Asst. CIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad V. Varroc Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad

ITA 935/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 93524514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.827/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD., GUT NO.99, VILLAGE-PHAROLA, TAL. PAITHAN, DIST. AURANGABAD PAN: AABCM2508F APPELLANT VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD RESPONDENT ITA NO.935/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD APPELLANT VS. VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD., GUT NO.99, VILLAGE-PHAROLA, TAL. PAITHAN, DIST. AURANGABAD PAN: AABCM2508F RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.08.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV : THESE CROSS APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD DA TED ITA NOS.827 & 935 OF 13 VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD. 22.03.2013. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THES E APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IN ITA NO.827/PN/2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TH E APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AURANGABAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN CONFIRMING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CIR CLE 1 CONTENTION THAT EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,09,22,060/- INCURRED FOR CONSTRUCTING THE EXP RESS FEEDER ON BEHALF OF MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (BSEB) IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE . 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDITION / MODIFY / A LTER / DELETED ALL / ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF DESIGNING, DEVELOPING AND MANUFACTURING INJECTION M OULDING DEVICES AND OTHER POLYMER BASED PRODUCTS REQUIRED F OR TWO WHEELER AND FOUR WHEELER AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES., THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.23,09,39,060/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSES SED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.24,29,99,193/- BY MAKING ADDI TIONS OF RS.1,20,60,133/-. ONE OF THE ADDITIONS WAS ON ACCO UNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CONSTRUCTING THE EXPRESS FEEDER ON BEHALF OF MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (HERE IN AFTER REFERRED TO AS BSEB) CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A REVENUE EX PENDITURE TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,09 ,22,758/-. 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY, WHEREIN THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHA LF OF ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,09,22,758/- FOR CONSTRUCTION OF EXPRESS FEEDER NOT AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER H ELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.95,57,413/- AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION. ACCORD INGLY, THE ITA NOS.827 & 935 OF 13 VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD. ADDITION OF RS.95,57,413/- WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A). THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E AND RAISED FACTUAL AND LEGAL CONTENTIONS, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTE D THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ACIT CONTENTION THA T EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,09,22,060/- INCURRED FOR CONSTRUC TING THE EXPRESS FEEDER ON BEHALF OF MAHARASHTRA STATE ELE CTRICITY BOARD (BSEB) IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER COMPANIES IN SURROUNDING AREAS HAS JOINTLY INCURRED EXPENSES FOR INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPRESS FEEDER IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AMOUNT OF RS.109.22 LACS WAS PAID FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIAL USED FOR CONSTRUCTING AND INST ALLING ELECTRICAL EXPRESS FEEDER ON BEHALF OF MSEDCL. ASSESSEE SHARE OF EXPENSES AMOUNTS TO RS.1,09,22,758/-. AS PER EXPRESS UNDERS TANDING BETWEEN MSEDCL AND CONTRACTING PARTIES THE EXPRESS FEEDER WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED / INSTALLED AS PER THE S TRICT SPECIFICATION PROVIDED BY MSEB. THE BENEFITS OF THE FEEDER STATI ON WOULD BE FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD HOWEVER, FOR UNDERTAKING SUCH EXP ENDITURE; PARTIES WERE GRANTED EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO USE THE FE EDER STATION FOR SUCCESSIVE 5 YEARS. AS PER THE AGREEMENT ASSESSEE W AS ALSO REQUIRED TO INCUR THE COST OF MAINTENANCE, ROUTINE SERVICING OF THE INSTALLED FEEDER FOR THOSE 5 YEARS. FURTHER PARTIE S TO THE CONTRACT HAS PROVIDED GUARANTEE TO MSEDCL FOR WORKMANSHIP AN D MATERIAL USED FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION FOR THE PERIOD OF 5 YEARS. THE CONTRACTING PARTIES DID NOT GOT PARTIAL OR FULL OWN ERSHIP OF THE FEEDER. AS PER THE AGREEMENT FEEDER WAS FULLY OWNE D BY MSEB FROM DAY ONE ONLY, THE CONTRACTING PARTIES WERE ONLY ACT ING AS A CONTRACTOR TO BUILD THE FEEDER ON BEHALF OF MSEB CO NSIDERING ONGOING NEED OF POWER SUPPLY FOR MANUFACTURING ACTI VITY. ITA NOS.827 & 935 OF 13 VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD. 5. THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO GET UNINTER RUPTED SUPPLY OF POWER NECESSARY FOR CARRYING OF MANUFACTU RING ACTIVITY. EVEN, IT WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL AS PER AUDIT, THE A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE ENTITLED FOR THE SAME AS REVENUE EX PENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SAME AS R EVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE AN ASSET / A DVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES OBSERVED THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT BE THE OWNER OF ASSET IN RESPECT OF WHICH CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED AND HENCE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT THE OWNER OF EXPRESS FEEDER CONSTRUCTED AND MSEDCL IS THE OWNER AND HENC E THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THEM. ONE OF THE P ARTIES M/S. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. WHO IS CO-BENEFICI ARY OF ABOVE FEEDER ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THIRD BENEFICIARY HA S CLAIMED THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS NOT DISTURBED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS EMERGE D FROM THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH TWO PARTIES HAVE ENTERED IN TO A CONTRACT WITH MSEDCL FOR ERECTION OF EXPRESS FEEDER LINE FOR REGULAR AND UNINTERRUPTED SUPPLY OF POWER FOR MANUFACTURING ACT IVITY. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. DART MANUFACTURING INDIA (P) LTD. (2008) 175 TAXMAN 6 (D EL) HAS HELD THAT THE PAYMENT TO STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR INS TALLING A TRANSFORMER AND LT LINES FOR SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY OWNERSHIP OF THE TRANSFORMER AND THE LT LINES REMAINED WITH THE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND THE FIXED CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF THE ASSESS EE REMAINED UNTOUCHED EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AL LOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE SAID D ECISION IN DART MANUFACTURING INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAW PIPES LTD. ITA NOS.827 & 935 OF 13 VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD. (2008) 300 ITR 35 (DEL), WHEREIN THE EXPENDITURE ON LAYING ELECTRIC SERVICE LINES FOR NEW UNIT AND THAT MAY BE ENDURING ADVANTAGE BUT INTENDED TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY ON ITS BUS INESS MORE EFFICIENTLY AND PROFITABLY LEAVING THE FIXED CAPITA L UNTOUCHED. IN SUCH SITUATION, THE EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWED AS REVE NUE EXPENDITURE. 6. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMB AY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. (1980) 122 IT R 995 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A MANUFACTURER OF CHEMIC ALS, SETTING UP OF A NEW UNIT FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF PHOSPHOROUS, L ARGE AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY REQUIRED FOR THE NEW UNIT, AGREEMENT EN TERED INTO WITH ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR GETTING AN OVERHEAD SERVICE L INE, ASSESSEE TO PAY PART OF THE COST OF LAYING THE OVERHEAD LINE, O VERHEAD LINE TO REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ASSES SEE REQUIRED TO PAY THE NORMAL CHARGES FOR THE ELECTRICITY CONSUMED . IN THIS SET OF FACTS, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT NO A SSET OF ENDURING NATURE ACQUIRED AND THE EXPENDITURE FOR TH E SAME WAS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, REFERENCE WAS RE JECTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 7. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADR AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. T.V. SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS (P) LT D. (1974) 95 ITR 428 (MAD) HAS HELD THAT AMOUNT SPENT ON LAND PU RCHASED IN THE NAME OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR FOR CONSTRUCTING HOU SES FOR ASSESSEE COMPANYS WORKERS UNDER A GOVT. SPONSORED SCHEME WA S A REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUS INESS. SIMILARLY, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF C ALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. ( 1990) 182 ITR 497 (CAL) HAS HELD THAT THE PAYMENT TO ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR LAYING SERVICE LINES OWNERSHIP OF SERVICE LINES VESTING WITH BOARD WAS HELD AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ITA NOS.827 & 935 OF 13 VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSIO N, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,09,22,0 60/- INCURRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF EXPRESS FEEDER ON BEHALF OF M AHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD WAS DEDUCTIBLE AS REVENUE E XPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN ITA NO.935/PN/2013, THE REVENUE HAS FILED TH E APPEALS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.18,05,981/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRE CATION. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECATION ON RACKS, TROLLY, A IR CONDITIONER, WATER COOLER/ REFRIGERATOR, CAMERA, CO MPUTER ATTENDANCE AND CARD/SYSTEM, WALL MOUNTED FAN, D G S ET AND ELECTRICAL FITTING, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THESE ITE MS DOES NOT COME UNDER PLANT AND MACHINERY. 3. THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED AND THAT OF THE CIT (A) BE VACATED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.18,05 ,951/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON RACKS, TROLLEY, D.G. SET, AIR CONDITIONER FOR MACHINERY, C OOLER, REFRIGERATOR, CAMERA, COMPUTER ATTENDANCE CARD SYST EM, WALL MOUNTING FANS AND ELECTRICAL FITTINGS. IN APPEAL T HE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSE D ON BEHALF OF REVENUE, INTER ALIA, STATED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,05,981/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECATION ON RACKS, TR OLLY, AIR CONDITIONER, WATER COOLER/ REFRIGERATOR, CAMERA, CO MPUTER ITA NOS.827 & 935 OF 13 VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD. ATTENDANCE AND CARD/SYSTEM, WALL MOUNTED FAN, D G S ET AND ELECTRICAL FITTING, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THESE ITE MS DOES NOT COME UNDER PLANT AND MACHINERY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. 12. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT FOR FURNITURE AND FITTINGS INC LUDING ELECTRIC FITTINGS, THE SAME RATE OF DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN PR ESCRIBED. THE MACHINERY IS ENTITLED FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATI ON. FURTHER, THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS ALSO ALLOWABLE IN RESPEC T OF NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER 31. 03.2005 BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING. THE DEDUCTION SHALL NOT BE A LLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE PLANT WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY USED WITHIN OR OU TSIDE INDIA BY ANY OTHER PERSON, MACHINERY OR PLANT INSTALLED IN A NY OFFICE PREMISES OR ANY RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION INCLUDING IN THE NATURE OF GUEST HOUSE, ANY OFFICE APPLIANCE OR ROAD TRANSP ORT VEHICLES OR ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT, THE WHOLE OF THE COST OF WH ICH IS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION OR OTHERWISE. A S PER NOTE-5 TO THE APPENDIX-I REFERRED TO IN RULE-5 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 'ELECTRIC FITTINGS INCLUDE ELECTRICAL WIRING, SWITC HES, SOCKETS, OTHER FITTINGS AND FANS ETC.' WE FIND THAT ITAT PUNE A BENCH IN SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD. VS ACIT (2012) 47 TTJ 594 ( PUNE) HAS HELD THAT FUNCTIONAL TEST HAS TO BE APPLIED IN DECIDING IF A PARTICULAR TOOL CONSTITUTES PLANT AND MACHINERY OR FURNITURE. IN T HE SAID CASE, THE REVENUE HAS NOT APPLIED FUNCTIONAL TEST TO EACH OF THE DISPUTED ITEMS. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ORDERS ON TH E DETAILS OF THE SAID TEST. THE FUNCTIONAL TEST IMPLIES IF THE SAID ITEMS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE PRODUCT IN THE LABORATORY PREMISES. IF STOOLS, TABLES, STAINLESS STEEL RACKS , CUPBOARDS, TROLLEYS, TRAYS ETC. ARE REQUIRED FOR THE LABORATOR Y PURPOSE I.E. FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRODUCTION OR PROCESSING OF THE CHEM ICAL TESTS IN THE ITA NOS.827 & 935 OF 13 VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD. LABORATORY PREMISES LEADING TO THE PRODUCTION OF TH E STOCKS, THEY MUST BE CATEGORIZED AS PLANT AND MACHINERY. 13. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. PARKE DAVIS (INDIA) LTD. (1995) 214 ITR 587 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION U/S. 32 IN RESPECT OF THE FANS, WHICH WERE INSTALLED IN ITS ADMINISTRA TIVE OFFICE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE FANS INSTALLED IN THE ADMINI STRATIVE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTED PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEPRECIATION U/S.32 OF THE ACT. ON REFERE NCE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION PLANT HAS BEEN GIVEN AN EXTENDED MEANING EVEN TO INCLUDE VEHICLES, BOOKS, S CIENTIFIC APPARATUS, ETC. USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IT DOES NOT DEFINE PLANT AS SUCH. IT HAS TO BE CONSTR UED IN THE POPULAR SENSE. SO CONSTRUED, PLANT WILL MEAN AND I NCLUDE APPARATUS USED BY A BUSINESSMAN FOR CARRYING ON HIS BUSINESS. IT IS NOT CONFINED TO APPARATUS USED FOR MECHANICAL OP ERATIONS OR PROCESSES OR INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS. APPLYING THE TES TS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SCIENTIFIC ENGEERING H OUSE PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 86 (SC) TO THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE FANS INSTALLED IN THE ADMINI STRATIVE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTED PLAN AND MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEPRECIATION U/S.32 OF THE ACT. WE ALSO F IND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DEL HI AIR PORT SERVICE (2002) 255 ITR 91 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT AIR C ONDITIONER FIXED IN A BUS IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUS AND THEREFO RE DEPRECIATION ON SUCH AIR CONDITIONER IS ALLOWABLE AT THE RATE APPLI CABLE TO THE BUS. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NATHUBHAI H. PATEL (2006) 28 5 ITR 67 (GUJ), THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AIR CO NDITIONER AND FANS IN THE CLINIC ARE ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRE CIATION. 14. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY ALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,61,191/- AND ADDITIONAL DEPREC IATION OF ITA NOS.827 & 935 OF 13 VARROC POLYMERS PVT. LTD. RS.18,05,951/-. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NE EDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. I N THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 25 TH AUGUST, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD 4) THE CIT, AURANGABAD 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE.