Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Niko Resources Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax on 17 March, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH " D "
Before Shri T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and
Shri N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date of hearing : 16/03/2010 Drafted on: 17/03/2010
ITA No.2717/AHD/2008
Assessment Year : 2002-03
The ADIT Vs. Niko Resources Limited
(International 4 t h Floor Landmark
Taxation) Race Course Circle
Ahmedabad Baroda
PAN/GIR No. : AAACN 7060 L
(APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT)
And
CO No.235/Ahd/2008
(arising out of ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008)
Assessment Year 2002-03
Niko Resources Ltd. The ADIT, (Intl.Taxn.)
Baroda vs. Ahmedabad
(Cross Objector) (Respondent)
Revenue by : Shri Jagdeo, CIT
Assessee by: S/Shri Percy
P.Pardiwalla/Tanvish
Bhatt/Vispi T.Patel
ORDER
PER SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the Assessee are against the order dated 15/05/2008 of the Learned CIT(Appeals)- XXI, Ahmedabad for Assessment Year 2002-03.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of exploration and production of natural gas and oil. For ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue) And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03 -2- the assessment year under appeal, it has filed the return of income on 31/02/2002 declaring total income of Rs.63,14,97,010/-. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 28/02/2005, wherein he allowed the deduction amounting to Rs.4,06,04,390/- u/s.44C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in respect of Head Office Expenses at 5% of adjusted income of income Rs.81,20,87,795/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 on 26/03/2006. The reasons recorded before issuing notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 are as under:-
"1. The return of income for A.Y. 2000-01 was filed on 31/10/2000 declaring total income at Rs.63,14,97,010/-. Subsequently, the assessment was finalized u/s.143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on 28/02/2005 determining total income at Rs.77,14,83,380/-. While finalizing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the deduction u/s.44C was computed and allowed to the assessee amounting to Rs.4,06,04,390/- as against Rs.3,32,36,685/- claimed by the assessee in the return of its income.
Subsequently, it was noticed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s.44C amounting to Rs.3,32,36,685/- and the said claim was approved by the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing-II), Mumbai vide his order dated 26/03/2004 u/s.92CA of the Act. Therefore, the deduction u/s.44C of Rs.4,96,04,390/-, which was allowed to the assessee while finalizing the assessment, resulted in excess allowance of deduction u/s.44C.
In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.73,67,705/- (4,06,04,390/- - 3,32,36,685/-) has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961."ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue)
And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03 -3- 2.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee objected to re-opening of the assessment. However, the Assessing Officer without commenting on the objection of the assessee regarding reopening of assessment, re-computed the income wherein he re-worked out the deduction allowable u/s.44C of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.3,32,36,685/- as against originally u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.4,06,04,390/-. Against the order passed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w.s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 10/12/2007, the assessee filed an appeal before the Learned CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds:-
"1. The appellant objects to the order dated December 12, 2007 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the Additional Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), Ahmedabad ('AO') for the aforesaid assessment year on the following among other grounds:
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO legally erred in re-opening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. The learned AO erred by not appreciating the fact that the appellant had disclosed all material acts in relation to deduction claimed under Section 44C, in the return of income as well as during the assessment proceedings. The reopening of the assessment on the same set of facts amounts to change of opinion.
In this connection, reliance may be placed on the following decisions:
• Foramer France (247 ITR 436 and 264 ITR 586) (SC) • Garden Silk Mills Ltd. (222 ITR 68) (Gujarat) • SGS India P.Ltd. (292 ITR 93) (Bom.) It is prayed that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act be quashed.ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue)
And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03 -4-
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in restricting the Head Office Expenses under Section 44C of the Act to Rs.33,236,685. He erred by not appreciating that the Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') has determined Rs.6.13 crores as arm's length price3 of the head office expenses attributable to Indian operations. Therefore, any amount claimed/allowed which is less than or equal to Rs.6.13 crores would met the arm's length standard as determined by the TPO.
It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to allow the Head Office expenses as per Section 44C of the Act i.e.5% of the adjusted total income.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in levying interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.
2.2. During the course of hearing before the Learned CIT(Appeals), it was contended that mere change of opinion cannot be the basis for re- opening the assessment. In support of this, reliance was placed on the following decisions:-
Sl.No(s) Decision in the case of ... Reported in...
1. CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (FB)
2. CIT vs. Eicher 163 Taxman 259 (Del)
3. CIT vs. Foramer France 264 ITR 566 (SC)
4. CIT vs. Bhanji Lavji 79 ITR 582 (SC)
5. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. vs. 251 ITR 416 (Bom) DCIT
6. Birla VXL Ltd. vs. CIT 217 ITR 1 (Guj.) ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue) And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03 -5- 2.3. Further, it was submitted that TPO made detailed scrutiny of the international transaction with head office of the assessee. On same set of facts, the Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment. The assessee had disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. To sum up, the assessee contended that the provisions of section 147 do not have any application to its case and, therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer was erroneous on point of law, contrary to the facts of the case and without or in excess of his jurisdiction. The assessee disclosed all the facts truly and fully. There is no omission on the part of the assessee as regards the disclosure of facts. The Assessing Officer has himself computed the deduction u/s.44C of Rs.4,06,04,390/- while computing taxable income in the assessment order at Rs.77,14,83,380/-. The Assessing Officer was having the order by TPO with him which clearly stated that the Arm's length price is Rs.6.13 crores. In accordance with the provisions of Section 44C of the Act and after applying his mind, the Assessing Officer allowed a deduction of Rs.40,604,390 which is 5% of adjusted total income then. Accordingly, the assessee argued that as held by the various courts, the Assessing Officer is not entitled to change his opinion on the same set of facts that were before him while passing the original assessment order.
2.4. On merits, before the Learned CIT(Appeals), it was contended that as per section 44C of the I.T. Act, 1961, the head office expenditure in the case of non-resident is allowed to the extent of lower of the following two amounts:-
ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue)And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03 -6-
(a) An amount equal to 5% of the adjusted total income (i.e. Income computed according to the provisions of the IT Act, before availing certain deductions under the said Act.)
(b) So much of the expenditure in the nature of head office expenses incurred by the assessee as is attributable to the business or profession of the assessee in India.
2.5. It was also submitted that in the Return of income, the assessee claimed head office expenses u/s.44C of the I.T. Act, 1961 (based on the 5% of the adjusted total income) Rs.3,32,36,685/-, whereas the amount of head office expenses attributable to the assessee in India is Rs.6.13 crores. The TPO had determined Rs.6.13 crores ALP of the head office expenses attributable to Indian operation. In view of this, the Assessing Officer correctly computed the deduction u/s.44C at Rs.4,06,04,390/- and allowed in the original assessment order.
3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, in the impugned order, the Learned CIT(Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer regarding re-opening of the assessment u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by giving a detailed reason as contained in page No.9 of his order which reads as under:-
"I have gone through the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submissions made by the counsel of the appellant alongwith various case laws relied upon by the appellant in support of his arguments. The Assessing Officer is fully within his powers to reopen the case of the appellant because the Assessing Officer in the order has allowed deduction u/s.44C of the Income-tax Act higher than what was claimed by the appellant. In view of the higher deduction allowed by the Assessing Officer as against the ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue) And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03 -7- claim of the appellant, the Assessing Officer is fully justified in reopening the assessment and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income- tax Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) & Green Arts (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2005) 257 ITR 639 (Delhi), that "in determining whether commencement of re-assessment proceedings is valid, the court has only to see whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the department opened the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. The assessee cannot challenge sufficiency of belief - ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC). What is the ultimate result of enquiry is not material for deciding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen assessment, even if it is found ultimately that there has been no escapement of income
- Mahasukhram Madan Lal vs. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 299 (Pat.)".
After the amendment in the section, the Assessing Officer has been granted vide powers for reopening the completed assessment and in the instant case the circumstances are quite evident on account of which the Assessing Officer has resorted to section 147 of the Income3-tax Act. Therefore, the objection of the appellant is rejected and reopening by the Assessing Officer is held to be in order."
3.1. On merits, the Learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition for the detailed reason given in his findings at page No.11 are in the following terms:-
"I have carefully gone through the order dated 28/02/2005 passed by the ACIT, Circle-6, Baroda and the submissions made by the Assessing Officer and I am of the opinion that deduction u/s.44C is dependent on adjusted total income. In the order dated 28/02/2005 passed u/s.143(3), the adjusted total income was arrived at Rs.81.21 crores and the claim of the appellant was restricted to 5% of the same computed at Rs.4.06 crores as against the claim of the appellant at Rs.3.32 crores. The deduction claimed by the appellant at Rs.3.32 crores was 5% of adjusted ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue) And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03 -8- total income arrived at by the appellant, which was of Rs.66.47 crores. The order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), Mumbai has also categorically stated that "considering the provisions of section 44C of the Income-tax Act, any downward revision of the arm's length price from Rs.6.13 cr4ores upto Rs.3.32 crores will not have any impact on the tax payable by the assessee company as the deduction u/s.44C has already been restricted to Rs.3.32 crores." The TPO has also accepted the arm's length price as computed by the assessee vide para 9 of her order. It becomes quite cler that deduction u/s.44C is dependant upon the adjusted total income. As the adjusted total income increases or decreases, the deduction u/s.44C also accordingly goes up or comes down. Therefore, the deduction as allowed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 28/02/2005 is as per the provisions of section 44C and addition made of Rs.73,67,705/- made by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 10/12/2007 is directed to be deleted."
4. Aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals), Revenue is in appeal before us by way of following grounds:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad erred in law in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s.44C of the I.T. Act and deleting the addition of Rs.73,67,705/-.
2. The Ld. Learned CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad erred in not considering the fact that TPO has not disturbed the Arm's length Price as determined by the assessee, keeping in mind that assessee has claimed only Rs.3,32,36,685/-, in the return of income.
5. The only ground raised by the assessee in its Cross Objection reads as under:
ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue)And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03 -9- The learned CIT(Appeals)erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income tax Act.
6. At the time of hearing, Shri Jagdeo-CIT, Learned Departmental Representative appeared for the Revenue and contended that in the impugned order, the Learned CIT(Appeals) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer regarding re-opening the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further, the Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that in the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction u/s.44C amounting to Rs.3,32,36,685/- and the said claim was approved by the Addl.CIT (TPO)--II, Mumbai. In paragraph No.7 of order u/s.92CA dated March 26, 2004, it is clearly mentioned that since the assessee's claim u/s.44C is already restricted to Rs.3.32 crores any downward revision to ALP from Rs.6.13 crores upto Rs.3.32 cores will not have any impact on the tax payable by the assessee-company. Hence, the arm's length price determined by the TPO in his order is Rs.3.32 crores. The TPO in his order did not disturb the arm's length price determined by the assessee, keeping in mind that assessee has claimed only Rs.3,32,36,685/- in the return of income. In view of this, the Assessing Officer, in the re-assessment proceedings, justified in restricting the deduction u/s.44C of the I.T. Act, 1961 to Rs.3,32,36,685/- as claimed by the assessee in the Return of income.
7. On the other hand, Shri Percy P.Pardiwalla, ld. counsel for the assessee filed a paper-book containing 61 pages which inter alia included Return of income filed for the Assessment Year 2002-03 wherein the ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue) And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03
- 10 -
assessee claimed Head Office expenditure u/s.44C of the I.T. Act, 1961 limiting to 5% of adjusted total income. In the assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer re-worked out the adjusted total income and deduction u/s.44C of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.4,06,04,390/-. The ld. counsel for the assessee also referred to the order passed u/s.93CA(3) for Assessment Year 2002-03 as well as notice issued u/s.148 and contended that it may be held that assessment is re-opened merely on change of opinion, therefore, the same be quashed. In support of this, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the various decisions including the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). The ld. counsel for the assessee further pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Kelvinator of India Ltd.(supra), after observing the changes and amendments brought about in section 147, from time to time, held as under (page 564):
"However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words 'reason to believe' failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue) And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03
- 11 -
treat the concept of 'change of opinion' as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer."
7.1. On merit, the ld. counsels for the assessee submitted that in the impugned order, the Learned CIT(Appeals) has given cogent reason for deleting the addition of Rs.73,67,705/-, therefore, the same be upheld.
8. After hearing both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and perused the material placed before us. It is pertinent to note that in the assessment framed u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28/02/2005, the Assessing Officer computed the adjusted income at Rs.81,20,87,765/-. On this adjusted income, he computed the deduction u/s.44C in respect of Head Office expenses at the rate of 5% of adjusted income of income Rs.81,20,87,795/- and allowed Rs.4,06,04,390/- as against Rs.3,32,36,685/- claimed by the assessee in the return of income. In the impuged order, the Learned CIT(Appeals) though upheld the action of the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessment u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 but deleted the addition as per his findings contained in page No.11 of his order which read as under:-
"I have carefully gone through the order dated 28/02/2005 passed by the ACIT, Circle-6, Baroda and the submissions made by the Assessing Officer and I am of the opinion that deduction u/s.44C is dependent on adjusted total income. In the order dated 28/02/2005 passed u/s.143(3), the adjusted total income was arrived at Rs.81.21 crores and the claim of the appellant was restricted to 5% of the same computed at Rs.4.06 crores as against the claim of the appellant at Rs.3.32 crores. The deduction claimed by the appellant at Rs.3.32 crores was 5% of adjusted total income arrived at by the appellant, which was of Rs.66.47 ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue) And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03
- 12 -
crores. The order of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), Mumbai has also categorically stated that "considering the provisions of section 44C of the Income-tax Act, any downward revision of the arm's length price from Rs.6.13 cr4ores upto Rs.3.32 crores will not have any impact on the tax payable by the assessee company as the deduction u/s.44C has already been restricted to Rs.3.32 crores." The TPO has also accepted the arm's length price as computed by the assessee vide para 9 of her order. It becomes quite clear that deduction u/s.44C is dependant upon the adjusted total income. As the adjusted total income increases or decreases, the deduction u/s.44C also accordingly goes up or comes down. Therefore, the deduction as allowed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 28/02/2005 is as per the provisions of section 44C and addition made of Rs.73,67,705/- made by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 10/12/2007 is directed to be deleted."
9. It is pertinent to note that in the Note No.4 appended with the return of income, the assessee has stated the amount of head office expenditure within the meaning of section 44C of the I.T. Act, 1961 incurred by the company during the subject year and as is attributable to Indian operations as is Rs.6,13,00,000/-. Towards this end, a copy of certificate issued by independent Accountants KPMG LLP, Canada was enclosed with the Return of income. However, as per provisions contained in section 44C, the assessee restricted the office expenditure limited to 5% of adjusted total income. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 28/02/2005 wherein he computed the deduction u/s.44C of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.4,06,04,390/- as under:-
"LESS : Deduction u/s.44C - Head Office Expenses @ 5% of adjusted income of income Rs.81,20,87,795 : Rs.4,06,04,390"ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue)
And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03
- 13 -
9.1. The aforesaid assessment had subsequently been re-opened u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26/03/2006. The said notice was issued by ACIT, Circle-6, Baroda after recording the following reasons:-
1. The return of income was filed declaring total income at Rs.63,14,97,010. Subsequently, the assessment was finalized u/s.143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on 28.2.2005 determining total income at Rs.77,14,83,380. While finalizing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, the deduction u/s.44C was computed and allowed to the assessee amounting to Rs.4,06,04,3980 as against Rs.3,32,36,685 claimed by the assessee in the return of its income.
Subsequently, it was noticed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s.44C amounting to Rs.3,32,36,685 and the said claim was approved by the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing-II), Mumbai vide his order dated 26.3.2004 u/s.92CA of the Act. Therefore, the deduction u/s.44C of Rs.4,06,04,390, which was allowed to the assessee while finalizing the assessment, resulted in excess allowance of deduction u/s.44C.
In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.73,67,705 (Rs.4,06,04,390 - Rs.3,32,36,685) has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961."
9.2. It is an admitted position that the re-opening is done within four years from the end of the relevant previous year and "all the material facts necessary for assessment" were disclosed. The Assessing Officer in the original assessment order u/s.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 applied ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue) And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee) ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03
- 14 -
his mind which evident from the fact that he re-computed the deduction allowable u/s.44C of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the present case is one of a mere change of opinion which is not permissible as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kelvinator of India Ltd.(supra). The ratio of that decision is squarely applicable to the facts of assessee's case. Hence, keeping in view the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in mind, the only inescapable conclusion is that section 147/148 proceedings are without jurisdiction. We, therefore, quash the assessment framed u/s.147 r.w.s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 10/12/2007.
10. In the result, cross objection filed by the Assessee is allowed.
11. In view of our above decision in assessee's cross objection(supra), the appeal of the Revenue is rendered infructuous and is hereby dismissed.
12. Resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 26 /03 /2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
( N.S. SAINI ) ( T.K.SHARMA )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 26/ 03 /2010
T.C. NAIR
ITA No.2717/Ahd/2008 (By Revenue)
And CO No.235/Ahd/2008 (By Assessee)
ADIT (Intl.Taxn.) Ahd vs. Niko Resources Ltd.
Asst.Year - 2002-03
- 15 -
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT Concerned.
4. The ld. CIT(Appeals)-XXI, Ahmedabad
5. The DR, Ahmedabad Bench.6. The Guard File.
BY ORDER, स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt.Registrar), ITAT, Ahmedabad