Digjam Ltd., JAMNAGAR V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, JAMNAGAR

MA 15/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8853 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M P SARDA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Capital receipt

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. . .. . . .. . , , , , . .. . . .. . , , , , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVAST AVA, AM M.A NOS. 09, 14 & 15/RJT/2012. (ARISEN OUT OF ORDER IN ITA NOS.247 TO 249/RJT/2011 .) / ASSESSMENT YEARS. BIRLA VXL LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS DIGJAM LIMITED, AERODROME ROAD, JAMNAGAR. PAN : AACFB0644H. ( */ APPELLANT) VS. THE ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLER-2, JAMNAGAR. +,*/ RESPONDENT -. / ASSESSEE BY SHRI M. P. SARDA, .C.A. . / REVENUE BY SHRI M. K. SINGH, D.R. . / DATE OF HEARING 04-05-2012 . / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13-07-2012 / / / / ORDER . .. . . . . . , , , , / T. K. SHARMA, J. M. THESE THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ARISING OUT OF COMMON ORDER DATED 04-11-2011 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.247 TO 249/RJT/2011 FOR A.Y. 199 1-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94. ALL THESE THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE IDENTICA L ONE, THEREFORE, WE REPRODUCE THE M.A. NO.09/RJT/2012 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1.0. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID APPE ALS WAS WHETHER THE SALES TAX INCENTIVE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT UNDER ITS INDUSTRIAL POLICY TO ACCELERATE T HE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, TO DISPERSE INDUSTRIES TO UNDER-DEVELO PED AREAS AS WELL AS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT BESIDES MODER NIZATION IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR A REVENUE RECEIPT. 2.0. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 0.4-11.2011 HELD SUCH SALES TAX RECEIPT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF AJANTA MANUFACTURING LIMITED IN ITA NO. 793/RJT/2010 BASE ON SCHEMES THE OBJECTS OF WHICH ARE IDENTICAL. M.A NOS 09,14 & 15/RJT/2012 2 3.0. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN PARA 7 OF PAGE 4 OF THE SAID ORDER INADVERTENTLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORESAID CASE OF AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD. HAVE BEEN REPRODU CED BY OVERSIGHT IN THE PORTION BEGINNING WITH - THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT WITH HUGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE KUTCH REGION WHICH WAS BADLY AFFECTED THE EARTHQUAKE. THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PUTTING UP INDUSTRIAL U NIT IN THE EARTHQUAKE AFFECTED AREA HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING EXEMPTION UNDER THE RELEVANT NOTIFICATI ONS FOR SCHEMES OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE WAKE OF EARTHQUAKE. THE SCHEMES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT TH E PURPOSE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT BY GIVING THE INCENTIVES IS TO PROMOTE INVE STMENT OF CAPITAL AND THEREBY FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO GENERATE EMPLOYMENT IN THE KUTCH DISTRICT WHICH WAS AFFECTED BY EARTHQUAKE. THUS, ON APPLICATION OF TH E PURPOSE TEST IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INCE NTIVE SCHEMES IS NOT TO ASSIST IN THE CARRYING ON THE ASS ESSEES TRADE OR BUSINESS. THE PURPOSE IS CLEARLY FOR PROM OTING CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND THEREBY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPME NT IN THE EARTHQUAKE AFFECTED DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE IS TO GE NERATE EMPLOYMENT IN THE SAID DISTRICT 3.1 IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE PLACE OF THE ABOVE FACTS IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER NAMELY, THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN GRANTED THE SALES TAX INCE NTIVES IN LOCATED AT PORBANDAR WHICH AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS UNDER JUNAGADH DISTRICT AND ELIGIBLE TALUKA UNDER CATEGOR Y III OF THE GUJARAT GOVERNMENT SCHEME. THE PROJECT OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS FOR MODERNIZATION OF THE EXISTING UNIT AND HAD BEEN DUL Y APPROVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING SALES TAX INCENTIVES UNDER THE SCHEME OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF GUJARAT. THE SCHEME HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT BY GIVING SALES TAX IN CENTIVES TO ACCELERATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, TO DISPERSE INDUSTRIES TO UNDER DEVELOPED AREAS AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EMP LOYMENT AS WELL AS TO ENCOURAGE MODERNIZATION. THUS ON APPLIC ATION OF THE PURPOSE TEST IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INCENTIVE SCHEME IS NOT TO ASSIST IN CARRYING ON OF THE ASSES SEES TRADE OR BUSINESS. THE PURPOSE IS CLEARLY FOR PROMOTING CAP ITAL INVESTMENT AND THEREBY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO UNDER DEVELOP ED AREAS OF GUJARAT STATE AND MODERNIZATION. THE PURPOSE IS AL SO TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT. M.A NOS 09,14 & 15/RJT/2012 3 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATIONS, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI M. P. SARDA, C.A. APPEARED AND POINT ED OUT THAT IN PARA-7, INSTEAD OF MENTIONING THE FACTS OF ASSESSEE CASE, T HROUGH INADVERTENCE THE FACTS OF AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD. WERE MENTIONED. HE AC CORDINGLY SUGGESTED THAT CORRECT FACTS BE STATED. TO THIS, THE LD. D.R. SUG GESTED THAT TRIBUNAL MAY RECALL ITS ORDER TO STATE THE CORRECT FACTS INSTEAD OF COR RECTING THE ORDER. 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH PARA-7. IT IS TRUE THAT THROUGH INADVERTENCE THE FACTS OF AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD. WERE STATED. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SUBSTITUTE THE PARA- 7 WITH THE FOLLOWING:- 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HA VE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED F ACTS ARE THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED THE SALES TAX INCENTIVES WHICH IS LOCATED AT PORBANDAR AND AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS U NDER JUNAGADH DISTRICT AND ELIGIBLE TALUKA UNDER CATEGORY III OF THE GUJAR AT GOVERNMENT SCHEME. THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR MODERNIZATION O F THE EXISTING UNIT WHICH HAD BEEN DULY APPROVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVA ILING SALES TAX INCENTIVES UNDER THE SCHEME OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPME NT OF GUJARAT. THE SCHEME HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJAR AT BY GIVING SALES TAX INCENTIVES TO ACCELERATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP MENT, TO DISPERSE INDUSTRIES TO UNDER DEVELOPED AREAS AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT AS WELL AS TO ENCOURAGE MODERNIZATION. THUS THE MA IN PURPOSE OF INCENTIVE SCHEME IS NOT TO ASSIST IN CARRYING ON OF THE ASSESSEES TRADE OR BUSINESS. THE PURPOSE IS CLEARLY FOR PROMOTING CAP ITAL INVESTMENT AND THEREBY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO UNDER DEVELOPED A REAS OF GUJARAT STATE AND MODERNIZATION AND ALSO TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL E MPLOYMENT. WE FIND THAT ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF AJANTA MANU FACTURING LTD ITA NO.793/RJT/2010 ORDER DATED 23-09-2010 HAS HELD THA T WHEN THE OBJECT OF SUBSIDY WAS TO SET UP A NEW UNIT IN BACKWARD ARE A TO GENERATE EMPLOYMENT, THE SUBSIDY IS ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE RATIO OF THIS DECISION M.A NOS 09,14 & 15/RJT/2012 4 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE S CASE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF AJAN TA MANUAFACTURING LTD. IS PRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 17. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHN EY STEEL AND PONNY SUGAR HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE T HAT THE CHARACTER OF THE SUBSIDY WHETHER REVENUE OR CAPITAL IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY HAVING REGARD TO THE PURPOSE OR WHICH SUBSIDY IS GIVEN. THUS, THE SAID DECISION THOUGH RELIED BY THE REVENUE, ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS IN PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMISSIB LE MEANING THEREBY THAT THE CLAIM THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE CAPITA L IN NATURE IS A CORRECT CLAIM. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS PROCEEDED TO R EJECT THE CLAIM WHICH IS OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE ON THE TECHNICAL GROU ND. ON PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE US WE FIND TH AT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT TAKEN THIS PARTICULAR GROUND. EV EN OTHERWISE, AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN KOSHTIS C ASE (276 ITR 165 (GUJ) THE A.O. EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO COMPUTE TOTAL INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ANY RECEIPT WHICH IS CAPITAL IN NATURE C ANNOT FORM PART OF THE ASSESSED INCOME. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS BY REASON OF LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR GUIDANCE NOT EXCLUDED CAPITAL RECEIPT FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE DONE SO. THE FACTS BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPRME COURT IN GOETZE (IN DIA) LTD (284 ITR 323) WERE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION. I N THE CASE BEFORE US THE ISSUE IS NOT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. WE ALS O FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE FACTS AS REGARDS RECEIPT OF INCENT IVES OF SALES TAX AND EXCISE DUTY WERE CLEARLY SPELT OUT IN PARA 6 OF THE SCHEDULE S FORMING PART OF THE AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS WHICH I S REPRODUCED ON PAGE 7 & 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE NOTE CONTAINS TH E RELEVANT FACTS. THUS IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE FACTS WERE NOT AVAILABL E ON RECORD. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE NATURE OF THE INCEN TIVES EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLAIM. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT MAK ING OF CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT THROUGH A RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT FATAL ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 19. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING ON THE FIRST DAY, ONE OF US HAD POINTED OUT TO THE LD.A.R. THAT THE ITAT AHMEDABAD CAMPING AT BARODA HAS DECIDED ISSUE AS REGARD NATURE OF INCENT IVES. THE LD.A.R. OBTAINED THE DECISION THROUGH PROFESSIONAL CONTACTS AND DEALT WITH IT IN THE COURSE OF SECOND HEARING. THE DECISION DTD 24- 3-2010 IS IN THE CASE OF M/S ZINCOLLIED (INDIA), (I TRA NO.999, 2467 & 3426 OF 2008). THE LD.A.R. DISTINGUISHED THE FAC TS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AHMEDABAD BENCH AND THE FACTS IN THE CAS E BEFORE US. THE RELEVANT SCHEME IN THE AFORESAID CASE WAS SCHEM E NOTIFIED BY M.A NOS 09,14 & 15/RJT/2012 5 GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DAMAN & DIU DTD. 23-4-1987. WHI LE HOLDING THAT THE SALES TAX INCENTIVE UNDER THE AFORESAID SC HEME IS REVENUE RECEIPT, THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE SCHEME EXEMPTS SMALL SCALE, MEDIUM SCALE OR LARGE S CALE UNITS FOR 15 YEARS, 10 YEARS & 5 YEARS RESPECTIVELY. THE BEN CH HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SCHEME NO WHERE REFERS TO THE DEVELO PMENT OF ANY SPECIFIC AREA NOR IT RELATES TO ANY CAPITAL COST. 20. THE LD.A.R. BASED ON THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE S OF THE SCHEME INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE ITAT AHMEDABAD, SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THIS BENCH AND MO RE PARTICULARS THE SCHEME INVOLVED ARE DIFFERENT. THE SCHEMES SPEC IFICALLY REFERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF KUTCH REGION AND THE QUANTUM OF INCENTIVE IS BASED ON THE COST OF PLANT & MACHINERY I.E. INVE STMENT OF CAPITAL. THE SCHEME ALSO REFERS TO GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN KUTCH REGION AS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES. HE ALSO POINTED O UT THAT IN THE SCHEME OF GOA, DAMAN & DIU THE SMALL SCALE UNIT (OB VIOUSLY WITH LOWER CAPITAL INVESTMENT) AVAILS BENEFIT FOR 15 YEA RS, AND MEDIUM SCALE UNIT (OBVIOUSLY WITH HIGHER CAPITAL INVESTMEN T AS COMPARED TO SMALL SCALE UNIT AND LOWER INVESTMENT AS COMPARED T O LARGE SCALE UNIT) AVAILS BENEFIT ONLY FOR 5 YEARS. IN OTHER WO RDS THE INCENTIVE IS NOT ONLY DE HORSE THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT BUT IS IN INVERSE PROPORTION. 21. WE FIND THAT THE PROPOSITIONS MADE BY THE LD.A. R. ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE SC HEME OF INCENTIVE AND BY THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. EV EN THE DECISION OF SAHNEY STEEL CITED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US EFFE CTIVELY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE WERE ALSO INFORMED BY THE LD.A.R. SHRI MAHESH S ARDA BY SUBMITTING COPY OF THE DECISION DTD 15-4-2009 OF HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY BY WHICH, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HA S AFFIRMED THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. OUR SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 4 OF THE ORDER. SO FAR AS QUESTION (B) IS CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH J (SPECIAL BENCH) DECI SION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF IN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. = (2003 TIOL 14 ITAT MUM SB) WE MAY GAINFULLY REPRODUCE THE FOL LOWING PORTION: THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA IN 1979 AND FORMULATED BY ITS RESOLUTION DTD. 5-1-1980 HAS BEEN ANALYSED IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDE R IN RIL FOR M.A NOS 09,14 & 15/RJT/2012 6 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86 WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO IN EXTENSOR. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE SCH EME, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRUST OF THE SCHEME IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BECOME ENTITLED F OR THE SALES TAX INCENTIVE EVEN BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION, WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE OBJECT OF THE IN CENTIVE IS TO FUND A PART OF THE COST OF THE SETTING UP OF THE FA CTORY IN THE NOTIFIED BACKWARD AREA. THE TRIBUNAL HAS, AT MORE T HAN ONE PLACE, STATED THAT THE THRUST OF THE MAHARASHTRA SC HEME WAS THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACKWARD DISTRICT S AS WELL AS GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT THUS ESTABLISHING A DIR ECT NEXUS WITH THE INVESTMENT IN THE FIXED CAPITAL ASSE TS. IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL U NIT TO CLAIM ELIGIBILITY FOR THE INCENTIVE AROSE EVEN WHILE THE INDUSTRY WAS IN PROCESS OF BEING SET UP. ACCORDING TO THE TRIBU NAL, THE SCHEME WAS ORIENTED TOWARDS AND WAS SUBSERVIENT TO THE INVESTMENT IN FIXED CAPITAL ASSETS. THE SALES TAX INCENTIVE WAS ENVISAGED ONLY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CASH DISBURSEMENT AND BY ITS VERY NATURE WAS TO BE AVAIL ABLE ONLY AFTER PRODUCTION COMMENCED. THUS, IN EFFECT, IT WA S HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SUBSIDY IN THE FORM OF SALES TAX INCENTIVE WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSISTI NG IT IN CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THE OBJECT O F THE SUBSIDY WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE SETTING UP OF INDUSTRI ES IN THE BACKWARD AREA. THUS IT CAN CLEARLY BE SEEN THAT A FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SUBSIDY WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE SETTING UP OF INDUSTRIES IN THE BACKWARD AREA BY GENERATING EMPLOYMENT THEREIN. IN OUR OPINION, IN ANSWERING T HE ISSUE, THE TEST AS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. PONNI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD (20 08) 306 ITR (SC) = (2008) TIOL 174 SC IT) WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TEST OF THE CHARACTER OF THE RECEIPT OF A SUBSIDY IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER A SCHEME HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH R ESPECT TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SUBSIDY IS GRANTED. TH E COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN SUCH CASES, WHAT TO BE APP LIED IS THE PURPOSE TEST. THE POINT OF TIME AT WHICH THE SUBSID Y IS PAID IS NOT RELEVANT. THE SOURCE IS IMMATERIAL. FORM OF SU BSIDY IS MATERIAL. COURT THEN PROCEEDED TO OBSERVE AS UNDER : THE MAIN ELIGIBILITY CONDITION IN THE SCHEME WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE INCENTIVE MU ST BE UTILIZED FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE TO SET UP NEW UNITS O FOR SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF EXISTIN G UNITS. M.A NOS 09,14 & 15/RJT/2012 7 ON THIS ASPECT THERE IS NO DISPUTE. IF THE OBJECT OF THE SUBSIDY SCHEME WAS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO RUN TH E BUSINESS MORE PROFITABLY THEN THE RECEIPT IS ON REV ENUE ACCOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE OBJECT OF THE A SSISTANCE UNDER THE SUBSIDY SCHEME WAS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO SET UNIT OR TO EXPAND THE EXISTING UNIT THEN THE RE CEIPT OF THE SUBSIDY WAS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE D ATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( .. / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ( .. / T. K. SHARMA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER 3/ ORDER DATE 13-07-2012. /RAJKOT . .. . +4 +4 +4 [phone] / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. * / APPELLANT-BIRLA VXL LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS DIGJAM LTD.), JAMNAGAR. 2. +,* / RESPONDENTTHE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAMNAGAR. 3. : / CONCERNED CIT(A), JAMNAGAR. 4. :- / CIT, JAMNAGAR. 5. 4 +, , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ASSTT. REGISTRAR , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.