Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Cera Sanitaryware Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 29 May, 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
''B'' BENCH - AHMEDABAD
Before S/Shri G. D. Agarwal, VP & Rajpal Yadav, JM
ITA No. 2817/Ahd/2011
Asst. Year 2008-09
.Cera Sanitaryware Ltd., Vs Dy. CIT (OSD), Range-1,
Madhusudan House, Opp. Ahmedabad.
Navrangpura Tel. Exchange,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PA No. AABCM9244 N
ITA No. 2877/Ahd/2011
Asst. Year 2008-09
Asstt. CIT (OSD), Range-1, Vs .Cera Sanitaryware Ltd.,
Ahmedabad. Madhusudan House, Opp.
Navrangpura Tel. Exchange,
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-
380009
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Shri S. N. Soparkar, AR
Revenue by Shri Roop Chand, Sr. DR
Date of hearing: 23/4/2015
Date of pronouncement: 29/5/15
ORDER
PER Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member.
The assessee and Revenue are in cross appeals against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 7/9/2011 passed for AY 2008-09. ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 2 Asst. Year 2008-09
2. First we take the appeal of Revenue. In the solitary substantial ground of appeal Revenue has pleaded that ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,29,17,418/- which was added by the AO by making disallowance out of claim of additional depreciation.
3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing and trading of ceramics. It has filed its return of income on 24/9/2008 declaring total income at Rs.4,99,85,297/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts it revealed to the AO that assessee had purchased a wind-mill for a consideration of Rs.6,55,87,091/- during the year. It had claimed additional depreciation on wind-mill at Rs.1,29,17,418/-. The AO had issued a questionnaire on 11/10/2010 under section 142(1) and asked the explanation of the assessee, as to why additional depreciation should not be disallowed because assessee has not been manufacturing any article or things out of the wind-mill. According to the AO the wind-mill essentially generate power but no manufacturing activity can be construed from the wind-mill and, therefore, additional depreciation is ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 3 Asst. Year 2008-09 not admissible to the assessee. In response to the query of AO the assessee filed a written submission but the ld. AO was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee. According to the AO section 32(1)(iia) provides that if any new machinery or plant which has been acquired and installed after 31st March, 2005, by an assessee engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or things, a further sum equal to 25% of the actual cost of such machinery or plant shall be allowed as a deduction under clause (ii). According to the AO generation of electricity through a windmill is not a manufacturing activity which gives rise to production of any article or things identifiable, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for additional depreciation. He disallowed the claim of assessee and made the addition.
4. On appeal ld. first appellate authority has allowed the claim of assessee by putting reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. 321 ITR 477 (Mad), CIT vs. Texmo Precision Castings 321 ITR 481 (Mad) & CIT vs. VIM Ltd. 229 CTR 70 (Mad). The relevant finding of the ld. first appellate authority reads as under :-
ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 4
Asst. Year 2008-09 ''I have gone through these three decisions and it is clear that assesses in these cases were involved in different items of manufacturing and purchased windmills. On the identical issue, Hon'ble Madras High Court held that assesses are entitled to additional depreciation on cost of windmill acquired. It is also held that the plant and machinery purchased need not be operationally used for manufacturing articles or things. Since the only objection of the assessing officer was that windmills generated electricity which is not articles or thing is no longer a relevant issue in the light of these decisions. From the facts narrated in the assessment order and in the appellant's submission, it is clear that appellant fulfilled all the conditions required for claim of additional depreciation on windmill purchased by it. The addition of windmill was after 31st of March 2005. Appellant was already in the business of manufacturing articles or things. The windmill is not covered by any clause of proviso to this section. The windmill was not used by any person before installation. It is not installed in office or residential premises. This is not office appliance or road transport vehicle. Windmills are also not eligible for 100 percent depreciation in one year. Considering this appellant fulfills all the conditions required for claim of additional depreciation.
Respectfully following the decision of Madras High Court relied upon by the appellant, assessing officer is directed to allow additional depreciation on windmill.''
5. The ld. counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs.Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. reported at (2014) 42 taxmann.com 193 (Gujarat). He placed on record a copy of the decision. We find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has considered the following question :-
ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 5
Asst. Year 2008-09 "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,17,98,030/- on account of disallowance of additional depreciation on wind electric generator without appreciating that the wind electric generator does not result into manufacture or production or article or thing, but it is used to generate electricity and that the basic criteria to get additional depreciation under clause (iia) of Section 32(1) of the Act is that the plant and machinery should be covered under clause (ii) of Section 32(1) of the Act, whereas wind electric generator is classified as per clause (i) of section 32(1) of the Act.'' After making a reference to the decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court as referred to by the CIT(A) in the case of CIT vs. VTM Ltd.
(supra) and CIT vs. Hi Tech Arai Ltd., the Hon'ble High Court has held that additional depreciation on windmill will be admissible to the assessee. According to the Hon'ble High Court the setting up of windmill for the purpose of power industry has nothing to do for grant of additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) if assessee is already engaged in the business of manufacture and production of article or thing and installed a windmill then depreciation will be admissible to such an assessee. The other conditions provided under section 32 ought to be fulfilled. On due consideration of the order of CIT(A) extracted (supra) in the light of decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, we are of the view that ld. first appellate authority has appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in right ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 6 Asst. Year 2008-09 perspective and the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of Revenue's appeal is rejected. Accordingly the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
6. Now we take the appeal of assessee. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with Rule-8 of ITAT Rules. They are descriptive and argumentative in nature. In brief its first grievance is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO in restricting the claim of depreciation on fans, electrical installations at 10% instead of 15% admissible to plant and machinery. In brief ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,55,810/- which represents disallowance of Rs.1,17,151/- on fan; Rs.1,13,124/- on electric installation; and Rs.7,25,535/- as an additional depreciation. The ld. AO has verified the claim of assessee and observed that in the schedule of depreciation, rates of depreciation are prescribed separately for each item. For electrical fittings -such as electrical wiring, switch and fans etc. the prescribed rate is 10% as against 15% for plant. He ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 7 Asst. Year 2008-09 accordingly disallowed the claim of the assessee. Similarly he observed that since additional depreciation is admissible on plant and not on electrical fittings which is an independent item, therefore, it is not admissible to the assessee.
7. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.
8. The ld. counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of I.T.A.T. in the case of Madhu Industries Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer, reported in 132 TTJ 233 (Ahd). He also relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases reported at 256 ITR 322 (Guj) and 151 ITR 75 (Guj). The question is, whether electrical fittings, fans in the case of assessee are integral part of plant or machinery or they are independent items. If they can function independently of plant and machinery then probably the AO would be right in restricting the claim of depreciation at 10%. The reason being the rates of depreciation are prescribed visualizing the wearing and tearing of the machinery in its user for the purpose of business. The ITAT in the case of Madhu Industries Ltd. (supra) has observed that as electrical items cannot function independently of plant and ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 8 Asst. Year 2008-09 machinery, the same cannot be classified independently. They become part of plant and machinery and depreciation will be admissible at the same rate which is applicable in the case of plant and machinery. The AO in the impugned order has nowhere observed that these are not part and parcel of the plant and machinery. The assessee has pleaded that electric cables and fans are being installed in casting department where additional load of electricity is required. These fittings at the location attach moulding and casting at three places. Therefore, they are integral part of the machinery. We allow this ground of appeal and delete the disallowance. The ld. AO shall compute the depreciation admissible to the assessee @ 15% on these electrical fittings and fans. The moment they are treated as a part of plant the assessee will get additional depreciation also. This ground of appeal is allowed.
9. In the next ground of appeal the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.92,10,249/-.
10. The ld. counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 9 Asst. Year 2008-09 by the order of the Tribunal passed in AY 2007-08 wherein similar disallowance was deleted. The ld. counsel of the assessee further contended that the ITAT in AY 2007-08 has allowed the claim of assessee by following the order of ITAT (Spl. Bench) in the case of Biocon Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 25 ITR (Trib) 602.
11. The ld. DR on the other hand was unable to controvert the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee.
12. Before the embark upon the enquiry on the facts of the present case it is pertinent to note the question before the Special Bench in the case of Biocon Ltd. (supra) and how the Special Bench has analysed the issue. The question before the Special Bench was -
''Whether discount on issue of employees'stock option is allowable as a deduction in computing the income under the head profits and gains of business?'' The Special Bench has explained the concept of employees' stock option. It is worth to note -
''9.2.4. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is of the utmost importance to understand the concept of ESOP. Section 2(15A) of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 defines "employee stock option" to mean `the option given to the whole-time Directors, Officers or employees of a company, which gives such Directors, Officers or employees, the ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 10 Asst. Year 2008-09 benefit or right to purchase or subscribe at a future date, the securities offered by the company at a predetermined price". In an ESOP, the given company undertakes to issue shares to its employees at a future date at a price lower than the current market price. This is achieved by granting stock options to its employees at discount. The amount of discount represents the difference between market price of the shares at the time of the grant of option and the offer price. In order to be eligible for acquiring the shares under the ESOP, the concerned employees are obliged to render services to the company during the vesting period as given in the scheme. On the completion of the vesting period in the service of the company, such options vest with the employees. The options are then exercised by the employees by making application to the employer for the issue of shares against the options vested in them. The gap between the completion of vesting period and the time for exercising the options is usually negligible. The company, on the exercise of option by the employees, allots shares to them who can then freely sell such shares in the open market subject to the terms of the ESOP. Thus it can be seen that it is during the vesting period that the options granted to the employees vest with them. This period commences with the grant of option and terminates when the options so granted vest in the employees after serving the company for the agreed period. By granting the options, the company gets a sort of assurance from its employee for rendering uninterrupted services during the vesting period and as a quid pro quo it undertakes to compensate the employees with a certain amount given in the shape of discounted premium on the issue of shares. 9.2.5. The core of the arguments of the ld. DR in this regard is two- fold. First, that it is not an expenditure in itself and secondly, it is a short capital receipt or at the most a sort of capital expenditure. In our considered opinion both the legs of this contention are legally unsustainable.
9.2.6. There is no doubt that the amount of share premium is otherwise a capital receipt and hence not chargeable to tax in the hands of company. The Finance Act, 2012 has inserted clause (viib) of section 56(2) w.e.f. 1.4.2013 providing that: `where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares', then such excess share premium shall be charged to tax under the head `Income from other sources'. But for that, the amount of share premium has always been ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 11 Asst. Year 2008-09 understood and accepted as a capital receipt. If a company issues shares to the public or the existing shareholders at less than the otherwise prevailing premium due to market sentiment or otherwise, such short receipt of premium would be a case of a receipt of a lower amount on capital account. It is so because the object of issuing such shares at a lower price is nowhere directly connected with the earning of income. It is in such like situation that the contention of the learned Departmental Representative would properly fit in, thereby debarring the company from claiming any deduction towards discounted premium. It is quite basic that the object of issuing shares can never be lost sight of. Having seen the rationale and modus operandi of the ESOP, it becomes out-and-out clear that when a company undertakes to issue shares to its employees at a discounted premium on a future date, the primary object of this exercise is not to raise share capital but to earn profit by securing the consistent and concentrated efforts of its dedicated employees during the vesting period. Such discount is construed, both by the employees and company, as nothing but a part of package of remuneration. In other words, such discounted premium on shares is a substitute to giving direct incentive in cash for availing the services of the employees. There is no difference in two situations viz., one, when the company issues shares to public at market price and a part of the premium is given to the employees in lieu of their services and two, when the shares are directly issued to employees at a reduced rate. In both the situations, the employees stand compensated for their effort. If under the first situation, the company, say, on receipt of premium amounting to Rs.100 from issue of shares to public, gives Rs.60 as incentive to its employees, such incentive of Rs.60 would be remuneration to employees and hence deductible. In the same way, if the company, instead, issues shares to its employees at a premium of Rs.40, the discounted premium of Rs.60, being the difference between Rs.100 and Rs.40, is again nothing but a different mode of awarding remuneration to employees for their continued services. In both the cases, the object is to compensate employees to the tune of Rs.60. It follows that the discount on premium under ESOP is simply one of the modes of compensating the employees for their services and is a part of their remuneration. Thus, the contention of the ld. DR that by issuing shares to employees at a discounted premium, the company got a lower capital receipt, is bereft of an force. The sole object of issuing shares to employees at a discounted premium is to compensate them for the continuity of their services to the company. By no stretch of imagination, we can describe such discount as either a short capital receipt or a capital expenditure. It is nothing but the employees cost incurred by the company. The substance of this transaction is disbursing compensation to the ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 12 Asst. Year 2008-09 employees for their services, for which the form of issuing shares at a discounted premium is adopted.'' After making a detailed analysis the ITAT has held that it is an allowable deduction. The conclusion of the Special Bench reads as under :-
''11.3. We, therefore, sum up the position that the discount under ESOP is in the nature of employees cost and is hence deductible during the vesting period w.r.t. the market price of shares at the time of grant of options to the employees. The amount of discount claimed as deduction during the vesting period is required to be reversed in relation to the unvesting/lapsing options at the appropriate time. However, an adjustment to the income is called for at the time of exercise of option by the amount of difference in the amount of discount calculated with reference the market price at the time of grant of option and the market price at the time of exercise of option. No accounting principle can be determinative in the matter of computation of total income under the Act. The question before the special bench is thus answered in affirmative by holding that discount on issue of Employee Stock Options is allowable as deduction in computing the income under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession'.''
13. Now let us revert to the facts of the present case. Face value of the share of the assessee company was Rs.5/-. As per the assessee the market value is Rs.140.80. Thus there was a premium on each share of the assessee company at Rs.135.80. The assessee has implemented the employees' stock option scheme of giving shares to the employees at a price fixed by the company, lesser than the ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 13 Asst. Year 2008-09 average market value. It has offered the shares at Rs.61/- per share (i.e. face value of Rs.5/- and premium of Rs.56/- per share). Thus the assessee has a loss of the difference in premium at Rs.79.80 (Rs.135.80 - Rs.56). This amount has been claimed as a revenue loss by the assessee. The AO has not independently made detailed discussion in the present year rather he relied upon the finding of his predecessor in AY 2007-08. He reproduced the finding of the AO recorded in AY 2007-08 on pages 4 to 8 of the assessment order. In AY 2007-08 assessee had claim of loss of Rs.24,30,554/- which was amortized by the assessee. The loss relatable to this year has been computed by the assessee at Rs.92,10,249/-. The reasonings given by the assessee in AY 2007-08 have been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal. The discussion made by the Tribunal in AY 2007-08 on this issue reads as under :-
'' 5. Now, we take up Ground Nos.5 & 6 of assessee's appeal which are inter-connected and, therefore, the same are decided together.
5.1. The ld.Sr.counsel for the assessee submitted that the authorities below were not justified in making the disallowance of Employee's Stock Option Scheme (ESOP) amounting to Rs.24,30,554/- made u/s.28 r.w.s. 37 of the Act. The ld.Sr.counsel for the assessee submitted that these issues are ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 14 Asst. Year 2008-09 squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Special Bench of the Tribunal (ITAT Bangalore Bench - Special Bench) rendered in the case of Biocon Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT reported at (2013) 155 TTJ 649:: 35 taxmann.com 335 (Bangalore-Trib.)(SB)..
5.2. On the contrary, ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the authorities below were justified in making the disallowance.
6. We have heard rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) in para-7.3. of his order has held as under:-
"7.3. I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submission. Appellant has claimed the ESOP expense without incurring a single penny expense on employees. Not a single rupee has gone out of the assessee's books for the purpose of ESOP but still the difference between market price of share and ESOP offer price was considered as loss/expense and the same was claimed. All the arguments raised by the appellant have been answered clearly by the assessing officer which is quoted in para-7.1 above. I completely agree with the assessing officer's order rebutting appellant's contentions. Since elaborate discussion has been given in that part, the same is not repeated here. The appellant's claim is found to be frivolous and totally unsustainable in view of the following facts:-
1-ESOP is a scheme for employees by which they are allotted company's shares at discount to market price. Issue of shares of premium or discount is capital in nature and hence balance sheet item. There is no revenue loss or gain in issue of equity shares. If shares are issued at premium then share premium account in balance sheet increases. If the shares are issue at discount either share premium account is reduced or shares discount account is increased. In either event, profit or income of the company is not at all affected.ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 15
Asst. Year 2008-09 Therefore claiming any loss on account of giving option to employee to subscribe shares at lower value is without any basis and frivolous.
2-When shares are issued at premium, said premium is not offered as income for tax, therefore any reduction in shares premium cannot result in loss which can be claimed in P&L account.
3-Disclosure norms for limited companies can be there as per Sebi or ICAI guidelines but the accounting will not make the claim as allowable expense or loss. For being an allowable expense or loss, the first condition is that expense cannot be capital in nature. Share premium or loss on premium is undoubtedly capital in nature and therefore clearly outside the purview of section 37 and 28 which deals with revenue expenses or losses. Therefore making such claim just on the basis of accounting entries for certain disclosure purposes and completely ignoring the provisions of IT act is nothing but furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Considering the above and the discussion in assessment order, I find this claim frivolous, unsustainable and not as per the provisions of law. Accordingly the addition made by the assessing officer is confirmed."
6.1. It is not disputed that the assessee has claimed business expenditure on ESPO. The similar issue was before the Hon'ble Special Bench of ITAT Bangalore rendered in the case of Biocon Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under:-
"In the present case, the assessee-company was a closely held company in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2003-04 and as such there was no question of listing of its shares and having some market price at the time of grant of options. Ordinarily, the amount of discount on premium which is written off over the vesting period represents the market price of the shares listed on the stock exchange on the date of grant of option as reduced by the price at which option is given to the employees. However, since there was no availability of any market price of such shares on the date of grant of ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 16 Asst. Year 2008-09 option as the company came to be listed on a stock exchange in a subsequent year, the assessee-company took the market price of the share on the date of grant of option at Rs.919. No material worth the name was placed on record to indicate as to how a share with face value of Rs.10 had been valued at Rs.919 for claiming deduction towards discount at Rs.909 per share. This aspect of valuation of shares at Rs.919 per share needs to be examined by the Assessing Officer [Para 12.2]."
6.2. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Special Bench of ITAT Bangalore rendered in the case of Biocon Ltd.(supra), we allow the ground Nos. 5 & of assessee's appeal.''
14. On due consideration of the details, we are of the view that there is no disparity on the facts. The AO has based his order exclusively on the findings of assessment order passed in AY 2007-
08. The contribution of the AO in this AY is of four lines recorded on page 8. We have examined the submissions of the assessee given in AY 2007-08 and reproduced in the assessment order impugned hereunder vis-à-vis the finding of the AO. We find that basically the AO was of the view that it is a capital loss. It is not materialized in this year. It would happen only when option is exercised by the employees. All these aspects have been considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal wherein it has been explained that share premium is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax in the hands of ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 17 Asst. Year 2008-09 the company. If a company issues shares to the public or to the existing shareholders at lesser than otherwise prevailing premium due to market sentiments or otherwise such share receipts of a premium would be a case of receipt of lower amount on capital amount. Because the object of issuing such share at a lower price is nowhere directly connected with the earning of income but, when the company undertakes to issue shares to its employees at a discounted premium at a future date the primary object of this exercise is not to raise share capital but to earn profit by securing the consistent and concentrated efforts of dedicated employees during the vesting period, such discount is construed, both by the employees and the company, as nothing but a part of package of remuneration, a substitute to giving direct incentive in cash for availing the services of the employees. Therefore, in our opinion ld. first appellate authority is not justified while upholding the disallowance of the assessee's claim. Respectfully following the order of the co-ordinate Bench as well as that of the Special Bench we delete the disallowance. This ground of appeal is allowed.
ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 18Asst. Year 2008-09
15. In the next ground grievance of the assessee is that in AY 2007-08 the claim for additional depreciation on Mumbai Display Centre was disallowed and, therefore, written down value would increase. The AO has to compute the true written down value in this year in view of confirmation of additional depreciation in earlier year. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. If claim of depreciation in one year is being disallowed then that would enhance the written down value of the asset by the disallowed amount in the subsequent year, the depreciation is to be computed on this enhanced written down value. The confirmation of disallowance in AY 2007-08 upto the Tribunal has materialized after passing of the assessment order in the present Asst. Year. Therefore, in our opinion this issue requires reconsideration at the level of AO. We set aside this issue to the file of AO for re-examination and readjudication.
16. In the next ground of appeal the grievance of the assessee relates to charging of interest under sections 234B & 234C of the Act. This ground of appeal is consequential and no arguments were ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 19 Asst. Year 2008-09 addressed at the time of hearing. Hence this ground of appeal is rejected.
17. In the next ground of appeal assessee challenges initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. To our mind it is a premature ground of appeal. The assessee will get an opportunity to put its defence when penalty proceedings would be started by issuance of a show cause notice. At this stage it has no grievance. Hence this ground of appeal is rejected being premature.
18. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/5/2015
Sd/- Sd/-
(G. D. Agarwal) (Rajpal Yadav)
Vice President Judicial Member
Dated 29/5/15
Mahata/-
ITA Nos.2817 & 2877/Ahd/2011 20
Asst. Year 2008-09
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT concerned
4. The CIT(A) concerned
5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard File
BY ORDER
Dy. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation: 27/5/2011
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: 28/5/2015 other Member:
3. Date on which approved draft comes to the Sr. P. S./P.S.:
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement: __________
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.:
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk: 29/5/15
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk:
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order:
9. Date of Despatch of the Order: