The DCIT,(OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. M/s. Simurg Appliances Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 998/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6828 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 04/02/2011 DRAFTED ON:18/04/ 2011 1. ITA NO.998/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y.2005-06 2. ITA NO.2056/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y.2006-07 3. ITA NO.2782/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y.2007-08 1-3. THE DCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-8 AHMEDABAD VS. 1-3. SIMURG APPLIANCE LTD. B-6, SHREE KRISHNA CENTRE NR.MITHAKHALI SIX ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AACCS 7857 A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR.RAJA RAM SAH, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KALPEN P.SHAH O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REV ENUE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 REVOLVING AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF FRANCHISE FEES OF RS.23,88,071/-, RS.21,48,903/- AND RS.26,75,992/ - RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE FACTS FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS WERE IDENTI CAL, THEREFORE, THESE APPEALS ARE CONSOLIDATED AND HEREBY DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN 1989. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY IS TO SELL THE BOOKS, MUSIC -CDS, MOVIES, CD-ROM, TOYS, STATIONERY, ETC. UNDER THE BRAND NAME CROSS ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 2 - WORD. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS TO SALE THE GOODS FROM A SPECIFIC PREMISES BY USING THE BRAND-NAME CROSSWORD. UN DER THE TERMS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RE-SALE THE GOODS ONLY AS ASSIGNED. FOR ALL THE YEARS, IT WAS OBJECTED BY THE AO THAT THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD FRANCHISEE FEES WAS CAPITAL IN NA TURE. AS PER AO, THE SAID FRANCHISE FEES WAS LIKE PATENTS, COPY-RI GHTS, TRADE-MARKS, ETC. AS MENTIONED IN SEC. 32 OF IT ACT. AS PER AO , PAYMENTS TOWARDS FRANCHISE FEES WERE IN THE NATURE OF INTA NGIBLE ASSETS, THEREFORE, ONLY ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION. 2.1. IN THIS REGARD, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WAS SIGNED WITH THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF CROSSWORD BRAND, I.E. INDIA BOOK HOUSE PVT.LTD . ON 01.04.1995. AT THAT TIME AN INITIAL PAYMENT OF RS. 1,50,000/- WAS MADE AS A ONE-TIME FEE AND IT WAS ALSO SETTLED THAT FOR AN INITIAL PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS A CONTINUING FEES OF TWO PERCE NT OF THE TURNOVER TO BE PAID AS FRANCHISE FOR CONTINUING THE BUSIN ESS. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT, TWO TYPES OF PAYMENTS WERE AGREED TO BE PAID, I.E. LUMP-SUM FEES FOR A PE RIOD OF FIVE YEARS AND SECOND TYPE OF PAYMENT WAS RECURRING FEES AT T HE RATE OF 2% OF THE TURNOVER ON MONTHLY BASIS. 2.2. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS SI GNED ON 01-04- 1995 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND INDIA BOOK HOUSE PVT. LTD. IT WAS THE FIRST ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. IN THAT AGREEMENT, T HE NATURE OF ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 3 - LUMPSUM PAYMENT WAS TOWARDS GETTING THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS FOR AN INITIAL PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. IT W AS EXPLAINED TO AO THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS AMORTISED IN THOSE YEARS. THE NATURE OF FRANCHISE FEES WAS THE PAYMENT DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE TURNOVER FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT A SECOND AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE OWNER OF CROSS WORD BRAND ON 23-10-2000. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, AGAIN A CONTINUING FEES AT THE RATE OF 2% OF THE GR OSS TURNOVER WAS AGREED TO BE PAID. BEFORE AO, THE NATURE OF THE SA ID PAYMENT WAS DESCRIBED AS BELOW:- CONTINUING/RECURRING FEES/ROYALTY: CONTINUING/RECURRING FEES/ROYALTY AT THE RATE OF 2% OF THE GROSS TURNOVER OF THE FRANCHISEE SHALL BE PAYABLE B Y THE FRANCHISEE TO THE FRANCHISOR ON A MONTHLY BASIS. A LL SUCH AMOUNTS SHALL BE PAYABLE ON THE 7 TH OF EVERY SUCCEEDING MONTH FOLLOWING THE MONTH FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE G ROSS TURNOVER OF THE FRANCHISEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE THE GROSS SALES OF THE PRODUCTS BY THE FRANCHISEE FOR T HE SAID PERIOD LESS THE SALE S RETURNS (IF ANY) FOR THE SAI D PERIOD SHALL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. ALL SUCH SALES AND SA LES RETURNS SHALL BE ACCOUNTED FOR ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS. ON THE EXPIRY OF EVERY MONTH, THE FRANCHISEE SHALL FORTHWITH COMPUTE THE GROSS TURNOVER FOR THE MONTH AND FORWAR D A STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE ROYALTY PAYMENT WITHIN THE PERIOD AS MENTIONED ABOVE. HOWEVER IN THE EVENT OF THERE BEI NG ANY DISCREPANCY IN THIS REGARD NOTICED SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE SECOND AUDITOR APPOINTED BY THE FRANCHISOR, SUCH DISCREPAN CY SHALL ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 4 - WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER RIGHTS AND REMEDIES OF THE FRANCHISOR FOR SUCH DISCREPANCIES BE FORTHWITH RECT IFIED BY THE FRANCHISEE AND APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE IN R ESPECT OF SUCH PAYMENT ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM FOR DELAYED PAYMENT TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL P AYMENT. 2.3. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED AND IN HIS O PINION THE FRANCHISE BEING AN INTANGIBLE ASSETS, THEREFORE T HE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IN HIS OPINION , THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A COPY-RIGHT WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT A CAPI TAL EXPENDITURE LIKE TRADE-MARK AND PATENTS, THEREFORE AN INTANGIBL E ASSETS WAS CREATED, HENCE, ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION ONLY. A CCORDINGLY, FOR AY 2005-06 DISALLOWED RS.23,88,071/- AS FRANCHISE FEE S, HOWEVER ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 25% OF RS.5,97,018/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS ADDED BACK IN THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME. FOR REST OF THE TWO YEARS, THE SAME RECOURSE WAS ADOPTED BY THE AO. FOR ALL THESE YEARS, THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE CASE IN DETAIL AND, THEREAFTER, ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPE NDITURE WAS DEPENDENT UPON THE PROFITABILITY OF THE BUSINESS AN D IT WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH ANY FIXED ASSET. IN HIS OPINION, TH E FIXED CAPITAL REMAINED UNTOUCHED AND THE EXPENDITURE WAS ON REVEN UE ACCOUNT. HE HAS ALSO EXPRESSED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT A ON E-TIME PAYMENT BUT A RECURRING FEES DEPENDING UPON THE MONTHLY SAL ES OF THE ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 5 - ASSESSEE. BY INCURRING SUCH AN EXPENDITURE, NO ASS ET OR ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING BENEFIT WAS CREATED. HE HAS ALSO HELD THAT NO INTANGIBLE ASSET BY THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS CREATED. IT WAS HE LD THAT THE PAYMENT WAS ALLOWABLE U/S.37(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 19 61. AGAINST THE SAID DELETION, NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE DR. RAJA RAM SAH APPEARED AND SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE AO. DR. RAJA RAM SAH HAS REFERRED SECTION 32 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ARGUED THAT THE TERM FRANCHISE IS ONE OF THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS AS DEFINED U/S.32 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT HING BUT A CAPITAL ASSET ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED ONLY FOR TH E CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE TERM FRANCHISE HAS BEEN USED U/S.32 ALONG WITH KNOWHOW, PATENTS, TRADE-MARK, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE HAVING OBTAINED COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE , HENCE, IT WAS NOT A REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE . THE TRADE NAME CROSSWORD IS USED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE, H ENCE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL IN NAT URE. CASE LAWS RELIED UPON ARE: (1) INDIA MANUFACTURERS (P) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1985) 155 ITR 770 (MAD.) AND ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 6 - (2) CIT VS. TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. & ORS. REPORTED AT (2010) 323 ITR 69 :: (2009) 225 CTR (BOM) 337. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDE NT-ASSESSEE MR. KALPESH P.SHAH APPEARED AND PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE CITED CASE LAWS WHICH WERE REFERRED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 6. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. CASE RECORDS PERUSED. CE RTAIN UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS UNDER THE BRAND-NAME CROSSWORD AT THE DESIGNATED PLACE FOR RE- SALE OF BOOKS, MUSIC-CD, STATIONERY, TOYS & GIFTS, MAGAZINES, ETC. UNDER THE SAID BRAND-NAME. THE RETAIL OF ALL THES E GOODS WERE UNDISPUTEDLY UNDER THE EMBLEM OF CROSSWORD. AS FAR AS THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF FRANCHISE FEES WAS CONCE RNED, FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRE D TO CALCULATE THE SAID FEES AT THE RATE OF 2% ON THE NET SALES. TERM S OF THE AGREEMENT HAVE SPECIFICALLY REVEALED THAT ON THE EXPIRY OF EV ERY MONTH, THE FRANCHISEE I.E. ASSESSEE SHALL COMPUTE THE GROSS TURNOVER FOR THE SAID MONTH AND AFTER REDUCING THE SALES RETURNS, IF ANY, COMPUTE THE NET SALES FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE SAID FEES. TH E SALES WERE ALSO TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR ON ACCRUAL BASIS. ONCE IT WAS AN ACCEPTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE PAYMENT OF IMPUGNED FEES WAS NOT A ONE-TIME PAYMENT, BUT IT WAS A RECURRING PAYMENT DEPENDING U PON THE DAILY ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 7 - SALES OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ITS NATURE CANNOT BE TERMED AS A ONE TIME EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL IN NATURE. AS PER TH E TERMS OF THE MEMORANDUM, WHICH WERE DULY PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED A NY PATENT RIGHT TO BE USED ON ANY OF THE ASSESSEES PRODUCT. ON THE OTHER HAND, FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SIM PLY RE-SELLING THE PRODUCT UNDER THE SAID BRAND NAME ON RETAIL BASIS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SAID TRADE-NAME CROSSWO RD HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MAKING THE IMP UGNED PAYMENT. THE MONTHLY PAYMENT COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE THE COS T FOR OBTAINING A FRANCHISE TO BE USED AS AN EMBLEM CROSSWORD E ITHER FOR SALE OR TO DISTRIBUTE THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURED BY THE AS SESSEE. THEREFORE, FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE THUS ESTABLISHED THAT THOUGH THE TERM FRANCHISE MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE AGREEM ENT BUT IT WAS A MISNOMER, PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVIS IONS OF THE SECTION 32 OF THE ACT ARE CONCERNED. 7. THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS I N THE CASE OF INDIA MANUFACTURERS (P) LTD. VS. CIT(SUPRA) AS CITE D BY THE LD.DR IS IN THE CONTEXT OF FRANCHISE WHICH WAS OBTAINED TO SELL THE PRODUCT OF THE COMPANY. FACTS OF THAT CASE HAVE REVEALED T HAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE DISTRIBUTI ON RIGHTS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY OBTAINED THE DISTRIBUTORSHIP RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE ARTICLES MANUFACTURED BUT A CQUIRED THE ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 8 - FRANCHISE OF THE PRODUCT. ON THOSE FACTS, THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT WAS EN DURING IN NATURE HENCE CAPITAL IN NATURE. FACTS OF THAT CASE BEI NG NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE CASE IN HAND, THEREFORE, WRONGLY CITED. LIKEWI SE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TE CHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD. & ORS. (SUPRA) WAS IN RESPECT OF LICE NSE GRANTED TO OBTAIN STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBERSHIP CARD. WHILE DEALI NG WITH THE SAID ISSUE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE EXPRESSION LICENSES HAS TO BE CONSTRUED RESTRICTI VELY ONLY TO APPLY IN RELATION TO ACQUISITION OF INTELLECTUAL RI GHTS AND SECTION 32 RESTRICTS THE CATEGORIES OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS AS SP ECIFICALLY ENUMERATED THEREIN AND NOT TO BE APPLIED TO ALL INT ANGIBLE ASSETS. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD.DR, THUS, DO NOT APPL Y IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT. 8. AS HELD IN THE CASE OF RAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD. V S. CIT REPORTED AT (2003) 261 ITR 390 (KER.)[FB] AN EXPEND ITURE IS ALLOWABLE IF IT IS INCURRED DURING THE ACCOUNTING P ERIOD AND IT IS IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IT SHOULD NOT BE A PERSONAL EXPENDITURE AND IT SHOULD BE LAID OUT WHOL LY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE EXPEN DITURE MUST NOT BE INCURRED TO ACQUIRE ANY CAPITAL ASSET. IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACQUIRED THE FRANCHISE OF THE TR ADE-MARK CROSS WORD TO BE USED AS A HALLMARK FOR ITS OWN PRODUCTS . BUT THE ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 9 - ASSESSEE IS SELLING THE DESIGNATED PRODUCTS OF THE SAID OWNER OF THE HALLMARK AND USING THAT VERY TRADE NAME AND GIVING COMMISSION ON FIXED PERCENTAGE ON MONTHLY SALE BASIS. IN THE CA SE OF EMPIRE JUTE CO. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1980) 124 ITR 01(SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS OPINED THAT WHAT IS MATERIAL TO C ONSIDER IS THE NATURE OF THE ADVANTAGE IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE. I F THE ADVANTAGE IS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD, THEN SUCH AN EXPENDITURE WOUL D BE DISALLOWABLE. IF THE ADVANTAGE CONSISTS MERELY IN FACILITATING TH E ASSESSEES TRADING OPERATIONS, THEN THE EXPENDITURE IS ON REVENUE ACCO UNT. EVEN IF IT RESULTS INTO MORE PROFITABILITY BUT LEAVING THE FIX ED CAPITAL UNTOUCHED, THEN THOUGH THE ADVANTAGE MAY BE FOR AN INDEFINITE FUTURE THE SAME IS ON REVENUE ACCOUNT. AN INTEREST ING FACT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA S TATE LAW THE SAID FRANCHISE FEES IS TREATED AS PAYMENT TOWARDS LEASE AND A LEASE-TAX AT THE RATE OF 4% IS LEVIED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. IN THE SAID CONTEXT, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THOUGH THE LEAS E IS PAID IN PERPETUITY BUT IT WAS REVENUE PAYMENT AS HELD IN TH E CASE OF SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO.LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AT (1 967) 66 ITR 553 (A.P.). TWO DECISIONS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T; NAMELY CIT VS. ASHOKA MILLS LTD. (218 ITR 526) AND OF CIT VS. GUJARAT CARBON LTD. (254 ITR 294) HAS ALSO BEEN CITED FOR THE PROP OSITION THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY TO THE COLLABORATORS BEING BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF SALES, THEREFORE, IT WAS A RECURRING EXPENDITURE AND THE AGREEMENT MERELY UNABLE THE ASSESSEE TO MARKET THE PRODUCT AN D NOT ACQUISITION ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 10 - OF ANY RIGHT OF PERMANENT CHARACTER. UNDER THE TOT ALITY OF THE DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE AS ALSO RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS REVENUE IN NATURE, HENCE, RIGHTLY ALLO WED BY THE LD.CIT(A). GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAVE NO FORCE, HENCE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21 / 04 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NOS.998/A/10,2056/A/0 9 & 2782/A/2010 DCIT VS. SIMURG APPLIANCES P.LTD. ASST.YEARS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 - 11 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION..18/04/2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19/04/2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 21.4.2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21.4.2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER