Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
M/S Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd.,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 30 January, 2015
ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad
Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member
and Smt.Asha Vijayaraghavan, Judicial Member
ITA Nos.1247 to 1249/Hyd/2014
(Assessment years: 2007-08 to 2009-10)
Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Deccan Chronicle
Tax, Circle 16 (2) Holdings Ltd
Hyderabad Hyderabad
PAN: AABCD 6737 D
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Department by: Shri Ramakrishna Bandi, DR
Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate
Date of Hearing: 08/12/2014
Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2015
ORDER
Per Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, J.M.
These are the appeals filed by the Revenue, directed against the order of the CIT (A)-V Hyderabad for the A.Ys 2007-08 to 2009-10.
ITA Nos.1247 & 1248/Hyd/2014 - A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008-09 Common Issues - FCCB & Debenture Issue expenses:
2. The common ground of appeal raised by the Department for both the A.Ys 2007-08 & 2008-09 as follows:Ground Nos.2 & 3
"2. The CIT (A) erred in allowing expenditure on FCCB and debenture issue u/s 35D considering the expenditure as public issue".
"3.The CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal on expenditure on FCCB and Debenture issue u/s.35D on the basis that department accepted in the earlier year A.Y. 2006-07, whereas Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds is investment Page 1 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad through SEBI in foreign currency which constitutes Capital and hence capital expenditure".
3. We find that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the FCCB & Debenture issue expenses in the AY 2006-07 and the CIT(A) allowed the same. We find that the Department did not file further appeal against the order of the ld CIT (A) in A.Y 2006-07. Hence since the ITAT has held in various decisions that the Department cannot contest/agitate the same issues for subsequent years, if they accepted the order of the CIT (A) in the earlier year (i.e. 2006-07), we are of the opinion that the CIT (A) has rightly held that the FCCB and Debenture issues under section 35D are to be allowed. The relevant portion is the CIT (A)'s order in A.Y 2006-07 is reproduced hereunder:
"The facts are that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.10,49,79,022/- on the debenture and FCCB issue. In the computation of income, the appellant claimed 1/5th of this as allowable expenditure under section 35D. By giving the following reasons, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same:
"6 The assessee company has incurred expenditure of Rs.10,49,79,022/- on account of expenditure on Debenture and FCCB issue. The assessee company in its comp0utation of income has claimed as under:
1/5th of Misc. Expenses allowable nu/s.35D Not debited to P&L 05-06 During the course of scrutiny, the assessee was asked to substantiate its claim. The assessee company vide letter dated 15.12.2008 submitted on 22.12.2008 has stated as under:
During the current financial year under consideration, the company incurred debenture and FCCB issue expenditure of Rs.10,49,79,022/- 1/5th of this expenditure amounting to Rs.2,09,95,804/- was written off under section 35D read with Section 37 of the Income tax Act from the A.Y. 2006- 07onwards.
The assessee during this financial year has borrowed Foreign Capital in fully convertible "Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds" which is Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds due on 2010 Page 2 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad of 54,33,000 US$. The assessee has entered into agreement with M/s. J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd and has raised Rs.242,34,26,290/-. As per agreement J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., has agreed to bring Foreign Private Equity (PE) for Deccan Chronicle Holdings and has submitted that "2.85 per cent of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds. Such fee shall be deducted from the subscription monies for the Bonds". The total receipt for FCCB, is net of the payments made in London. The foreign currency monies received is net of payments to M/s. J.P Morgan Securities Ltd., London. The assessee further submitted that the payments is from foreign branch of M/s. J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., London, hence, no TDS was deducted as the receipt of the total amount from the foreign equity was net of this payment.
On verification it is seen that as per agreement J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd., has received 1539627 US$ as a fee. The assessee has submitted that the private equity was facilitated by J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd.,London. That is to say that the net receipt for FCCB issue is Foreign Currency Convertible Bond is net of commission/brokerage paid. This expenditure is already claimed by the assessee, hence 35D is not applicable in this case.
Hence, the expenditure attributable to FCCB is already excluded in the receipts. No expenditure/allowance can be given in this transaction. For the reasons cited above, 35D cannot be allowed and hence the claim of the assessee is being disallowed."
4. The ld CIT (A) held as follows:
6.1 During appeal proceedings, the appellant stated that during the year the company incurred an expenditure of Rs.2.59 Crores on debenture issue and Rs.7.91 Crores on foreign currency convertible bonds. This total expenditure amounting to Rs.10.50 Crores was adjusted against the share premium account. Being deferred revenue expenditure, the claim was made under section 35D of the Act and 1/5th of the expenditure was claimed. The following written submissions were given by the appellant:
The AO in page 3 of the order has stated that "2.85 percent of the aggregate principal amount of FCCB Bonds and such fee shall be deducted from the subscription monies of the Bonds". The Gross proceeds of the issue was Rs.242 Crores and the net proceeds Page 3 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad was Rs.234 Crores, difference Rs.7.91 Crores was paid towards issue expenses. The AO further states that "the Net Receipt for FCCB Bonds is net of commission/brokerage paid and since this expenditure is already claimed by the assessee, Sec 35D is not applicable".
This is an incorrect conclusion, the company has accounted for the Gross proceeds of Rs.242 Crores under the head FCCB Bonds a/c, issue Expenditure of Rs.7.91 Crores was reduced it from the Securities Premium Account as it is permitted U/S 78 of the Companies Act in the Reserves & Surplus side of the Balance Sheet and not by way of debit in the Profit & Loss A/c.
In the computation of Income the Company has separately claimed the deduction of 1/5th of the Expenditure of Rs.209 lakhs. Hence the conclusion of the AO that the expenditure is a double claim i.e., once debited in the Profit & Loss account and the second time in the Computation of Income is incorrect."
6.2 I have considered carefully the facts and circumstances.
The Assessing Officer has not stated anywhere that the deduction under section 35D is not allowable. Rather the only reason for making the addition is that the appellant has claimed double deduction i.e., once by excluding the expenditure from the receipt and secondly by way of deduction under section 35D. In the present case, I find that the Assessing Officer is factually incorrect in stating that a portion of the expense has to be debited to the P&L A/c. None of the expense finds a place in the P&L A/c. The expense in question is capital in nature and cannot be taken to the P&L A/c. The expenses have been taken directly to the Balance Sheet as is clearly seen from the statement of accounts submitted the appellant. Once the fundamental presume of the Assessing Officer is incorrect, it is clear that the appellant has not claimed any double deduction; rather it has been claimed only once. Moreover, the issue of actual allowability of deduction u/s.35D is not the subject matter of disallowance. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the claim of the appellant is allowable and the addition is ordered to be deleted".
5. Hence, we dismiss ground Nos. 2 & 3 for the A.Ys 2007-08 and 2008-
09. Ground No.4 "4. The CIT (A) ought to have considered that the expenditure on issue of Qualified Institutional Buyers are not public issue".
Page 4 of 13ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad
6. With respect to Ground No.4 for the AY 2008-09, we find that the AO has not disallowed for the AY 2006-07 & 2007-08. However, the AO has disallowed the expenditure on the issue of Qualified Institutional Buyers for the AY 2008-09 which has been allowed by the CIT(A) holding as under:
"5. I have gone through the factual and legal contentions of the appellant in support of its argument that the deduction was claimed u/s.35D r.w.s. 37 i.e., both u/s.35D and 37. I agree with the argument of the appellant that the language used in S.35D is so plain and unambiguous that the only condition laid down in that section is that the issue should be offered for public subscription and the mode of placement is immaterial. Thus, the only issue for consideration is whether QIB can be called "public"
or not. After a careful and comprehensive consideration of the relevant provisions of Company Law, Securities Contract (Regulation) Rules, SEBI Guidelines/Instructions, I am of the considered opinion that QIBs constitute "public" and accordingly, the subscription made by the would amount to public subscription. In this view of the matter and also considering the facts with regard to the utility of funds raised through QIB issue, I hold that the issue expenditure, to the extent attributable to the funds utilized for extension of the appellant's undertakings, is eligible for deduction u/s.35D. So far as the remaining funds, utilized for modernization and working capital requirements of the appellant's business are concerned, I have considered both factual and legal submissions of the applicant, in support of its contention that the expenditure was in the nature of revenue expenditure since the primary object and intent of raising these funds was to meet the operational requirements, in order to run the business more efficiently and profitably. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, after analyzing plethora of case-law on this subject, had laid down certain broad guidelines, in the case of J.K. Synthetics, to decide whether a particular expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. Tested against these broad legal principles, I am of the opinion that there is considerable force in the arguments of the appellant company that the expenditure claimed by it clearly falls in the revenue field. These guidelines were impliedly approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of the fact that the SLP filed against this decision was dismissed. There is also merit in the argument of the appellant company that the facts of its case are distinguishable from those in the case of Brookebond, for the detailed reasons submitted by it, and therefore its claim cannot be denied by relying on that decision. It was further claimed that though the entire expenditure was allowable in one year u/s.37, the same was treated as Deferred Revenue Expenditure and claimed over five years, starting from Page 5 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad AY 2007-08. The concept of Deferred Revenue Expenditure is now legally recognized by various judicial authorities and in fact, this was upheld even in the case of the appellant by my predecessor, while deciding the appeal for AY 2006-07. In view of the above facts, I hold that the expenditure of Rs.2,07,00,112/- claimed for AY 2008-09 is allowable u/s.35D and 37. As the claim of this expenditure u/s.35D r.w.s. 37 is in order, the disallowance on this account is deleted."
7. We find that during the year 2007-08, the company incurred debenture expenses of Rs.2.07 crores and QIB issue expenditure of Rs.8.28 crores, both totaling to Rs.10.35 crores. The expenditure referred to above of Rs.10.35 crores was adjusted against the share premium account as per the provision of Companies Act. However, the expenditure being deferred revenue expenditure falls within the ambit of section 35D r.w.s. 37 of the I.T. Act which is eligible to be charted to Profit and Loss A/c. Accordingly as per the provisions of section 35D of the I.T. Act, 1/5th of the QIB issue expenditure i.e. Rs.207.00 lakhs was written off. Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) are a class of investors as a part of the large investor community and the companies sought for QIB issues because the funds can be raised within a short span. This is an extremely important investment for larger investors and since the buyers are only a class of investors, the issue of shares to QIB have been considered as public issue. The expenses in connection with public issue of shares or debentures of the company are allowable. Reliance is placed on CIT vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd (162 ITR 819 (MP). Hence on the merits of the issue, the QIB expenditure can be treated as Revenue expenditure and eligible for deduction u/s 35D of the I.T. Act is confirmed. Hence on merits of the issue as well as the fact that the same issue has been allowed in the earlier years and the Department cannot came upon in appeals in the subsequent years would be the reason to dismiss the Departmental appeal. We confirm the order of CIT(A) with respect to Qualified Institutional Buyers expenses and dismiss the departmental appeal on this issue. In the result, the departmental appeal for the AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 are dismissed.
Page 6 of 13ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad Assessment Year 2009-10
8. The first ground is general in nature. With respect to second ground that "The CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of expenditure on account of the Editorial content and brand right expenditure amounting to Rs.90.80 lacs as revenue expenditure even though the expenses were incurred for acquisition of right having enduring benefit as such capital in nature", the issue has been dealt with in the AY 2006-07, which is as follows:
The AO held as below:
"The assessee has paid Rs.9.08 crores as Content Rights to M/s. Asian Age Holdings Ltd. The assessee was asked to submit the details and it has submitted vide its submissions dated 15.12.2008 as under:
"Advances paid to AAHL towards purchase of past editorial content was reflected as receivable from AAHL, part of these payments were subsequently capitalized as Brand 8s Editorial Content purchase under the group 'Miscellaneous expenditure to be written off in the financial year 2005-06. These amounts are offered as income in AAHL in earlier years which was capitalized in DCHL books in current year."
On scrutinization, it was found that these expenditures were not made during the relevant financial year, these payments were made for purchase of content and brand rights of Asian Age Holdings Ltd., Newspaper Company in Delhi, which was subsequently acquired by Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd.
While scrutiny proceedings it was found that the assessee has not taken this as an intangible capital asset. They have taken under the head as Miscellaneous Expenditure to be written off under the head current liabilities and provisions. As per Profit & Loss Account, under the head sales and administrative expenses Rs.45.20 lacs under the composite head of miscellaneous expenditure they have been claimed as revenue expenditure.
As these expenditures have not been claimed u/s.35A, nor capitalized under the head assets, it cannot be taken as revenue expenditure for the relevant financial year. Hence, an Page 7 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad amount of Rs.45.20 lacs is disallowed, not being a revenue expenditure."
8.1 The CIT (A) held as follows:
"During appeal proceedings, the appellant contended that it had paid Rs.9.08 crores for content rights to M/s. Asian Age Holdings. This amount was taken to the balance sheet and the company adopted an accounting policy to write off its expenditure over a period of 10 years. In view of the above, the said expenditure was being written off every year. It was stated that the amount could be taken has deferred revenue expenditure and allowed or it could be capitalized as an intangible asset so as to allow amortization @ 25%. The following are the important portions of the arguments of the appellant:
"The company adopted an accounting policy to write off this expenditure over a period of 10 years i.e. 120 months, keeping in view the utility of such brand right and editorial content which amounted to Rs.45,20,000/- and formed part of the Miscellaneous Expenditure Written Off which was debited to Profit and Loss account.
The AO disallowed the expenditure on the grounds that the expenditure has not been claimed u/s.35A.." It is pertinent to note are ephemeral and transitory in nature in as much as they are a part of a continuous process and need to be expended in order to generate and increase the brand recall and sustain it in the minds of customer. The Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co Ltd Vs. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 has itself observed that the idea of 'once for all' payment and 'enduring benefit' are not to be treated as something akin to statutory conditions; nor are the notions of 'Capital' or 'Revenue' a judicial fetish. What is capital expenditure and what is revenue are not eternal verities but must need to be flexible so as to respond to the changing economic realities of business. The expression 'asset or advantage of an enduring nature', was evolved to emphasize the element of a sufficient degree of durability appropriate to the context.
The expenditure is essentially revenue in nature and the decision to treat the same as deferred revenue only represents a management decision taken in view of the magnitude of the expenditure involved. There have been a slew of recent judgments of various Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Page 8 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad Tribunal wherein the above issue has been addressed directly and almost universally the decision has been in favour of the assessees. More particularly reference may be made in this context to the following judgments:-
Amar Raja Batteries Ltd. V ACIT[(2004) 91 ITD 280 (Hyd)] JCIT V. Modi Olivetti Ltd [(2005)4 SOT 859 (Delhi)] ACIT Vs. Medicamen Biotech Ltd [(2005) 1 SOT 347 (Delhi)] Hero Honda Motors Ltd v. Joint Commissioner of Inco9me Tax [(2005) Charak Pharmaceuticals v. JCIT [(2005) 4SOT 393 (Mumbai)] Alternatively, the acquisition costs could have been capitalized under the head Fixed Assets as Intangible assets and amortized over a period of time at a rate of 25%. If the intangible asset was amortized U/s.32, the charge to profit and loss account would be Rs.227 lacs instead of Rs.45.20 lacs."
5.2 I have carefully considered the facts and evidence. The appellant has not shown this asset in the balance sheet. Therefore, it cannot claim depreciation on the same. The appellant has insisted that the expenditure is classified as deferred revenue expenditure, in view of the fact that it cannot be classified as an intangible asset under section 35A and the benefits of this expense are available over a period of many years.
5.2.1 In order to understand whether the accounting treatment given by the appellant is correct or not, one has to understand what exactly is the meaning of deferred revenue expenditure.
5.2.2 Deferred Revenue Expenditure is essentially an accounting concept denoting expenditure, for which a payment has been made or a liability incurred, which is essentially revenue in nature but which for various reasons (quantum, period of expected future benefit, considerations of impact on the bottom line etc) and also on the 'presumption' that the same will result in benefits over a subsequent period or periods is spread out and written off over a period of time.
Page 9 of 13ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad Deferred Revenue Expenditure can comprise diverse components of expenditure and manifest itself in the accounts in a wide variety of ways. For instance in recent years, "the rising demand consequent upon the increased purchasing power in the hands of the consumers has led, the business and industrial world to incur major expenditures inter-alia on advertisement, sales promotion etc with a view to enhance the visibility of their products and thereby increase their topline. Such expenditure invariably represents either outlays on a major advertising campaign undertaken in different media with a view to enhance the visibility or modify the image of a product; holding of contests to expand the reach and promote sales, celebrity endorsements, one-time sponsorship or mega events, dealership incentives and other such significant sales promotion initiatives which go to increase and expand the brand recall of the products of a particular company [Sanjeeva Narayan; The Chartered Accountant, May 2006, 1626].
Although the nature of such expenditure is entirely revenue, keeping in view the fact that the benefits arising therefrom are expected to be derived over a period of time, stretching sometimes over several accounting periods, the business world has been prone to treat such expenditure as a 'Deferred Revenue Expenditure" and consequently has been amortizing the same over the expected time period over which the benefits are likely to accrue there from. Accordingly only a proportion of the same is amortized in the Profit and Loss Account but an appropriate adjustment is made in the Computation of Income whereby the entire expenditure is claimed as allowable revenue expenditure.
5.2.3 However, coming to the Income Tax Act, fundamentally, only two kinds of expenses are explicitly recognized i.e., capital and revenue. The former is not debited to the P&L A/c and is inexplicably linked to an asset, for which depreciation is allowed every year. On the other hand, revenue expenditure is allowed in one financial year. 5.2.4 The Supreme Court in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 377 has itself observed that the idea of 'once for all' payment and 'enduring benefit' are not to be treated as something akin to statutory conditions; nor are the notions of 'Capital' or 'Revenue' a judicial fetish. What is capital expenditure and what is revenue are not eternal verities but must need to be flexible so as to respond to the changing economic realities of business. The expression 'asset or advantage of an Page 10 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad enduring nature' was evolved to emphasize the element of a sufficient degree of durability appropriate to the context.
Thus while, for the purpose of the issue under consideration, the test of the enduring benefit fails at the initial stage itself, and even if the said test were to be explicitly applied it cannot be said that the said expenditure is of a capital nature. Further, no capital assets come into being as a result of the same and consequently the same cannot be classified as a capital expenditure. The expenditure is essentially revenue in nature and the decision to treat the same as deferred revenue only represents a management decision taken in view of the magnitude of the expenditure involved. For the purpose of allowability of any expenditure under the Income-tax Act 1961, what is material is the classification between the capital and revenue and the same does not recognize of any concept of deferred revenue expenditure.
5.2.5 In case of Bajaj Sevashram Limited Vs Dy.CIT (2006) 280 ITR 480 (Raj), the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that expenditure incurred for advertisement during a year can be debited in parts over several years. The assessee's policy of spreading over the expenses for a number of years was in order.
5.2.6 Coming to this specific expense in question, the first and foremost point is that the Assessing Officer has recognized the expense to be proper and for business purpose. In other words, it is allowable under section 37 of the Act as being for business purpose, although whether it is revenue or capital has to be decided. Therefore, the first conclusion is that the expense has to be allowed being for business purpose. The only question which, therefore, is a subject matter of debate is whether the entire expense is to be allowed as revenue expenditure in one financial year or to be capitalized as an intangible asset with the allowance of depreciation or it is to be treated as genuine and for business purpose, completely disallowing the same is incorrect.
5.2.7 The appellant has not shown this expense as an asset in the balance sheet. Therefore, depreciation cannot be allowable on it. With regard to the nature of expense, it is to be seen that the appellant acquired the brand "The Asian age" and rights over past editorial contest for a consideration of Rs.9.80 Crore. There is no doubt about the fact that the brand as well as the past editorial Page 11 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad contest will have benefits pertaining to the appellant for more than one financial year.
5.3 In view of the aforementioned judgments of the various courts, it would not be proper to debit the entire amount in one year as it would violate the matching principle. On the other hand, it is clear that the benefits of the expense will accrue to the appellant over many financial years. But, it cannot be quantified accurately as to how much would be the benefit in a particular financial year. Unlike in bonds, where quantifications are simple and accurate, in this case, it is ultimately the judgment of the business head based on realities of the industry and economy which will determine the amount by which or the percentage of benefit available in a particular year. In the present case, the management has decided that the benefits of the expense will accrue to the company over a period of 12 years. The Assessing Officer does not have any contrary information to indicate a shorter or longer period.
5.3.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the expense in question is to be treated a deferred revenue expenditure and allowed as claimed by the appellant. This issue is decided in favour of the appellant.
8.2 With respect to Asian Age Brand Rights and Editorial Contends rights, we find that the CIT(A) has allowed the Asian Age Brand Rights and Editorial Contents Rights in the AY 2006-07 and the department did not file appeal accepting the order of CIT(A). Hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) where at Para 4.2 of CIT(A) has held as follows:
"4.2 I have gone through the detailed submissions of the appellant and the appeal records for AY 2006-07 to 2009-10. After a careful consideration of the same, I am of the opinion that there is merit in the argument of the appellant. As contended by the appellant, the disallowance under dispute was made for the first time for the AY 2006-
07. On appeal by the assessee, the disallowance was deleted by my predecessor, vide his order in ITA No.0007/Addl CIT-16/CIT(A)-V/2011-12 dt.18.5.2011, after a detailed discussion of the basis of disallowance and the factual and legal position on the issues under consideration. As the ground for disallowance for AY 2009-10 was same as for AY 2006-07, the decision of my predecessor for that year was followed and relief was granted for this year also, Page 12 of 13 ITA Nos.1247 to 1249 of 2014 Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd Hyderabad by deleting the disallowance, vide order in ITA Nos.0284/Addl CIT-16/CIT(A)-V/2011-12 dated 22.11.2012 for AY 2009-10. It is an undisputed fact the department had not contested the order of CIT(A) for AY 2006-07, by filing an appeal before the ITAT, obviously for the reason that there was no infirmity in the CIT's order, both on facts and in law. Thus, the issue stand concluded. In view of the above facts and in conformity with the directions of Hon'ble ITAT, that the department cannot agitate the same issues for subsequent years if they were accepted in the earlier AY 2006-07, I delete the disallowance of Rs.90.80- lakhs for AY 2009-10.
8.3 We dismiss the Revenue's appeal as the Department has not filed appeal against the order of the CIT (A) for the A.Y 2006- 07 and hence is estopped from filing appeal on the same issue in this year (being subsequent year). The Revenue's appeal for A.Y 2009-10 is dismissed.
9. In the result, the Revenue's appeal for A.Y 2007-08, 2008- 09 and 2009-10 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P.M. Jagtap) (Asha Vijayaraghavan)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Hyderabad, dated 30th January, 2015.
Vnodan/sps
Copy to:
1. The DCIT, Circle 16(2) Hyderabad
2. M/s Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd, 6-3-898, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad
3. The CIT(A)-V Hyderabad
4. The CIT Hyderabad
5. The DR, ITAT, Hyderabad
6. Guard File By Order Page 13 of 13