Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt.Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 25 March, 2008
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT
AHMEDABAD
AHMEDABAD "B"BENCH
Before Shri G.D. Agarwal, Vice-President (AZ) and
Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member
ITA No.2349/ Ahd/2008
[Asstt.Year: 2005-06]
DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad -vs- Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd.
Navjivan Trust Buildings, Off 7604, Phase-IV, Vata,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahm edabad
PAN No. AABCM 8848G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
C.O.No.182/ Ahd/2008
(arising out ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008)
Assessm ent Year:2005-06
Mahavir Iniductomelt Pvt. Ltd -vs- Income Tax Officer, W ard-4(4)
7604, Phase-IV, GIDC Estate Navjivan Trust Building,
Vatva, Ahmedabad Ahm edabad
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Revenue by :Shri K.C. Naredi, CIT-DR
Assessee by: Shri A.L. Thakkar, AR
ORDER
PER BENCH:-
This appeal by Revenue and Cross Objection (CO) by assessee are arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-VIII, Ahmedabad in appeal No. CIT(A)-VIII/DC-4/190/2007-08 dated 25-03-2008. The assessment was framed by DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide his order dated 31-12-2007 for assessment year 2005-06.ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06
DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 First we will take up Revenue's appeal in ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008.
2. The first issue in this appeal of the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer on account of excess claim of premium paid on plot. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground No.1:-
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.16,79,850/- on account of excess claim of premium paid on plot."
3. The brief facts leading to the above issue are that assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.18,66,452/- as premium paid on plot allotted by Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB for short) and assessee claimed the same in its business of ship breaking as it has obtained that plot on lease from GMB. The assessee paid this amount as premium on leasehold property. According to Assessing Officer, the assessee has acquired this plot from GMB under lease and Lease Agreement was for ten years and accordingly this is a capital asset and payment made for acquiring capital asset is capital expenditure. Accordingly, he allowed deduction only of 1/10th expenditure and disallowed the balance amount of Rs.16,79,850/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee by giving following findings in para-4.2 of his appellate order:-
"4.2 I have considered the submissions of the A.R carefully. The appellant has procured a lease hold plot from Gujarat Maritime Board for the purpose of its business of ship breaking. The appellant interchanged the plot originally allotted on request to Gujarat Maritime Board by obtaining permission to use the plot. The appellant has not acquired any capital assessed as held by ITAT in the case of Kapurchand Bansal cited by the A.R wherein it has been held that no advantage of enduring nature was obtained by the assessee by paying premium for acquisition of plot. Accordingly, following the said decision, the claim of the appellant is allowed as revenue expenditure and the disallowance made by the A.O is deleted."
Aggrieved, now Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal.
4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts of the case. We find that assessee-company possessed plot No.96 and on request made to ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06 DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 GMB, permission sought was granted for plot No.V-5. Accordingly, plot No.96 was inter-changed with bigger plot No.B-5. The original plot No.96 was acquired by paying premium of Rs.9,11,250/- for 30 months. Since the same was used for 8 months the previous year relevant to assessment year 2003-04 the value written off is Rs.2.43 lakh. The basis on which the plot premium has been written off is given in the sheet attached herewith. The assessee-company had written off the amount of plot premium in the earlier years, the details of which are as under:-
Assessment Year Period for which the plot was used Amount (in Rs) 2003-04 Plot No.96 for 8 months Plot No.V- 9,47,300
5 for 4 months 2004-05 Plot No.V-5 10,56,450 2005-06 Plot No.B-5 18,66,450 The outstanding amount of plot premium as on 31-03-2004 was Rs.10,56,450/- and during the assessment year under appeal, the assessee paid further amount of Rs.8.10 lakh. Therefore the total amount works out to Rs.18,66,450/- and aforesaid amount had been written off during the year under consideration. During the year application for renewal of the lease is still pending and in the meantime, GMB had directed to make ad hoc payment of Rs.8.10 lakh which was paid for the usage of the plot for the purpose of the business and deduction u/s.37(1) for a sum of Rs.18,86,450/- had been claimed. We find that the plot premium paid by assessee- company at Rs18,66,450/- is as under:-
Plot No. Period Amount of plot premium
claimed.
V-5 1.10.2004 to 30.09.2005 Rs.8,10,000
V-5 01.12.2002 to 30.09.2004 Rs.8,74,200
Plot No.119 1.10.1994 to 30.09.2004 Rs.1,82,250
In view of the above fact, the total premium for the period from 01-10-2004 to 30-09- 2005 was Rs.16.20 lakh and the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.8.10 lakh for this period. The balance amount of Rs.8,74,200/- was claimed for the period from 01-12-2002 to 30-09-2004 and Rs.1,82,250/- for the period ending 30th September,2004. In view of this face, we are of the view that the assessee has rightly claim deduction of Rs.18,66,460/-, which was allowed by CIT(A). We confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 4
5. The next issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by invoking the provisions of Deemed Dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground No.2:-
"2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and don the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.1,94,54,869/- as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e)."
6. The brief facts are that Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings made addition of Rs.1,94,54,869/- for the loans and advances received from M/s.Mahavir Rolling Mills Ltd. (MMRML for short) as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. The AO observed that MMRML is a company in which public are not substantially interested and one of the Directors, Shri K.K. Bansal holds more than 20% of shares both in MMRML and M/s. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd i.e. the assessee. From the accounts of the assessee as appearing in the books of account for financial year 2004-05, it was noticed that MMRML has advanced huge sums of money to the assessee and the loans and advances made by MMRML to the assessee was liable to be taxed as deemed dividend din the hands of the assessee- company. Accordingly, the AO issued a show cause notice to treat the same amount as deemed dividend and he observed that loans/advances transactions to the tune of Rs.21.96 crores have taken place between the assessee and MMRML and MMRML is a company in which public are not substantially interested. The assessee's contention that loans and advances have been granted during the ordinary course of business was noted to be not correct. The AO noted that the assessee could not establish that provisions are not applicable or it is covered by any of the exceptions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and he assessed deemed dividend as income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee and deleted the addition by giving following finding in para-5.2 of his appellate order:-
5.2 I have considered the submissions of the A.R carefully. In the case of Nulon India Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 12 SOT 260 (Del), it was observed that the loan has not been given to the appellant company for the benefit of any shareholder and the amount was received by the appellant company which is not a shareholder of any of the payer companies, and since the appellant is not a shareholder having any shares in the payer companies, the\ provisions of section 2(22)_(e) are not attracted.ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06
DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 Further reliance is made on the decision in the case of Madura Coats (P) Ltd. In re [2005] reported in 274 ITR 609 (AAR). The head notes in this case read as under:-
"Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is a deeming provision and it is well settled that it has to be construed strictly. To attract sub- clause (e) the shareholder must be a registered shareholder, CIT v. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar [1972] 83 IUTR 170 (SC); Nandlal Kanora v. CIT [1980] 122 ITR 405 (Cal) and Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal v CIT [1980] 122 ITR 1 (SC) followed.
The applicant was an Indian company and a resident I India. It proposed to advance to CFL, a non-resident company incorporated in the UK, interest hearing loan out of accumulated profits within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 CFL, the UK company, did not by itself hold any shares in the applicant. Another UK company CHL (main company), was the holding company of CFL, and some subsidiaries (other than CFL) of CHL and JPC held shares in the applicant. The applicant stated case to the Authority for a ruling on the question whether the amount of the proposed loan could be treated as "deemed dividend" under section 2(22)(e) to the extent of the accumulated profits.
On the facts stated the Authority ruled:
That being a shareholder of the lender company was a common factor of the requirements of section 2(220(e). To attract sub-clause (e) the shareholder had to be a registered shareholder of the lending company. CFL was not a registered shareholder of the applicant; JPC was not a member or a partner much less had it any substantial interest in CFL as defined in section 2(32); and there was nothing on record to suggested that the loan was being advanced to CFL on behalf of, or for the individual benefit of JPC. Therefore, the proposed loan to be given by the applicant to CFL would not be "deemed dividend" under section 2(22)(e) to the extent of "accumulated\ed profits.""
In view of the above facts and the ratio laid down in the above cases as the appellant is not a shareholder of Mahavir Rolling Mills Ltd. and the loan has not been given to the appellant company for the benefit; of any shareholder the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are held not applicable to the appellant. Hence, the addition of deemed dividend is deleted."
7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the similar issue in assessee's sister concern in the case of ITO v. Mahavir Rolling Mills Ltd. in ITA No.2337/Ahd/2008 dated 19-11-2010 for assessment year 2005-06, wherein clear finding is given in para-14 that the assessee-company in which public is not substantially interest and one of the Director, Shri K.K.Bansal holds more than 20% share both in assessee-
ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 company and MMRML that assessee-company is not holding even a single share in MMRML and no shareholding is held by assessee-company in MMRML That means that the assessee-company is not shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of the person other than a shareholder the deemed dividend can be assessed. We have taken this view in assessee's sister concern in ITA No.2337/Ahd/2008 (supra) as under:-
13. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Special Bench Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P.) Ltd.(2009) 118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB) and further by the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Hilltop (2009) 313 ITR 116 (Raj).
14. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer observed that M/s. MIPL is a company in which the public is not substantially interest and one of the Director, Shri K.K Bansal holds more than 20% of share both in the assessee-company and M/s MRPL, the AO further observed that as per the books of account, M/s. MRPL has advanced huge sum to M/s MRPL i.e. the assessee-company and MIPL have shown reserves and surplus at Rs.1,01,54,414/-. The AO therefore observed that the loans and advances made by MIPL to MRML is liable to taxed as deemed dividend. In response to the show cause notice asking the assessee to explain why the amount should not be treated as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e), the assessee filed written submissions dated 22-12-2007 which had been reproduced by the AO at para-7.3 in assessment order. It was explained to the AO in the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee-company is not holding a single share in MRML and the aforesaid fact can also be ascertained from the chart which has been produced by the A.O in para-7.1 of the assessment order. The AO without appreciating the relevant facts in proper perspective and the detailed submissions furnished by the assessee and made addition of Rs.1,01,54,414/-. We find from the assessment order that he has not dealt with the issue of the assessee that the assessee-company is not holding even a single share of MIPL and now before us the assessee has demonstrated that no shareholding is held by the assessee-company of MIPL. But even otherwise, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT v. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd. (2009) 118 ITD 1 (Mum)(SB), wherein the Hon'ble Special Bench has held as under:-
"33. We may also touch upon certain other aspects of the issue n the light of the submissions made before us. The Tribunal in the case of Nikko Technologies (supra), while holding that the payment made by a company even to a non-shareholder can be brought to tax in the hands of the non-shareholder has made the following observations.ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06
DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 "Section 2(22)(e) only specifies the circumstances under which a payment by way of loan/advance is to be treated as deemed dividend. Once it is determined that any payment by way of loan/advance falls within the ambit of section 2(22)(e), then, it has to be treated as dividend even though such payment in the ordinary circumstances may not be considered as dividend. At this point of time, the role of section 2(22)(e) ends. It nowhere provides as to who is to be taxed in inspect of such income. It is to be borne in mind that the tax can only be assessed in the hands of right person as held by the apex court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchalah (1996) 218 ITR 239, at pages 243-244. In order to find out the right person, one has to examine the charging provisions of the Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are the charging provisions."
Thereafter, the Tribunal has referred to the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act and has concluded that income accrues to the person who is the recipient of the payment from the company. The Tribunal has thereafter referred to Circular No.495 dated September 22, 1987, of the Central Board of Direct Taxes wherein it has been opined that deemed dividend would be taxed in the hands of a concern (non-shareholder) also if the conditions mentioned in the section are satisfied.
34. We are of the view that the provisions of section 2(22)(e) do not spell out as to whether the income has to be taxed din the hands of the share-holder or the concern (non-shareholder). The provisions are ambiguous. IT is therefore necessary to examine the intention behind enacting the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
35. The intention behind enacting the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as dividend because if so distributed the dividend income would become taxable in the hands of the shareholders. Instead of distributing accumulated profits as dividend, companies distribute them as loan or advances to shareholder or to concern in which such shareholders have substantial interest or make any payment on behalf of or for the individual benefit of such shareholder. In such an event, by the deeming provisions such payment by the company is treated as dividend. The intention behind the provisions of section 2(22)(e) is to tax dividend in the hands of shareholder. The deeming provisions as it applies to the case of loans or advances by a company to a concern in which its shareholder has substantial interest, is based on the presumption that the loan or advances would ultimately be made available to the shareholders of the company giving the loan or advance. The intention of the Legislature is therefore to tax dividend only in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of the concern.
36. The basis of bringing in the amendment to section 2(22)(e) of the Act by the Finance Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1998, is to ensure that persons who control the affairs of a company as well as that of a firm can have the ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06 DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 payment made to a concern from the company and the person who can control the affairs of the concern can draw the same from the concern instead of the company directly making payment to the shareholder as dividend. The source of power to control the affairs of the company and the concern is the basis on which these provisions have been made. It is therefore proper to construe those provisions as contemplating a charge to tax in the hands of the shareholder and not in the hands of a non-shareholder viz., concern. A loan or advance received by a concern is not in the nature of income. In other words there is a deemed accrual of income even under section 5(1)(b) in the hands of the shareholder only and not in the hands of the payee, viz., non- shareholder (concern). Section 5(1)(a) contemplates that the receipt or deemed receipt should be in the nature of income. Therefore, the deeming fiction can be applied only in the hands of the shareholder and not the non- shareholder, viz., the concern.
37. The definition of dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act is an inclusive definition. Such inclusive definition enlarges the meaning of the term "dividend" according to its ordinary and natural meaning to include even a loan or advance. Any loan or advance cannot be dividend according to its ordinary and natural meaning. The ordinary and natural meaning of the term dividend would be a share in profits to an investor in the share capital of a limited company. To the extent the meaning of the word "dividend" is extended to loans and advances to a shareholder or to a concern in which a shareholder is substantially interested deeming them as dividend in the hands of a shareholder the ordinary and natural meaning of the word "dividend" is altered. To this extent the definition of the term "dividend" can be said to operate. If the definition of "dividend" is extended to a loan or advance to a non-shareholder the ordinary and natural meaning of the word dividend is taken away. In the light of the intention behind the provisions of section 2(22)(e) and in the absence of indication in section 2 (22)(e) to extended the legal fiction to a case of loan or advance to a non-shareholder also, we are of the view that loan or advance to a non-shareholder cannot be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of a non-shareholder.
38. The basic characteristic of dividend as held by the apex court in the case of Kantilal Manilal v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 275 is a share of profits of the company given to its shareholders. Further, section 206 of the Companies Act, 1956, prohibits payment of dividend to any person other than the registered shareholder. If one were to break up the natural meaning the following components emerge (a) dividend is a share of profits of the company (b) paid to its shareholders. Section 2(22) of the Act artificially extends the scope of dividend from being more than only a distribution of profits to cover certain other types disbursements such as loans paid, etc. (the first ingredient mentioned above). It does not however alter the second component of its natural meaning, viz., paid to its shareholder. In other words all that section 2(22) seeks to do is to expand the various types payments that may be regarded as dividend. The apex court while considering what can come within the artificial definition of dividend under section 2(22) in the case of CIT v. Nalin Behari Lall Singha [1969] 74 ITR 849 (SC) described the scope of the definition of dividend thus (page 851 of 74 ITR):
ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 "The definition is, it is true, an inclusive definition and a receipt by a shareholder which does not fall within the definition may possibly be regarded as dividend within the meaning of the Act unless the context negatives that view."
The contention of the Departmental representative that the provisions of section 8(a) of the Act creates a fiction by which even payments to non- shareholders can be construed as dividend cannot be accepted. Those provisions merely fix the year in which dividend has to be taxed. It is therefore clear that the shareholder alone can, if at all, be subjected to tax for having earned dividend.
39. In the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nikko Technologies Ltd. (supra) reliance has been placed on Circular No.495, dated September 22, 1987 ([1987] 1568 ITR (St.) 87), which states as follows (page 91):
"Further, deemed dividend would be taxed in the hands of a concern where all the following conditions are satisfied...."
We are of the view that circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the extent that they do not tone down the rigor of the provisions of the Act in the sense to the extent they are not benevolent are not binding.
40. Apart from the above, it is also noticed that section 2(22)(e)(iii) provides relief to a shareholder as follows:
"Dividend does not include,
(i) & (ii) ... ... ...
(iii) any dividend paid by accompany which is set off by the company against the whole or any part of any sum previously paid by it and treated as a dividend within the meaning of sub-clause (e) to the extent to which it is so set off."
In the event of the payment of loan or advance by a company to a concern being treated as dividend and taxed in the hands of the concern then, the benefit of set off cannot be allowed to the concern, because the concern can never receive dividend from the company which is only paid to the shareholder, who has substantial interest in the concern. The above provisions also therefore contemplate deemed dividend being taxed in the hands of a shareholder only. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the law laid down in the case of Nikko Technologies Ltd. (supra) is not correct. We, therefore, hold that deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be assessed only in the hands of a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of any other person.
41. In the light of the above discussion, the questions referred to the Special Bench are answered as follows:
ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 On the first question: Deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder.
On the second question: The expression shareholder referred to in section 2(22)(e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial shareholder then the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply.
42. Similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not a registered shareholder then also the provisions of section 2(22)(e) will not apply. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit inn this appeal by the Revenue and the same is, therefore, dismissed.."
15. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Hilltop (2009) 313 ITR 116 (Raj) wherein it is held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act the following four conditions are that since qua non : (a) the assessee should be a shareholder of the company; (b) the company should be a closely held company in which the public are not substantially interested; (c) there must be payment by way of advance or loan to a shareholder or any payment by the company on behalf of or for the individual benefit of the shareholder and (d) there must be sufficient accumulated profits in the hands of the company up to the date of such payment.
16. We find from the above case law of Mumbai Special Bench of this ITAT, wherein it is categorically held that the deemed dividend can be assessed only in the hands of a person who is a shareholder of the lender company and not in the hands of a person other than a shareholder. Accordingly, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, hence, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act made by Assessing Officer. This issue of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed."
We find that issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue in the present case also. Respectfully, following the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's sister concern in the case of Mahavir Rolling Mills Ltd. (supra) we uphold the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
ITA No.2349/Ahd/2008 & CO 182/Ahd/2008 A.Y. 05-06DCIT Cir-4, A'bd v. Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 Now coming to assessee's CO No.182/Ahd/2008.
8. The only issue in this CO of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) dismissed the ground challenging the reopening of the assessment. For this, assessee has raised the following effective ground No.1:-
"1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the ground challenging the reopening of the assessment and passing the order by the A.O. u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act which is illegal and bad in law. He further erred in holding that the reopening is for valid reasons."
9. At the outset Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that he has instruction from the assessee not to press this issue. Hence, we dismiss this issue as not pressed.
10. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed and that of assessee CO is dismissed as not pressed.
Order pronounced on this day of 10th Dec,2010
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.D.Agarwal) (Mahavir Singh)
(Vice President) (Judicial Member)
Ahmedabad,
Dated : 10/12/2010
*Dkp
Copy of the Order forwarded to:-
1. The Assessee.
2. The Revenue.
3. The CIT(Appeals)-VIII, Ahmedabad
4. The CIT concerns.
5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard File.
BY ORDER,
/True copy/
Deputy/Asstt.Registrar
ITAT, Ahmedabad