Ineos ABS (I) Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT., TDS Circle, Baroda

ITA 944/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1167 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL H TALATI
• Keywords: Relationship of principal and agent
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURV EDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2010-11) INEOS ABS (I) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS LANXESS ABS LTD.) 6 TH FLOOR, ABS TOWER, O.P. ROAD BARODA-390012 V/S THE ASST. COMM. OF INCOME TAX TDS CIRCLE, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAACB6164H APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL H. TALATI, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.C. MISHRA, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 12-08-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 -08-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THESE 3 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF CIT(A)-V, BARODA DATED 14.02.2012 FOR A.YS. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THA T THOUGH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE RELATES TO 3 DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BU T THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL THE CASES ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AMOUNTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO COMMON FOR ALL THE APPEALS AND ITA NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012. . A.YS. 2008-0 9 TO 2010-11 2 THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. LD D.R DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF LD.A.R. WE THEREFORE PROCE ED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND TH US PROCEED WITH THE FACTS IN A.Y. 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 944/AHD/2012. 3. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF HIGHLY SPECIALIZED ENGINEERING THERM OPLASTIC. IN THIS CASE, A SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CONDUCTED AT THE OFFICE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.11.2009 AND IT WAS NOTICED THAT MOST OF THE SALE S WERE MADE THROUGH CONSIGNMENT DEALERS AND SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PAYME NTS WERE MADE TO THEM IN THE NAME OF DISCOUNTS AND REBATES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THAT IN VIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, WHY TDS WA S NOT DEDUCTED ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID IN THE NAME OF REBATES AND DIS COUNTS AS ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE IT WAS PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMMISSIO N EARNED BY THE AGENTS FOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT THAT WERE MADE TO THE AGENTS WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION BUT WERE IN THE NATURE OF DISCOUNT WAS NOT FOUND AC CEPTABLE TO THE A.O FOR THE REASONS THAT THE AMOUNT OF DISCOUNT WAS ALMOST EQUAL TO THE COMMISSION. THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISCOUNT WAS PAYME NT TO THE AGENT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS COMMISSION AND ACCORDIN GLY THE PROVISIONS OF TDS ARE ATTRACTED AND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TDS U/S. 194H OF THE ACT AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED THE TDS, A.O WORKED OUT THE INTEREST U/S. 201(1) & 201(1A) AND DETERMIN ED THE AMOUNT AT RS. 18,26,991/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O BY HO LDING AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012. . A.YS. 2008-0 9 TO 2010-11 3 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE.LT IS SEEN FROM THE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE AO THAT DISTRIBUTORS/CONSIGNMENT AGENTS ARE BEING M ADE TWO TYPES OF PAYMENTS. THE FIRST IS THE COMMISSION GIVEN TO THEM TOWARDS SALE OF THE CONSIGNMENT WHICH VARIES BETWEEN RS. 1 TO RS.2 PER KG BOTH FOR ABS & SAN. TH IS INCLUDES INCENTIVE COMMISSION PAID ON OF ATTAINING CERTAIN VOLUME IN S ALES. THE SECOND IS REIMBURSEMENT OF RATE DIFFERENCE BY WAY OF CREDIT N OTES. THIS IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE BECAUSE COMPANY, AS PER ITS POLICY, IS DISPATCHING GOODS TO ITS DISTRIBUTORS/CONSIGNMENT AGENTS ON CERTAIN FIXED RA TES WHEREAS IN THE BILLS ISSUED BY THE DISTRIBUTORS/CONSIGNMENT AGENTS TO ACTUAL CONSU MERS MARKET RATE IS BEING CHARGED. THE COMPANY IS LATER ON REIMBURSING THE DI FFERENCE BECAUSE DISTRIBUTORS/CONSIGNMENT AGENTS ARE ONLY AGENTS OF THE COMPANY. AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY THIS ARRANGEMENT IS ALLOWING THE ACTUAL CONSUMERS TO CLAIM CERTAIN TAX BENEFITS WHICH WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE IN CASE OF DIRECT BILLING BY THE COMPANY. CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT IS DEALING WITH DIS TRIBUTORS/CONSIGNMENT AGENTS IS ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE CONSIGNMENT AGENT. THE APPELLANT RETAINS ALL RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS LYING WITH THE CONSIGNMENT AGENTS. CONSIGNMEN T AGENT IS NOT ALLOWED TO PLEDGE THE STOCK AND THE COMPANY CAN TRANSFER ANY STOCK LY ING WITH THE CONSIGNMENT AGENT TO OTHER CONSIGNMENT AGENT IF THE SAME IS NOT SOLD WIT HIN 30 DAYS. FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE APPELLANT IS OWNING THE STOCK LYING WI TH THE CONSIGNMENT AGENT/DISTRIBUTOR AND BILLING BY THE COMPANY TO THE DISTRIBUTOR AND BY DISTRIBUTOR TO THE ACTUAL CONSUMER IS ONLY AN ARRANGEMENT FOR ACCO UNTING PURPOSES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT TH E APPELLANT IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S. 194H IN RESPECT OF THOSE CREDIT NOTES ISSUED TO THE CONSIGNMENT AGENTS WHICH ARE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSIO N AND ANY OTHER INCENTIVE IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NOMENCLATU RE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT I. E . WHETHER IT IS NORMAL COMMISSION OR IT IS FURTHER DI SCOUNT ON ATTAINING CERTAIN VOLUMES ETC. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF CREDIT NOTES ISSUED FOR RATE DIFFERENCE THERE IS NO NEED TO ITA NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012. . A.YS. 2008-0 9 TO 2010-11 4 DEDUCT ANY. TAX AT SOURCE BECAUSE THESE ARE ISSUED FOR MAKING ACCOUNTING ADJUSTMENTS IN THE BOOKS OF THE DISTRIBUTOR/CONSIGNMENT AGENTS VIS A VIS THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE U/S.20 1(L) & 201(1 A), ACCORDINGLY BECAUSE FROM THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE ORDER OF THE AO IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF VARIOUS CREDIT NOTES ISSUED BY THE A PPELLANT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASS ESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF TAX & INTEREST U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF RS.3,50,025/- BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISCOUNTS AND REBATES OFFERED BY YOUR APPELLANT TO THE AGENTS IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION, IN TURN, THE ACTION OF THE AO OF INV OKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) HAS BEEN HELD AS CORRECT, WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACTS SUBMITTED BY YOUR APPELLANT. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) HAVE BEEN WRONGLY APPLIED IN THE CAS E OF YOUR APPELLANT IT BE HELD SO NOW AND LEVY OF INTEREST BE DELETED. 5. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS APPO INTED CONSIGNMENT/STOCKIEST FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRODU CTS TO CATER TO CUSTOMERS REQUIREMENT OF MATERIALS. THE COMPANY TRANSFER THE GOODS TO THE DISTRIBUTORS AT VARIOUS DEPOTS AND BOOKED SALES TO THE CSA. CSA RAISES THE INVOICES TO THE END CUSTOMERS AND ALL THE RISK AND RESPONSIBILI TY RELATED TO THE SALES LIES WITH CSA. THE ASSESSEE GIVES VARIOUS TYPES OF COMMI SSION, DISCOUNT AND INCENTIVE TO THE DISTRIBUTORS ON THEIR SALES PERFOR MANCE SINCE LAST MORE THAN 20 YEARS. ON THE COMMISSION AMOUNT WHICH IS PAID DI STRIBUTORS WHICH IS BASED AT FIXED RATE PER KG ON THE SALES, THE ASSESS EE IS REGULARLY DEDUCTING ITA NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012. . A.YS. 2008-0 9 TO 2010-11 5 TDS. ASSESSEE ALSO PAYS OVERRIDING COMMISSION AND O N WHICH ALSO THE TDS IS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE DISCOUNTS (RATE DIFFERENCE) (BACK TO BACK) WHICH IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NO TDS IS DEDU CTED AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT OBJECTED TO IT. REVENUES O BJECTION IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCOUNT/INCENTIVE (TARGET) WHICH HA S BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ISSUES CRED IT NOTE FOR CERTAIN SALES TARGET TO THE DISTRIBUTOR ON THE QUANTITY WHICH ARE BOOKED AS DISCOUNT AND IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION ON SALES BUT IS IN THE NATURE OF EXTRA DISCOUNT ON PRICE DUE TO ACHIEVING BIGGER TARGET. HE POINTED TO THE SAMPLE COPIES OF THE CREDIT NOTES WHICH WERE RAISED DURING THE YEAR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION BUT WAS IN THE NATURE OF DISCOUNT. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT FLURO CHE MICALS VS. ACIT (ITA NOS. 1956 TO 1958/A/ ORDER DATED 31.10.2013) THE CO PY OF WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE 155 TO 163 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FOSTERS IN DIA PVT. LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2008) 117 TTJ (PUNE) 346. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS AND THEREFORE THE INTEREST LEVIED BE DELETED. AS AN ALTERNATE CONTENTION, HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE PAYEES TO WHOM THE DISCOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERE D THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE AS THEIR INCOME AND HAVE ALSO PAI D THE TAXES THEREON AND IN SUCH A CASE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. HE POINTED TO THE SAMPLE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE PL ACED AT PAGE 5 & 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE PAYEES HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAV E CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF DISCOUNT AND REBATES WHILE COMPUTING THEI R INCOME AND HAD PAID THE TAXES AND FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN THE PAY EE HAS PAID THE TAXES ON THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THE PAYER, THEN THE PAYER OF THE SUM CANNOT BE ITA NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012. . A.YS. 2008-0 9 TO 2010-11 6 TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT HE RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BEVERAGE PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 2007 TO 93 ITR 226 (SC). THE LD. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS U/S. 201 & 201(1A) FOR THE 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR S WERE PASSED ON 30 TH MARCH, 2010 WHEREBY THE DEMAND FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS WAS RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE P ASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER, ASSESSMENTS FOR AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11 WERE F RAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 25.8.2010, 21.03.2013 AND 14.02.2014 RE SPECTIVELY (BEING THE DATE AFTER PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER) AND WHILE PA SSING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDERS NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE AMOUNTS PAID AS DISCOUNT HA S BEEN MADE WHICH WOULD THEREFORE MEAN THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS BEING NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN ACCE PTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRESENT ORD ER RAISING DEMAND U/S 201 & 201(1A) NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAHESH ENTERPRISE VS. ITO REPORTED I N (2010) 42 SOT 145 (MUM). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCT ION OF TDS ON THE PAYMENT OF DISCOUNT AND REBATE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CONSIGNMENT AGENT. BEFORE US, IT IS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT IT HAS PAID VARIOUS TYPES OF COMMISSIONS AND DISCOUNTS TO THE DISTRIBUTORS SINCE LAST SEVERAL YEARS NAMELY COMMISSION, OVERRIDING COMMISSION, DISCOUNT (RATE D IFFERENCE) DISCOUNT (BACK TO BACK), DISCOUNT/INCENTIVES (TARGET). IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON THE COMMISSION ON OVERRIDING COMMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, ITA NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012. . A.YS. 2008-0 9 TO 2010-11 7 THE TDS AT THE APPLICABLE RATES WERE DEDUCTED AND D EPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCOUN T (RATE DIFFERENCE) AND DISCOUNT (BACK TO BACK) ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED T DS AND THE SAME IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCOUNT/INCENTIVES (TARGET). IT IS REVENUES CONTE NTION THAT THE DISCOUNT/INCENTIVE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H ARE APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS A SSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH IS PAID TO THE DISTRIBUTORS IS IN THE NATURE OF EXTRA DISCOUNT WHICH IS PAID ON THE BASIS OF THE SALES TARGETS ACH IEVED BY THEM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED TO THE SAMPLE COPIES OF T HE CREDIT NOTES PLACED AT PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SAME IS IN THE N ATURE OF DISCOUNT AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION. WE FIND FORCE IN THE A RGUMENTS OF LD AR THAT THE NATURE OF PAYMENT IS OF DISCOUNT AND NOT COMMIS SION WHICH IS LIABLE FOR TDS MORE SO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN THE SUBSEQU ENT ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR AY 2008-09,2009-10 AND 2010-11, THAT HAVE BEEN FRAM ED U/S 143(3) AND AFTER THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHEREIN NO DISALLOWANCE U /S 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE PAYMENTS WAS RESORTE D TO BY THE AO AND IT IS MORE RELEVANT WHEN THE PRESENT IMPUGNED ORDER WA S PASSED PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) WAS HAVING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEFORE HIM AND WHEN THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) IS MUCH WID ER AND IT COVERS THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. AP ART FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN F AVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDU STAN COCO COLA (SUPRA) AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. A.R. IN HIS ALTERNATIVE C ONTENTION. IN ORDER TO SILENCE THE CONTROVERSY WITH ALL POSSIBLE ANGLES, W E DEEM IT FIT TO ACCEPT THE ITA NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012. . A.YS. 2008-0 9 TO 2010-11 8 ALTENATE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO. BEFORE U S LD AR HAS RAISED ONE MORE CONTENTION THAT THE PAYEES TO WHOM THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID HAVE ALREADY INCLUDED THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM ASSESSE E IN THEIR INCOME AND HAVE ALSO PAID THE TAXES ON THE SAME AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 201(1) OF THE ACT AND IN SUPPORT O F THIS CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE PLACED COPY OF THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PA RTIES BUT HOWEVER WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF AO OR CIT(A) ON THE SAM E. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REEXAMINED AND DECIDED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COC A COLA (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECI DE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT AO S HALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSE SSEE SHALL ALSO COOPERATE BY PROMPTLY FURNISHING ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS CAL LED FOR BY THE AO. FURTHER, SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE G ROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. NOW WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NOS. 945 & 946/AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-2011 8. IN THE PRESENT CASES, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE A DMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN A.Y. 2008-09, WE THEREFORE FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE WHILE DECIDING T HE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008- 09 IN ITA NO. 944/AHD/2012 (SUPRA) AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. ITA NOS. 944 TO 946/AHD/2012. . A.YS. 2008-0 9 TO 2010-11 9 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 3 APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21- 08 - 2015 . SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD