DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. MRC TRANSOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In ITA No.1289/PUN/2025, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

In ITA No.1431/PUN/2025, Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :

The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal.”

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Transport Solutions and runs its own lorries as well as takes lorries on hire for the Transport business. Income of Rs.4,65,18,158/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 e-filed on 27.11.2014. Case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving statutory notices. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed own lorry charges at Rs.8,74,18,983/- and hired lorry charges at Rs.1,43,22,90,112/-. Assessee was asked to furnish the details in respect of own and hired lorry expenses showing the Date, Name of party, Origin, Destination, Distance in Kilometres, Type of lorry used, Owned/Hired. Assessee filed detailed submissions and also stated that out of the total gross receipts the lorry hire charges and own lorry expenses are 79.46% and 4.85% of the gross sales. It was submitted that the assessee owns 75 vehicles and the estimate of running charges per kilometre for own vehicles and hired lorry expenses were furnished. In one of the submission, assessee calculated the average cost including the Diesel, Travel allowance and other Miscellaneous cost at Rs.20.36 per kilometre. Thereafter, assessee also provided details of other expenses incurred for own lorry expenses and after including them the average cost worked out to Rs.25.87 per kilometre. Similarly monthly chart of the total kilometres/total expense incurred, cost per kilometre were furnished. Assessee submitted that business of the assessee is of huge magnitude and thousands of vehicles are hired and that the expenses are not consistent on month to month basis and they differ based on the truck load, distance, change in fuel price etc.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and made detailed submissions. Ld.CIT(A) was satisfied with the submissions that ld. AO has not indicated any specific error in the details of expenditure incurred by the assessee and has applied average rate completely ignoring the regular entries in the books of account and taking note of the adhoc disallowance under these heads in the preceding years, sustained the addition of Rs.50.00 lakh as against Rs.15,01,22,158/- made by the Assessing Officer. Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act at Rs.1,48,75,000/- referring to the judicial precedents. As regards the adhoc disallowance of Rs.83,26,353/- ld.CIT(A) gave substantial relief and only sustained the disallowance of Rs.10.00 lakh and partly allowed the assessee’s appeal.

Now both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeal before this Tribunal raising the grounds extracted supra.

As regards the assessee’s appeal ITA No.1298/PUN/2025, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account u/s.145(2) of the Act and further erred in not issuing any notice prior to estimation of income therefore the entire assessment suffers from basic defects. As regards the adhoc disallowance of Rs.50.00 lakh sustained by ld.CIT(A) out of the lorry hire charges so far as the relief granted by ld.CIT(A) is concerned, reliance placed on the said finding stating that ld.CIT(A) has examined the facts in the right perspective. However, as per the past history of the assessments completed in the case of assessee, adhoc disallowance for lorry hire charges found at Rs.10.00 lakh only and therefore submitted that at the most the disallowance of lorry hire charges may be restricted to Rs.10.00 lakh.

As regards the adhoc disallowance of Rs.10.00 lakh sustained by ld.CIT(A), ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that complete details were maintained and no specific error has been pointed out by the Assessing Officer and already most of the expenses are part of the alleged adhoc lorry charges disallowances have already been considered and therefore adhoc disallowance of Rs.10.00 lakh deserves to be deleted.

Further, with regard to Ground No.3, he submitted that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,48,75,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act without considering that in assessee’s own case for the very same issue raised for A.Y. 2013-14 this Tribunal vide order dated 29.01.2021 in ITA No.528/PUN/2017 has allowed the deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act. Further reference made to the detailed written submissions wherein the judicial precedents both in favour and against the assessee have been discussed. It is stated that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Chemstar International Income Tax Appeal No.504 of 2025 judgment dated 20.11.2025 dealt with similar type of donation given to School of Human Genetics and Population Health and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal holding that ITAT has relied on the decision of Coordinate bench in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.2039/Mum/2018 order dated 17.06.2021 where the facts were identical. Hon’ble Court further held that the Tribunal gave relief to the assessee in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and since the said judgment was not challenged by the Revenue, then it would not be proper for us to entertain the challenge in this appeal as ITAT has merely followed the decision in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. It has further been held that Revenue must act consistently when facts involved in two or more matters are substantially the same.

It is also submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the case of Tarasafe International (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 282 (Kolkata.Trib) referred and relied on by ld. DR the decision has been arrived after examining the facts of School of Human Genetics and Population Health (SHGPH) whereas in the present case the donation has been given to SHGPH and that there being no specific statement given against the assessee in the Investigation Wing report opportunity of cross examination not provided. Reliance placed on the following decisions :

So far as the issue relating to disallowance u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act is concerned, ld. DR strongly supported the order of ld.CIT(A) and further placed reliance on the following decisions :

So far as the relief granted by ld.CIT(A) on the lorry hire charges, ld. DR strongly supported the order of Assessing Officer and stated that the average rate per kilometre has been provided by the assessee and based on such details ld. Assessing Officer has computed the average rate per kilometre and found that the excess expenditure has been claimed and therefore disallowance made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be confirmed. Similarly for the disallowance of other expenses is concerned, reliance placed on the finding of ld. Assessing Officer.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied upon by both the sides.

We will first take up Assessee’s appeal ITA No.1289/PUN/2025. Ground No.1 has been raised stating that in absence of rejection of books of account, ld. Assessing Officer erred in making adhoc disallowance and estimation of income and therefore the assessment order is bad in law. We have gone through the record and fail to find any merit in this ground of the assessee because ld. Assessing Officer has only taken up certain issues relating to lorry expenses, weighted deduction and miscellaneous other expenses and for the rest of the financial transactions ld. Assessing Officer has not disputed the book results. Even the gross receipts for the year are also not in dispute. Ld. Assessing Officer has also not estimated the total income for the year and has only made certain disallowances for expenses. Therefore, there was no requirement for the Assessing Officer to reject the books of account u/s.145(2) of the Act for making the disallowance of expenses. Therefore, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

Ground No.2 raised by the assessee related to adhoc disallowance of Rs.50.00 lakh confirmed out ld.CIT(A) out of the total disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for lorry hire charges at Rs.15,01,22,158/-. We note that the Revenue has also raised similar ground challenging the relief given by ld.CIT(A) and since appeal of this issue of the Revenue we will take up this issue whole deciding the Revenue’s appeal in subsequent paras.

Ground No.3 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of Weighted Deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act at Rs.1,48,75,000/- for the donation of Rs.85.00 lakhs given to Herbicure Bio-Herbal Research Foundation based on the information from the Investigation Wing about the foundation alleged to be involved in providing accommodation donation entries. We observe that plethora of decisions have been referred and relied on by both the sides. We however taking note that firstly in assessee’s own case in ITA No.528/PUN/2017 order dated 29.01.2021 this Tribunal adjudicated the very same issue and granted relief to the assessee allowing the claim of Weighted Deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act for the donation given to School of Human Genetics and Population Health.

Under identical facts as well as the issue, the issue Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT – ITA No.2039/Mum/2018 order dated 17.06.2021 has adjudicated the issue and decided in favour of the assessee observing as under :

We note that, during the course of hearing, before us, the Id Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the sums paid to "Matrivani and "SHG, were genuine donations and both of the Institutions were admittedly registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We note that both of the said two Institutions viz, "Matrivani" and "SHG", are Scientific Research Association approved as such by Central Government under section 35(l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Notification, bearing No. 229/2007 (F.N0.203/135/2007/ITA-II) dated 21.08.2007 and Notification No. 4/2010 (F. No. 2B/A/2009,/ITA-II dated 28.01.2010 respectively, published in Official Gazette of India. The assessee categorically denied that it ever received back the amounts of donations in cash or in kind from the said Institutions and from any person whatsoever in lieu of the various amounts donated to these two institutions, we note that in the statements, of key persons and alleged brokers recorded by the Investigation Wing in course of survey proceedings, in their cases and the extracts of which was provided to the assesses in the show cause notice, the name of the assessee firm does not appear anywhere. It is to be noted that none of those persons implicate the assessee to have made bogus donations and that cash was paid to the donors assessee in lieu of the alleged bogus donation after deducting their commission. We note that the statements of the various parties and persons were recorded behind the back of the assessee and the Assessing Officer did not allow opportunity of cross examination. We note that in absence of opportunity of cross-examination no reliance could be made on such statements to draw any adverse inference against the assessee firm. The assessee firm denied its knowledge of the statements made by these institutes which were relied on by the Investigation Wing and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of crossexamination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of-the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prern Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del). We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition was upheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: "10. ....Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath of Mr. Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta during survey conducted at the premises of M/s. Herb/cure. We have reproduced Question no. 22 and 23 and answers given by Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, wherein he admits to provide accommodation entries in lieu of cash. This information we should say can be the tool to start an investigation when the assessee made the claim for weighted deduction. The general statement of Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta against donation made the claim of assessee for deduction suspicious. However, when the AO investigated, Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta has confirmed that M/s. Herb/cure was in receipt of the donation and it has not given any refund in cash, then the sole basis of disallowance of claim as a matter of fact disappeared. It should be remembered suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of evidence. The confirmation from Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupla fortifies the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction u/s. 35(1 )(ii) of the Act. The sole basis of the addition/disallowance based on statement recorded on oath during survey cannot be allowed as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kader Khan & sons (supra). Moreover, we note that if the AO was hell bent determined to disallow the claim of the assessee, then he should have granted an opportunity to cross examine Shri Swapan Ranjan Das Gupta and Shri Kishan Bhawasingka as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber (supra). 11. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we cannot sustain the order of the authorities below. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to allow the deduction of Rs.26,28,500/- u/s. 35(l)(ii) of the Act 15. Now, we deal with the arguments of Id DR for the Revenue. We note that the solitary grievance of the Id DR for the Revenue is that since the registration had been cancelled by the CBDT, with retrospective effect that is, with effect from 1sl April 2007, by issuing notification dated 06.09.2016, for both the institutions viz: 'Matrivani' and 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health', therefore these institutions are not entitled to claim benefit under section 35 (1) (ii) of the Act. We note that the withdrawal of recognition u/s 35(l)(ii) of the Act in the hands of the payee organizations would not affect the rights and interests of the assesses herein for claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1 )(ii) of the Act, for that we rely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, Kolkata, in the case of M/s Maco Corporation India (P) Ltd, ITA No.l6/Kol/2017, for Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein it was held as follows: "29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the object of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act held that the order of the CIT passed under Section 12A is quasi judicial in nature. Second, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with power of cancellation of registration fill 01.10.2004; and lastly. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application to the order passed by the CIT under Section 12A because the order is quasi judicial in nature and it is for all these reasons the CIT had no jurisdiction to cancel the registration certificate once granted by him under Section 12A till the power was expressly conferred on the CIT by Section I2AAC3) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2004. We hold that the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court would squarely be applicable to the facts of the instant case. In fact the assessee's case herein falls on a much better footing than the facts before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case before Hon'ble Apex Court, the power of cancellation of registration us 12A of the Act was conferred by the Act on the Id CIT w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that prior to that date , no cancellation of registration could happen. But in the instant case, there is absolutely no provision for withdrawal of recognition u/s 35(l)(ii) of the Act. Hence we hold that the withdrawal of recognition u/s 35(l)(ii) of the Act in the hands of the payee organizations would not affect the rights and interests of the assessee herein for claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(H) of the Act." 16.In view of the aforesaid findings in the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we direct the Id AO to grant deduction u/s 35(1 )(ii) of the Act, in the sum of Rs. 4,81,25,000/- for A. Y, 2013-14 and in the sum of Rs. 10,50,00,000/-, for A. Y. 2014-15, as claimed by him under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of the amounts of donations made to two Institutions viz. 'Matrivani Institute Experimental Research & Education' and The School of Human Genetics and Population Health'. Accordingly, the Grounds 1 to 4 raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 and the Grounds 1 to 5 raised by the assessee for A. Y. 2014-15 are allowed." 9. Similarly in various other decisions the issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by disregarding the revenue's contentions that the registration of the school has been cancelled by the CBDT with retrospective effect by issuing Notification and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to benefit u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act. The facts before us being materially same involving the same school, namely, "The School of Human Genetics and Population Health", we, therefore, respectfully following the decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal, hold that the deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the AO to grant deduction u/s.35(1 )(ii) of the Act. Appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-2014 is hereby allowed.”

We note that facts in the present case are identical. The withdrawal of the approval to the payee has taken place subsequent to the payment by the assessee. The assessee’s case duly follows under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act which read as under :- Section 35(1)(ii) : an amount equal to one and one half times of any sum paid to a research association which has as its object the undertaking of scientific research or to a university, college or other institution to be used for scientific research : Provided that such association, university, college or other institution for the purposes of this clause— (A) is for the time being approved, in accordance with the guidelines, in the manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed; and (B) such association, university, college or other institution is specified as such, by notification in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government : Provided further that where any sum is paid to such association, university, college or other institution in a previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, the deduction under this clause shall be equal to the sum so paid; 13. Hence the payee was duly approved when the payment was done. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the assessee could have done the impossible and known that subsequently the approval will be withdrawn. Accordingly, following the above said precedent and noting that it is not the case that Hon'ble Bombay High Court has reversed the decision, we set aside the order of authorities below. The assessee is therefore held to be eligible for deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act.”

Subsequently, Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Chemstar International Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.3798 & 3799/Mum/2023 order dated 05.07.2024 dealing with the very same issue of disallowance of Weighted Deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act for the donation given to “SHGPH and Matrivani” followed the decision of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and held that ld.

We further observe that Revenue in the case of assessee namely Chemstar International Vs. DCIT (supra) filed appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court but failed to succeed as Hon’ble court vide ITA No.504 of 2025 dated 20.11.2025 dismissed the Revenue’s appeal holding that ITAT has relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) dealing with same issue and facts Hon’ble Court held as under :

From the above judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court affirming the decision of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Chemstar International Vs. DCIT (supra) we note that there are two propositions of binding consequence emerged from the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court where the Hon’ble Court has declined to hold that donations to SHGPH were necessarily bogus or that the deduction was impermissible and secondly Revenue’s obligation of consistency applies with full force because if the Revenue has not challenged an ITAT order allowing deduction to one assessee for donation to SHGPH, it cannot successfully challenge an identical ITAT order for another assessee.

Examining the facts of the instant case in light of the above judicial precedents, we note that in the case of assessee also Revenue has not challenged the earlier ITAT order rendered in the case of assessee on identical issue. Further,ld. Assessing Officer has made the impugned disallowance merely based on the information from the Investigation Wing but there is no further enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer nor there is any material on record suggesting that the assessee has received cash against issue of cheque given for the donation. Further no opportunity of cross examination has been granted and therefore the decision of Coordinate Bench, Mumbai in the case of Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) and Chemstar International Vs. DCIT (supra) which have been further affirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court squarely applies on the facts of instant case and also when the assessee gives the donation registration of SHGPH Foundation was active and the assessee under a bonafide belief has given the donation and therefore rightly claimed the Weighted Deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act.

Though ld. DR has referred to various decisions however, since this Tribunal is bound by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we respectfully followed the same. So far as the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Batanagar Education and Research Trust in ITA No.4451/2021 order dated 02.08.2021 which is referred and relied on by ld.CIT(A) in para 30 of the impugned order, we find that in the said judgment the issue was not regarding the correctness of the Weighted Deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act but it was regarding the registration granted u/s.12A and 80G approval to the trust and the Hon’ble Apex Court after examining the facts held that Batanagar Trust was involved in the bogus donation Trust running SHGPH and upheld the cancellation of the registration u/s.12A and 80G approval. However, in the instant case, the assessee has given donation under a bonafide belief for the noble purpose of scientific research as mandated u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act and has paid through banking channel out of its business funds and at that point of time there was no information with the assessee about the alleged engagement of SHGPH trust in any accommodation entry providing network. We therefore following the judicial precedents and taking consistent approach allow the claim of weighted deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act made by the assessee at Rs.1,48,75,000/-. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.

Ground No.4 raised by the assessee challenging the adhoc disallowance confirmed by ld.CIT(A) at Rs.10.00 lakh. Ld. Assessing Officer has made adhoc disallowance of Rs.83,26,353/- out of the various other expenses incurred during the year majorly referring to the increased expenses appearing in the month of March, 2014. However, ld.CIT(A) on observing that the nature of business which the assessee is involved into and having branches at various places, it is quite normal that many expenses which remained to be booked during the year are finally booked in the month of March and finally sustained the addition of Rs.10.00 lakh. Against such action of ld.CIT(A) Revenue has also filed appeal and raised Ground No.2 for the relief granted by ld.CIT(A) whereas the assessee is in appeal challenging the disallowance confirmed at Rs.10.00 lakh. We note that the assesse is into transport business and turnover for the year is around Rs.180.24 crore and profit before tax is shown at Rs.6.74 crore. Assessee is having fleet of 75 vehicles and also takes many vehicles on hire. Books of account have been maintained regularly and duly audited. Ld. Assessing Officer has only referred to the monthly figures of various expenses incurred under the heads “lorry hire charges, on line charges, staff welfare, power and fuel, vehicle repair, salary and wages, rent” etc. Based on such monthly figures, ld. Assessing Officer had already made disallowance of lorry expenses computing average rate of fuel. Now again, ld. Assessing Officer had given general observation and did not point out any specific error in the expenses claimed under various heads. We fail to find any justification in the finding of ld.CIT(A) affirming the disallowance of Rs.10.00 lakh made by the Assessing Officer because there is no error pointed out by the Revenue authorities about any expenses without proper supporting vouchers nor any specific information has been gathered which could show that assessee has claimed excess expenditure. Therefore such adhoc disallowance deserves to be deleted. We accordingly order so and set aside the finding of ld.CIT(A). Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is allowed and Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is general in nature which needs no adjudication.

Now we are left with only issue raised in Revenue’s appeal relating to disallowance of lorry hire charges which ld. Assessing Officer has computed at Rs.15,01,22,158/- but ld.CIT(A) has sustained at Rs.50.00 lakh as a result of which on one hand the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs.50.00 lakh sustained by ld.CIT(A) and that Revenue has raised Ground No.1 challenging the relief granted by ld.CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.14,51,22,158/-. We note that the assessee is engaged in the transport business, owns 75 vehicles and the expenses incurred on such own lorry expenses are Rs.8,74,18,983/- which is approximately 4.85%. Assessee also takes lorries on hire and the magnitude of lorry hiring is much more than the own lorry running which is evident with the lorry hire charges during the year booked at Rs.143.23 crore which comes to approximately 79.46% of the total gross receipts. When ld. Assessing Officer called for the monthly details, we observe that in certain months average rate per kilometre is varying to a great extent. The details of own lorry and hired lorries were called for and that on the basis of monthly statements of average rates, ld. Assessing Officer took the basis of lowest average rate per kilometre and computed the impugned disallowance at Rs.15,01,22,158/-. When the matter carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) complete details were filed along with other expenses incurred for own lorry and hired lorries. Details were also filed for the total kilometre running on monthly basis along with sample log sheets. Details also furnished about the categories of trucks based on the Truck type and Payload on which running cost per kilometre varies. Finding of ld.CIT(A) examining all these details reads as under :

Ld. DR failed to controvert the detailed finding of ld.CIT(A). We also find that similar issue has been dealt by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act on multiple occasions in the past and adhoc disallowance is normally at Rs.10.00 lakh per year for A.Y. 2012-13, A.Y.2013-14 and A.Y. 2016-17. Considering the consistent approach taken by the Revenue authorities in assessee’s own case dealing with very same nature of expense as well as the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that adhoc disallowance of only Rs.12.00 lakh out of lorry expenses for the year under consideration needs to be sustained. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is thus partly sustained. To conclude out of the impugned disallowance at Rs.15,01,22,158/-, only an adhoc disallowance of Rs.12.00 lakh is sustained. Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue and assessee on this issue are partly allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Assessee are partly allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove.