL THE YEARS IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 2.4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME U/S 10(34) AND 10(35) AGGREGATING TO RS.58,41,551/-, HAD INVESTME NTS OF RS.21.67 CRORES AND HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.50,5 8,840/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY EXPENSE S FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO WHICH ASSESSEE INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FR EE FUNDS AND HAD ALSO RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS .50,58,840/- AND THEREFORE THE INTEREST EXPENSES WAS ONLY TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.41,891/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCURRED A NY EXPENDITURE FOR ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 5 - EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WER E NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO AO. AO THEREAFTER, BY APPLYING PROVI SIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.30,78,541/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELL ANT. IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS PAID INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTED HEAVILY IN EQUITY SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS. INCOME FROM EQUITY SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS ARE EXEMPT AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF I.T.ACT, 1961. THIS WAY, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, THE A.O. WAS REQUIRED TO DISALLOW EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THESE INVESTMENTS. THE STATUTE HAS ALSO PROVIDED SCHEMES TO MAKE SUCH DISALLOWANCE AND THE SCHEMES ARE PRESCRIBED UNDER R ULE 8D OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. IT IS CLEARLY HELD BY THE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG.CO.328 ITR 81 THAT PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE APPLICABLE FROM A.Y. 2008 -09 ON WARDS. THIS WAY, PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. FROM A.Y. 2008-09. THE A. O HAD SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WHILE M AKING THE DISALLOWANCE AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND ADMIN ISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE. 3.4. THE APPELLANT HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340(MUM.). IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, RATIO OF THIS CASE WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE APPELLANTS CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY PROVI SIONS OF SECTION ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 6 - 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1961. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT.LTD. V/S. CIT, CENTRAL-IV, MUMBAI (CIVIL APPEAL NO.1914 OF 2012). IN THIS CASE, HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS CON SIDERING PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION BAA TO SECTION 80HHC. TH US, RATIO OF THIS CASE LAW WILL ALSO BE NOT APPLICABLE WHILE CON SIDERING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.14A SHOULD BE MADE ON NET INTEREST PAYMENT. I AM ALSO NOT INCLINED ON THIS ISSUE WITH THE APPELLANT SINCE SECTION 14A REFERS TO INTEREST EXPENDITURE O N RENT, TAXES, SALARIES, INTEREST, ETC. IN RESPECT OF WHICH ALLOW ANCES ARE PROVIDED FOR. THESE DEDUCTIONS ARE FOR THE DEBITS IN THE RE AL SENSE. THE PAY BACK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN TE RMS OF SECTION 14A. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT DISALLOWA NCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 14A IS TO BE MADE AGAINST INTERE ST EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS WAY, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD.A.O. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.30,78,541/- MADE BY THE A .O. IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3.1. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THE INVESTME NT OF RS.21.67 CRORES, ASSESSEE HAD INTEREST-FREE FUNDS TO THE EXTENT OF R S.27.89 CRORES AND THEREFORE SINCE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WERE MORE THAN THE INVESTMENTS, THE PRESUMPTION WAS THAT THE INVESTMENTS ARE OUT OF INT EREST-FREE FUNDS AND FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE U TILITIES & POWER LTD. REPORTED AT 313 ITR 340 (BOM.) AND THE DECISI ON OF ITAT ORDER OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HIPOLIN LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 4259/AHD/2007). WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF INT EREST EXPENDITURE, HE SUBMITTED THAT AS AGAINST THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.51,00,731/-, ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.50,58,840/- AND TH EREFORE THE NET INTEREST EXPENSES IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.41,89 1/- AND IN SUCH A SITUATION, IF AT ALL, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPE NSES COULD BE MADE UNDER RULE 8D BY CONSIDERING THE NET INTEREST EXPENSES. F OR THE PROPOSITION OF NET INTEREST TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE HE R ELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SAFAL REALITY PVT. LT D. (ITA NO. 2334/A/2012 ORDER DATED 29/11/2013). HE ALSO PLACE D ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. HE THEREFORE SUBMIT TED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT IS CALLED FOR. H E SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2009 -10. AS FAR AS REVENUES APPEAL IN AY 2009-10 IS CONCERNED, IT IS ON THE ISSUE OF ADJUSTMENT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING MAT PROFITS U/S.115JB OF THE ACT, HE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT( A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEES GROUND IN ITS APPE AL IS DECIDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR THE GROUND RAISED IN REVENUES A PPEAL WOULD NOT SURVIVE. ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 8 - 3.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.SR.D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THAT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG.CO. REPORTED AT 3 28 ITR 81 HAS HELD THAT AO IS DUTY BOUND TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE B Y APPLYING A REASONABLE METHOD HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF THERMOTECH ENGG. VS. ACIT (ITA NO.533/PN/2013, ORDE R DATED 30/10/2015. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RIGH TLY WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPE CT TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S.14A OF THE ACT. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED TAX FREE AMOUNTING TO RS.58,41,551/- AND HAS ALSO INCURRED INTEREST EXPENSES. IT IS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT IT HAS INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WHICH ARE MORE THAN THE AMOUNTS INVESTED FROM WHICH IT HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME AND IN SUCH A CASE THE PRESUMP TION IS THAT INVESTMENTS ARE OUT OF INTEREST-FREE FUNDS AND, THE REFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CAN BE MADE. THIS SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BUT HOWEVER IT S ARGUMENT IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT KEPT INTEREST-FREE AND INTEREST-BE ARING FUNDS SEPARATELY AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE T O PIN POINT AS TO WHICH OF ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 9 - THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENTS . WE FIND THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE U TILITIES & POWER LTD. REPORTED AT (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM.) HAS HELD THAT IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE, BOTH INTEREST-FREE AND OVERDRAFT A ND / OR LOAN TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF INTEREST-FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF T HE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. BEFORE US, LD.SR.DR HAS NOT PLACED ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISION IN ITS SUPPOR T. IN SUCH A SITUATION, RELYING ON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 14A OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF NET INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SAFAR REALITY PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO S.2334/AHD/2012 & 1842/AHD/2012, ORDER DATED 29/11/2013) HAS APPROVED THE THEORY OF NETTING OFF OF INTEREST INCOME WITH INTEREST EXPEND ITURE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS CALLED FOR AND THUS DIRE CT THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS, THE GROUND(S) OF AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. AS FAR AS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR AY 2009-10 IS C ONCERNED, SINCE IN AYS 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DEC IDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR, THE GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE HAS BECOME ACA DEMIC AND, ITA NOS.908, 1091/AHD/2012 (BY ASSESSEE ) AND ITA NO.1455/AHD/2012 (BY REVENUE NOVA PROPERTIES P.LTD. VS. DCIT/ITO ASST.YEARS 2008-09, 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY - 10 - THEREFORE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION AND THEREFORE D ISMISSED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED AND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14/07/2016 SD/- SD/- ( ) () (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ( ANIL CHATUR VEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 14/ 07 /2016 ,..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6 ( . ) / THE CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD 5. 789145 , .45 ' , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9;<' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 27.1 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 30.5.2016 DRAFT GIVEN BY HON BLE MEMBER 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 31.5.2016 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.14.7.16 LATE EVENING 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15.7.16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER