DCIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO.LTD, MUMBAI

Cross Appeals For assessment year 2009 – 10 [ITA number 3272/M/2015] filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 5 (3) (2), Mumbai (The Learned AO) and [ITA number 1656//M/2014] by The Great Eastern shipping Co Ltd, Mumbai (The Appellant/Assessee) challenges correctness of assessment order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 15/1/2014 by The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 5 (3), Mumbai (The Learned AO) pursuance to the direction issued by The Dispute Resolution Panel – II, Mumbai [ The Ld DRP ] in objection number 95 dated 20/12/2013 in case of draft assessment order passed under section 144C (13) passed by the assessing officer on 15/3/2013.

In ITA number 1656/M/2014 in assessee‟s appeal following grounds are raised :-

In ITA number 3272/M/2015 filed by the learned assessing officer following grounds of appeal are raised

Assessee is a company engaged in the business of shipping, property development and finance operation including dealing in shares, securities, mutual funds and other money market operation in granting of loans and advances. Assessee filed return of income [ROI] on 29/9/2010 declaring a total income of ₹ 1,040,312,390. It was picked up for scrutiny.

As assessee has entered into international transaction with its associated enterprises, the learned assessing officer referred to the learned transfer-pricing officer for examination of the arm‟s-length price. The learned transfer-pricing officer noted that Assessee Company has a subsidiary in Singapore being agent of the assessee and renders agency services to the assessee company. The principal activity of the associated enterprise is to perform the role of shipping agent in Singapore. The assessee company has appointed the above company as a shipping agent for attending to the assessee company shipped following at Singapore. The subsidiary also incurs expenses on behalf of the assessee company has a

There is one more performance guarantee given by the assessee company in favour of its associated enterprises of ₹ 659 crores. The above transaction was not reported as an international transaction and no guarantee fee was also adjusted. The learned transfer-pricing officer was

Accordingly order under section 92CA (3) of the act was passed on 11/1/2013 wherein the total adjustment of ₹ 292,719,478/- was made on account of the arm‟s-length price of the international transaction of corporate guarantee fee income and performance guarantee fee income.

During the course of assessment proceedings the learned assessing officer noted that assessee company has shown an amount of ₹ 29.25 crores as dividend income, and ₹ 7,530,572 has been treated as expenditure attributable to earning of dividend income and amount of ₹ 283,156,857 has been claimed as exempt under section 10 (34) of the income tax act. The learned assessing officer questioned the assessee and asked the assessee to furnish details of the same and to furnish the details of expenditure incurred or attributable for earning of these

During the year the learned assessing officer noted that assessee company has credited and amount of ₹ 15.98 crores to the capital reserve amount as forfeited on non- conversion of warrants. The contention of the assessee is that it is a capital receipt not liable to tax. The learned assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and noted that that forfeiture of non-commercial of warrant is a trading liability and provisions of section 41 (1) of the income tax act applies. Assessee has raised money through convertible warrants from certain promoters and non-executive director enterprise of ₹ 300 ₹ 12.75 per share. Each of such warrant was convertible into an equity share of the face value of ₹ 10 at the option of the warrant holders. Out of 50,05,000 warrants issued, 10,000 warrants were converted into equity shares and the balance were not converted at the option

The learned assessing officer further found that assessee‟s computation of income for tonnage tax scheme, has interest expenditure of ₹ 77,574,874, which has been claimed, as deduction against the assessee is non-tonnage tax activities. The assessee was requested to furnish a fund flow statement providing details of the loans taken in the interest expenditure incurred on such loan, which was claimed as part of the non-tonnage tax activities of the assessee company. The assessee furnished the details statement giving the particulars of loan by the interest expenditure and the purpose for which the loan was availed, along with the rate and amount of interest paid on reason for treating such expenditure as part of non-tonnage tax activities. The assessee also submitted the details reasoning for non- consideration of such interest as per last year. The learned assessing officer considered the contention of the assessee and rejected it. It was noted that as per the chart furnished by the assessee the substantial part of interest expenditure relates to loans, which were utilised

The learned assessing officer further noted that there are certain miscellaneous income which have been arising out of shipping that‟s written back amounting to ₹ 4,273,847 and general average claim of ₹ 637,690/– same was added back to the total income of the assessee for the reason that assessee is not entitled to take the benefit of the tonnage tax scheme on this income.

Accordingly draft assessment order was passed on 15/3/2013 determining total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,768,872,620/–. Aggrieved, with the draft assessment order assessee preferred an objection before the learned dispute resolution panel who gave its direction on 20/12/2013. The learned dispute resolution panel against the disallowance of ₹ 17,944,163 being interest expenditure disallowed/added by the learned assessing officer, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the identical issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2006 – 07 and the learned dispute

With respect to the disallowance under section 14 A of the act the learned dispute resolution panel noted that the learned assessing officer has correctly disallowed invoking the provisions of section 14 A of the act. With respect to the quantum of disallowance, the assessee has disallowed a sum of ₹ 7,530,532/– under section 14 A of the act out of which can amount of ₹ 6,142,041/– was disallowed on account of interest expenditure under rule 8D (2) (ii) of the rules. The AO rejected the same holding that the assessee was having a common pool of funds from which business expenses from tonnage tax activity and non-tonnage tax activity as well as investments are being made and accordingly the disallowance under section 14 A read with rule 8D (2) (ii) was determined at ₹ 205,098,852/– out of the total interest expenses is by the assessee amounting to ₹ 1,536,389,275/–.. In principle, the learned DRP agreed with the contentions of the assessee however directed the learned assessing officer that the total disallowance computed under rule 8D the total interest expenditure debited against the non- tonnage income, the disallowance should be restricted to the total expenditure by way of interest under the head of non-tonnage income only. With respect to the administrative and other expenditure, the assessee has disallowed a sum of ₹ 1,388,491/– the learned assessing

With respect to the other income treating the same as non-tonnage tax income following the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s case for assessment year 2006-07 the objection was accepted.

With respect to the taxation of forfeiture of share application money under section 41 (1) and section 28 (iv) of the act, the coordinate bench held that it is not taxable and therefore the learned assessing officer was directed to delete the addition.

With respect to the arm‟s-length computation of the financial guarantee given by the assessee to the associated enterprise where the learned assessing officer has computed the guarantee commission rate at the rate of 3%, the learned dispute resolution panel directed the learned assessing officer to compute at the rate of 1.5% per annum. For Holdings of the learned dispute shall panel has lifted that there is a declining trend of guarantee commission rate by the banks with respect to the amount involved in that the assessee has given financial guarantee on behalf of its associated Enterprise aggregating to ₹ 484 crores. For the preceding year the

With respect to the computation of the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantee fee on behalf of its associated enterprises where the learned transfer pricing officer has made an adjustment of ₹ 197,951,187 and the assessee has not shown the same as international transaction, the learned dispute resolution panel held that the arm‟s-length price of the performance guarantee should be taken at 1% of the amount of guarantee. Accordingly, the objections of the assessee were disposed of.

Based on this the learned assessing officer passed the final assessment order on 15/1/2014 wherein the total income of the assessee was computed at ₹ 3,273,085,570/– only to adjustments were made by the learned assessing officer.

Thus, assessee aggrieved with the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel conquering with the findings of the learned TPO and the learned AO, the learned AO is aggrieved with the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel directing the learned assessing

By letter dated 30 June 2021, assessee has raised additional ground of appeal against the disallowance confirmed by the learned DRP/assessing officer under section 14 A of the act.

We find that all these grounds are in fact related to grounds number 1 to 8 of the appeal of the assessee. Therefore treating them as an alternative claim, it would be dealt with.

As per ground number 1 – 8 of the appeal the assessee is contesting the disallowance under section 14 A of the act. Further three additional grounds raised by the assessee are also revolving around the disallowance under section 14 A of the act. Contesting the disallowance under section 14 A of the act, the learned authorized representative submitted that assessee is offering its income under the tonnage tax scheme. Assessee has

With respect to the addition to the book profit under section 115JB of the act by the amount disallowed under section 14 A of the act, it was submitted that same is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the special bench in case of [82 taxmann.com 415] as well as in case of the assessee for assessment year 2008 - 2009.

The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned lower authorities and submitted that the disallowance under section 14 A of the act has been correctly worked out by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned dispute resolution panel. He submitted that argument of the appellant that they are assessed in Tonnage Tax Scheme; therefore no disallowance should be made cannot be accepted because the assessment of total income is to be made and it cannot be assessed in parts. Therefore, if some income is earned by the appellant by other than shipping activities, then how it could be left without taxing though tax u/s 115VG has been brought

We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In issue in all these grounds is when the income of assessee is taxed under the Tonnage tax Scheme whether there can be any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act despite assessee earning exempt income such as Dividend. We find that identical issue arose in case of varun Shipping Limited V Addl CIT [2012] 17 taxmann.com 112 (Mum.) where in it has been held as under :-

Same view is also taken by coordinate benches in ITA 1940/CHNY/2016 in ACIT , chennai v. West Asia Maritime ltd., Chennai and in [2013] 37 taxmann.com 395 (Chennai - Trib.) in Four M Maritime (P.) Ltd. No contrary view is shown to us. Therefore respectfully following the decision of coordinate benches, we hold that where the income of the assessee is assessed under Tonnage tax Scheme , no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. Therefore, the ld AO and ld DRP are incorrect in apportioning interest expenditure and other expenditure, which are part of computation of tonnage tax computation of Total income. The Assessing Officer and the learned DRP have considered the total interest expenditure of the Appellant Company aggregating Rs.153.64 crores, which includes the interest expenditure of the tonnage tax business of the Appellant of Rs.145.88 crores for computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii), same is not correct.

However in this case assessee has other business also, therefore, the income computation of Tonnage tax Scheme requires to be excluded but in other business, the disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made. It is submitted that Appellant is a tonnage tax company and the Profit & Loss Account for the tonnage tax and non-

Further On a perusal of the Share Capital and Reserves and Surplus in the Balance Sheet as at the year end, the Reserves and Surplus amount to Rs.477593 lakhs and the Share Capital amounts to Rs.15229 lakhs. Hence, non-interest bearing own funds of the company aggregate to Rs.492822 lakhs. The investments held by the company, as at the year-end, aggregate to Rs.125096 lakhs, and are far lower as compared to the capital employed consisting of own funds of Rs.492822 lakhs. In fact, the investments are more than covered by the Reserves of the Company itself. There is, therefore, no borrowing attributable to the investments yielding tax free income and such investments are out of the own

With respect to the administrative expenses, ld AO has however disallowed a further sum of Rs.5.42 crores, under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D, being the amount computed @0.5% of the average value of investments held by the Appellant. However, the actual expenditure claimed of the Treasury Division based on the divisional Profit & Loss Account was only Rs.81.69 lakhs. Hence, the disallowance can never exceed the total expenditure incurred by the Company. Thus, as against the actual aggregate administrative expenditure of Rs.81.69 lakhs incurred by the Treasury Division of the Appellant Company and claimed accordingly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed expenditure aggregating to Rs.5.42 crores under clause 2(iii) of Rule 8D, which is completely incorrect.

Further ld AO while applying Section 14A of the Act in respect of several investments on which the Appellant received no dividend income during the year was also considered in average investment. Thus disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D2(ii) and (iii) should have been by excluding those investments on which no dividend income was received during the year.

Therefore we set aside these grounds of appeal concerning disallowance u/s 14 A rwr 8 D while computing normal computation of income to the file of the ld AO, assessee is directed to submit revised computation before ld Ao, The ld AO may examine the

Both the lower authorities are not correct in holding that the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act under the normal computation of income is also required to be added back for computing book profits under section 115JB of the Act. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, in the case of Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB), wherein it was held that the computation under clause (f) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Honorable

Accordingly, Ground, no 1 to 8 and additional contentions raised with respect to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act are allowed with above directions.

Ground number 9 of the appeal is with respect to the taxation of the long-term capital gain at the rate of 20% as against the current rate of 10% while passing the assessment order under section 143 (3) read with section 144C (13) of the act. On hearing the parties, we find that the learned assessing officer should have charged the correct rate of tax on the long-term capital gain. The learned assessing officer is directed to do so. Ground number 9 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Ground number 10 is with respect to the not granting tax credit to the assessee of ₹ 1,262,041 while framing the assessment order. On hearing the parties, we direct the learned assessing officer to grant tax credit to the assessee of the above amount after proper verification. If the learned assessing officer finds that assessee is not entitled to any tax credit, he must give an opportunity to the assessee to explain the same and thereafter decide the issue. . Ground number 10 of the appeal is allowed.

Ground number 12 and 13 is with respect to the arm‟s- length price computation of the financial guarantee issued by the assessee. The facts relating to the same shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of shipping. In order to expand its business, it formed two-step down subsidiaries in Singapore, Greatship Global Offshore Services Pte. Ltd. (GGOS) and Great ship Global Energy Services Pte. Ltd. (GGES) as Singapore is one of the busiest ports in the world. The Appellant‟s immediate subsidiary, Greatship India Ltd. infused share capital into the subsidiaries, USD 94.06 million into GGOS and USD 66.96 million into GGES by 31st March 2009. The subsidiaries placed orders on shipyards in Singapore for building of new vessels in the preceding financial years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Assessee issued guarantees to shipyards (referred to as performance guarantee).

One of the shipyards, viz., Keppel Fels Ltd. required a bank guarantee for USD 25 million(Rs. 126.80 crores) from GGES. The ICICI Bank provided a Standby Letter of Credit to Keppel Fels Ltd. The Appellant in turn at the request of the Bank gave a financial guarantee to ICICI Bank for USD 25 million in financial years 2006-2007. The ICICI Bank charged guarantee commission @ 0.135% p.a. to GGES for issuing the Standby Letter of

During the financial year 2008-09,relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10, the year under consideration), the Associated Enterprise - GGES availed a bridge loan of USD 90 million from the Bank of Nova Scotia. The AE had drawn USD 70.47 million equivalents to INR 357.42 crores of the said loans as on 31st March 2009. The Appellant gave a financial guarantee to the Bank of Nova Scotia for the loan taken by GGES from the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Appellant did not charge a guarantee commission to GGES for issuing the financial guarantee to the Bank of Nova Scotia on its behalf. However, while filing its Return of Income, the Appellant made a suo moto transfer pricing adjustment @ 0.60% p.a. on the basis of the average guarantee commission paid by the Appellant to banks for giving unsecured guarantees on behalf of the Appellant . The suo-moto adjustment relating to financial guarantee given to Bank of Nova Scotia was calculated by the Appellant as under:

Thus, total suo-moto adjustment made by the Appellant in respect of financial guarantees was Rs. 2,36,92,073/- (Rs. 76,08,000/- (ICICI Bank) + Rs. 1,60,84,073 (Bank of Nova Scotia). The working of the suo moto TP adjustment submitted to the TPO.

The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) accepted the transaction of guarantee to ICICI Bank to be at arm‟s length for the AY 2007-2008. However, For this AY he held that the arm‟s length price of the financial guarantee given by the Appellant to the ICICI Bank on behalf of its AE, GGES was 3% p.a. The TPO relied upon the letters issued by the Allahabad Bank and State Bank of India (pages 397 to 400) wherein the Allahabad Bank stated that it generally charges guarantee commission of 0.60% per quarter for a financial guarantee above Rs.10 crores and State Bank of India has stated that it charges guarantee commission of 1.75% per annum in respect of bank guarantee above Rs.10 crores. The TPO computed the ALP of the financial guarantee given by the Appellant to ICICI Bank as under:

The ld DRP (for the AY 2008-2009) held that the ALP of the financial guarantee given by the Appellant to ICICI Bank was 1.5% p.a. However, financial guarantee given by the Appellant to the ICICI Bank continued in AY 2009- 2010, ld TPO computed ALP @3% and LD DRP upheld it @1.5% by following their own findings in AY 2008- 2009.

Similarly, the ld TPO also benchmarked Financial Guarantee Given to Bank of Nova Scotia @ 3 % and Ld DRP upheld it @ 1, 5 %.

Assessee submitted that :-

The Ld DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of The LD TPO as well as directions of the ld DRP on this issue. The coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case has decided this issue in Para no 197/Mum/2023 for Ay 2008-09 per Para no 23 as under :-

We have carefully considered the reasons given by the coordinate bench while deleting the adjustment on account of corporate guarantee commission. However, we are not inclined to accept that as the honourable Bombay High Court in case of Everest Kanto cylinders Ltd (378 ITR 57 (Bom)) has upheld the benchmarking of corporate guarantee commission at the rate of 0.5%, for all the years and in all economic circumstances and for all the assessee is across the globe, that rate should be accepted as arm‟s-length price of corporate guarantee commission. If we accept that proposition, the requirement of maintaining contemporary erroneous document for each tax assessment year, transfer pricing order by the revenue authorities of international transaction every year would go for a toss. Further the decision of honourable Bombay High Court will become a safe harbour judicial precedent with respect to the arm‟s- length price of corporate guarantee issued by one corporate entity of MNE to other, irrespective of their creditworthiness, interest saving, cost of capital, the

However, for this assessment year, we find that the learned TPO and the learned DRP has repeated their own orders of earlier years i.e. assessment year 2008 – 09. Therefore, both these orders/directions are not in accordance with the transfer pricing provisions as they do not determine the arm‟s-length price of the international transaction in accordance with the provisions of section 92C (3) of the act. Therefore, we disapprove both the above orders and directions.

Coming to the benchmarking analysis adopted by the assessee, we noted that assessee has made a suo moto adjustment considering 0.55% as arm‟s-length price of the international transaction, despite the fact that, assessee has not charged any guarantee fees from its associated enterprises. For the purpose of benchmarking, the assessee adopted the comparable uncontrolled price method and considered the average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers to the assessee placed at page number 383 of the paper book, which is 0.56%. On that basis, the assessee has benchmarked these corporate guarantees at the rate of 0.55%. Therefore, there was no dispute with the method i.e. CUP method as well as the comparables selected as average corporate guarantee charges charged by the bankers. As average

Ground no 14 to 16 of the appeal are with respect to ALP determination of performance guarantee issued by the assessee. During the immediately preceding financial year 2007-08 (Assessment Year 2008-09), the Appellant had given performance guarantees (5 nos.) to shipyards on behalf of its AEs, Greatship Global Offshore Services Pte. Ltd., Singapore (GGOS) (4 nos) and Greatship Global Energy Services Pte. Ltd., Singapore (GGES) (1 no.). The same guarantees have continued in financial year 2008- 09 (Assessment Year 2009-10). A statement giving details of the performance guarantees furnished for the Assessment Year 2009-10 was submitted. The performance guarantees are in respect of orders for

In the immediately preceding Assessment Year 2008-09 (i.e. the first year of furnishing of such performance guarantees), the TPO held that

Assessee submitted that :-

We have carefully considered rival contentions, used the order of the learned transfer-pricing officer, direction of the learned dispute resolution panel and the order of the coordinate bench in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2008 – 09. ITAT (ITA number 197/MUM/2013 (assessment year 2008 – 09)) has held as under :-

The coordinate bench has held that wherein it has been held that there is no element of risk involved, in even to of enforcement of guarantee clause the assessee would acquire vessel, that can be used by the assessee in its own business, and therefore the coordinate bench has held that no adjustment is warranted on account of performance guarantee.

Performance guarantee is sharing the advantage of MNE against the individual standalone companies, whereby, less competent, less capable, less resourceful associated enterprise can ride on the shoulders of more competent, more capable, more resourceful another associated enterprise to boost their credibility if a related entity provides them with a performance guarantee, i.e., pledges to fulfill their contractual obligations in case they fail to do so themselves. Of course, independent party can also issue

Even the annual accounts of the assessee also depicts these financial guarantees as contingent liabilities in schedule “20”: Notes on Accounts

However, we are also conscious of the fact that assessee has made us you a Moto adjustment with respect to the financial guarantee of 0.55% of the outstanding guarantees. These performance guarantees in the nature of financial guarantees needs to be benchmarked, which can be remunerated at less than that rate. As in the case of financial guarantees without any security, the assessee has offered SUO Moto disallowance of 0.55% as guarantee. In addition, here the assessee has adequate security and therefore the benchmarking of this performance guarantee needs to be substantially lower than pure financial guarantees. Thus the rates adopted by the learned TPO and the learned dispute resolution panel are not at all relevant and are exorbitant high without any basis. Therefore, those rates are already rejected by us.

Accordingly ground number 14 – 16 of the appeal of the assessee is set-aside to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to benchmarked the above international transaction and produce relevant details of benchmarking to the learned assessing officer/transfer pricing officer, the learned AO/TPO may

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions.

Now we come to the appeal of the learned AO. The learned AO as per ground number 1 and 2 has challenged non-taxability of bad debts written back and an insurance claim received during the year but pertaining to the years prior to the tonnage tax scheme applicability to the assessee directed by the learned dispute resolution panel to be not taxable. The fact shows that the bad debts written back by the assessee were pertaining to the sale consideration/remuneration received by the assessee in the earlier year written also during the earlier year but written back during this year. Similar is the case with respect to the insurance clam received during the year pertaining to earlier years. According to the assessing officer both these income should be out of the tonnage tax income of the assessee and should be taxed separately. The learned dispute resolution panel has directed the AO to not to include these to receipt separately as for this year the income would be taxed on the basis of tonnage tax scheme.

On careful consideration of the order of the learned AO and the direction of the learned DRP and considering the rival contention, we find that for this assessment year the assessee is chargeable to tax on the basis of the tonnage tax scheme. We find that the logic and reason given by the learned assessing officer for separately taxing the above income is unjustified in view of the fact that had

As per ground number 3 of the AO Coming to the appeal of the learned assessing officer wherein the learned AO has challenged the direction of the learned dispute resolution panel of not taxing the forfeiture of the warrants under section 41 (1) of the act. The facts shows that Out of the 5005000 warrants allotted on August 09, 2007 to certain Promoters and Non Executive Directors on preferential basis, 10000 warrants were converted into Equity Shares at the predetermined price of Rs. 312.75. The balance 4995000 warrants, which were not converted due to unfavourable market conditions, stood cancelled at the expiry of the 18 months period. As per the terms of the issue, the amount of Rs. 1598.40 lakhs being the amount

On careful consideration of the rival contention, the orders of the learned AO and the direction of the learned dispute resolution we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned dispute resolution panel in directing the learned assessing officer to not to tax the above amount under section 41 (1) and section 28 (iv) of the act. The fact shows that assessee Company had on August 09, 2007, allotted 50,05,000 convertible warrants to certain Promoters and Non Executive Directors, pursuant to the resolution passed by the shareholders at their meeting held on July 26, 2007, at a price of Rs. 312.75 per share. Each warrant was convertible into one Equity Share of the face value of Rs. 10/-, at the option of the warrant holders, at any time prior to expiry of 18 months from the date of allotment of the warrants. Out of the 50,05,000 warrants, 10,000 warrants were converted into Equity Shares. Due to the unfavorable market conditions, which did not justify conversion of warrants, the balance 49,95,000 warrants were not converted. Accordingly the said warrants stood cancelled and the amount of Rs. 1598 lakhs being

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed.

Thus, cross appeals for assessment year 2009 – 10 are disposed of as above.