BAJAJ HOLDINGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( FORMERLY BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU, MUMBAI

order \n: \n: \n 22.11.2024 \n 17.02.2025 \n \nO R D E R \n \nPer Bench: \n1. This is a batch of six appeals consisting of a set of 3 cross-appeals \npertaining to Assessment Years 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006- \n2007. Since identical issues were raised in the appeals, the same \nwere heard together and are, therefore, being disposed off by way \nof a common order. \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n3 \n \n Assessment Year 2005-2006 \n \n2. At the request of both the sides, we would first take up cross appeal for Assessment Year 2005-2006 arising from order dated, \n30/11/2009, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax \n(Appeals)-24, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] \nwhereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal of the \nAssessee against the Assessment Order, dated 12/12/2007, \npassed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 \n[hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. \n \n3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a public limited \ncompany engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of two \nwheelers and three wheelers under the popular brand name of \n‘Bajaj’. For the Assessment Year 2005-06 the Assessee filed return \nof income disclosing total income of INR.923,69,30,530/-. The \nAssessing Officer completed the assessment at total income of \nINR.979,95,45,330/- after making certain additions/disallowances. \n \n3.

2. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the CIT(A), the \nAssessee has preferred appeal against the order, dated \n30/11/2009, passed by CIT(A) challenging the \nadditions/disallowances confirmed by the CIT(A). On the other \nhand the Revenue has also preferred a cross-appeal challenging \nthe relief granted by the CIT(A). \n \n3.

by \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n4 \n \nthe Assessee along with the connected grounds, if any, raised by \nthe Revenue. \n \nAppeal by Assessee:ITA No.1223/Mum/2010:AY.2005-2006 \n \nGround No. 1 \n \n4. Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee pertains to disallowance of \nINR.47,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of payment \ntowards fines and penalties which was confirmed by the CIT(A). \nDuring the course of hearing the Learned Authorized \nRepresentative for the Assessee, under instruction, stated that the \nAssessee does not wish to press this ground. Accordingly, Ground \nNo.1 raised by the Assessee is dismissed as not pressed. \n \nGround No. 2 \n \n5. Ground No. 2 raised by the Assessee, which pertains to \nallowability of deduction in respect of proportionate premium on \nleasehold land amounting to INR.42,10,566/- written off during \nthe relevant previous year, reads as under: \n \n

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in \nupholding the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing \ndeduction in respect of proportionate premium on lease hold \nland written off amounting to Rs.42,10,566/-.” \n \n5.

1. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted \nthat the Assessee had debited to the Profit & Loss Account \nproportionate amount of premium on leasehold land amounting to \nINR.42,10,566/- written off during the relevant previous year. In \nNote No. 24 of the ‘Notes to Computation of Total Income’ \nenclosed with the return of income, it was stated that leasehold \npremium was, in effect, advance rent and as such, the \nproportionate premium was allowable as a deduction as per the \nratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of \nMadras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (225 ITR \n802). Reliance was placed by the Assessee on the orders passed \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n5 \n \nby the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for Assessment \nYears 1991-92 onwards in support of the aforesaid contention. \nHowever, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed \nby the Assessee in respect of lease premium written off during the \nrelevant previous year under Section 37(1) of the Act holding the \nsame to be in the nature of capital expenditure. \n \n5.

2. In appeal before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the \nAssessee that the lease was for a period of 99 years; and the \nAssessee was required to pay to Maharashtra Industrial \nDevelopment Corporation (MIDC) a high upfornt lease premium \nalong with a nominal annual lease rent. The upfront lease \npremium paid by the Assessee was in the nature of advance rent \nonly. However, the CIT(A) was not convinced. Agreeing with the \nAssessing Officer, the CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the \nAssessee in this regard by placing reliance on the decision of \nSpecial Bench of the Tribunal in case of JCIT vs. Mukund Ltd. \nreported in 291 ITR (AT) 249. The CIT(A) concluded that no \ndeduction in respect of leasehold premium could be allowed as the \nsame constituted capital expenditure. The CIT(A) also placed \nreliance upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Project \nAutomobiles (1987) 167 ITR 781 (MP) wherein it was held that the \npremium paid for securing lease of land is capital expenditure \neven though paid in annual installments. \n \n5.

3. Being aggrieved the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal \nbefore the Tribunal. \n \n5.

4. During the course of hearing the learned Authorised \nRepresentative for the Assessee submitted that this issue has \nbeen decided in the favor of the Assessee by the Tribunal in the \ncase of the Assessee for the following assessment years: \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n6 \n \n Assessment Year ITA No. Date \n1999-2000 \n2000-2001 \n2125 & 1399/Mum/2005 \n3055 & 2655/Mum/2005 \n28/11/2023 \n1998-1999 8952/Mum/2004 22/08/2023 \n1997-1998 5030/Mum/2001 13/04/2023 \n1996-1997 1781/Mum/2000 20/06/2022 \n1995-1996 3493/Mum/1999 20/01/2021 \n \n5.

5. Per contra the Learned Departmental Representative placed \nreliance on the order passed by the authorities below. \n \n5.

6. We have perused the material on record and considered the rival \nsubmission on this issue. We note that for the assessment years \n1995-1996 to 2000-2001 the Tribunal has consistently allowed \ndeduction of proportionate amount of lease premium written off \nduring the relevant previous year as a revenue expenditure by \nfollowing the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case \nof DCIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 479. We \nnote that in paragraph 50 of the Common Order, dated \n20/01/2021 [passed in & 3493/Mum/1999 \npertaining to Assessment Year 1995-96], the Tribunal has \nrecorded that the Revenue concedes that ‘this ground is covered \nby the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, High Courts & ITAT’. The \naforesaid decision of the Tribunal was followed in appeal preferred \nby the Assessee for the Assessment Year 1996-1997 [ITA \nNo.1781/Mum/2000, Common Order, dated 20/06/2022], and the \nrelevant extract of the same reads as under: \n \n“20. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Assessing \nOfficer following the assessment made in assessment year \n1995-96 has disallowed assessee’s claim of proportionate \nwrite off premium paid on leasehold land Rs.7,42,135/-. In \nfirst appellate proceedings the CIT(A) following the order of \nfirst appellate authority in assessment year 1985-86 and \n1995-96 reversed the findings of Assessing Officer, hence, the \nRevenue is in appeal against the findings of the CIT(A) on this \nissue. We find that in assessment year 1995-96 the Co ordinate Bench has upheld the finding of the CIT(A) by placing \nreliance on various decisions viz: \ni. DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., 329 ITR \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n7 \n \n479 (Guj); \nii. United Phosphorous Ltd. vs. ACIT, 230 Taxman \n590(Guj); and \niii. Lupin Ltd. vs. JCIT in ITA No.5088/Mum/2005 for A.Y. \n1994-95 decided on 02/11/212. \n \nThe Revenue has not been able to controvert the findings of \nCo-ordinate Bench on this issue in assessee’s own case for \n assessment Year 1995-96. Following the decision of Co ordinate Bench, we uphold the finding of CIT(A) on this issue \nand dismiss ground No.7 raised in appeal by the Revenue.” \n \n5.

7. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal has since been followed by \nthe Tribunal while deciding identical issue in favour of the \nAssessee in appeals [listed in paragraph 4.4 above] pertaining to the \n Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2000-2001. There is no change in \nfacts and circumstances of the case. In effect, the Tribunal has \naccepted the contention of the Assessee that the lease premium is \non the nature of advance rent and therefore, proportionate lease \npremium written off was held to be revenue in nature. \nAccordingly, consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in the \nAssessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years, we \noverturned the decision of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer \nto allow deduction of proportionate premium on leasehold land \namounting to INR.42,10,566/- written off during the relevant \nprevious year as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, Ground No.2 \nraised by the Assessee is allowed. \n \nGround No. 3 \n \n6. Ground No.3(a) to 3(c) raised by the Assessee, which pertain to \ndisallowance made under Section 14A of the Act, read as under: \n \n3.(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in \nupholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing \ninterest under section 14A of the Act and remitting the \nmatter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to recalculate \ndisallowance in accordance with provisions of rule 8D. \n \n(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n8 \n \nthe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in \nupholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing \nadministrative expenses under section 14A of the Act and \nremitting the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer \nto recalculate the disallowances in accordance with \nprovisions of rule 8D. \n \n(c) The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) further erred in \nholding that since sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14A \nhave retrospective effect, disallowance under section 14A \nought to be computed in accordance with provisions of rule \n8D. \n \n6.

1. Ground No.3(a) pertain to interest expenses of INR.15,79,260/- \ndisallowed made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the \nAct. \n \n6.

2. During the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2005-06, \nthe Assessee received following incomes aggregating to \nINR.54,88,79,635/- were claimed to be exempt from tax under \nSection 10 of the Act: \n \n(a) Interest on tax free bonds amounting to INR.19,44,77,062/- \nclaimed to be exempt under Section 10(23G) of the Act \n \n(b) Income from mutual fund unit amounting to \nINR.2,42,59,842/- claimed to be exempt under Section \n10(33) of the Act \n \n(c) Dividend amounting to INR.33,01,42,731/- claimed to be \nexempt under Section 10(15) of the Act \n \n6.

3. In the computation of income the Assessee did not make any \ndisallowance under Section 14A of the Act. In response to a query \nraised by the Assessing Officer in this regard during the \nassessment proceedings, the Assessee made detailed submissions \nexplaining that the investments yielding tax free income had been \nsourced from the Assessee’s own non-interest bearing funds. \nHowever, the Assessing Officer was not convinced. The Assessing \nOfficer rejected the aforesaid contentions of the Assessee holding \nas under: \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n9 \n \n(a) investments in shares of domestic companies and earning \ndividend income was a divisible activity from the other \nactivities carried out by the Assessee; \n \n(b) the Assessee had utilised funds from a common pool of \nfunds for all its activities and accordingly, the Assessee's \ncontention that investment yielding tax-free income has \nbeen sourced out of its own net worth was without any \nbasis, \n \n(c) the Assessee had not furnished any details or evidence that \ninvestments yielding tax free income were made out of \ninterest free funds, \n \n6.

4. The Assessing Officer noted the average cost of borrowed funds \nwas 0.05% p.a. and therefore, the Assessing Officer made \ndisallowance of interest of INR.15,79,260/- being 0.05% of \nINR.289.21/- Crores [percentage of borrowed funds to total funds \ncomputed at 22.30% x Investment in tax free investments aggregating \nto INR.1296.70 Crores]. \n \n6.

5. In appeal preferred by the Assessee on this issue, the CIT(A) \ndisposed off the ground raised by the Assessee holding as under: \n \n“8.10 I have considered the above decision. However, it may be \nnoted that in case of Hero Cycles Ltd the Punjab and \nHaryana High Court has not taken into consideration the \ndecision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in Daga \nCapital Management Private Ltd vs ITO. \n \n8.11 I have also considered the facts of the case and I have also \ngone through the facts on record, but respectfully following \nthe decision of the Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in \ncase of Daga Capital Management Private Limited 312 ITR \n1(AT), I remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer with \na direction to recalculate the disallowance as per rule BD, \nas held in this case as follows on page 59 para 88 wherein \nit has been held that: \n \n\"As we have held that sub-sections (2) and (3) of \nSection 14A are retrospective in nature and the \nresultant rule 8D would also fall on the same line, then \nthe disallowance under section 14A is required to be \ncomputed with reference to the mandate of these \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n10 \n \nprovisions. We, therefore, set aside the impugned \norders in all the cases before us and remit the \nmatter to the file of the Assessing Officers for computing the \ndisallowance in terms of section 14A read with rule \n8D\" \n \nThis ground of appeal is allowed.” \n \n6.

6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal \nbefore the Tribunal seeking deletion of disallowance of interest of \nINR.15,79,260/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A \nof the Act. \n \n6.

7. It was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that the CIT(A) erred \nin applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, \n1962 (for short ‘IT Rules’) as the same was not applicable to the \n Assessment Year 2005-2006. It was further submitted that own \nfunds (i.e. share capital plus reserves & surplus) of the Assessee \nas on 31/03/2005 stood at INR.4,134.35 Crores and the same \nwere much more than the investments of INR.1296.70 Crores \nconsidered by the Assessing Officer. Further, out of borrowed \nfunds of INR.1,226.99 Crores, funds of INR.1,225.23 Crores \npertained to the Sales Tax Deferral Scheme. Therefore, sufficient \ninterest-free own funds were available with the Assessee to make \ninvestments and therefore, no disallowance of interest was \nwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. \n \n6.

8. Per contra the Learned Departmental Representative placed \nreliance on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. \n \n6.

10. It is settled legal position that provisions of Rule 8D of the IT \nRules were not applicable for assessment years prior to \n assessment year 2007-2008 [Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd. Vs. \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n11 \n \nDCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bombay) & Maxopp Investments Vs. CIT \n[2018] 402 ITR 640 (SC)]. \n \n6.

11. Further, on perusal of Assessment Order we find that the \nAssessing Officer has concluded that interest of INR.15,79,260/- \nwas incurred in relation to investment made in tax free \ninvestments aggregating to INR.1296.70 Crores. A perusal of \nfinancial statements of the Assessee for the relevant previous year \nshows that Own Funds (Share Capital and Reserves & Surplus) of \nthe Assessee as on 31/03/2005 stood at INR.4,134.35 Crores \nwhich was much more than the investments of INR.1296.70 \nCrores considered by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of \ncomputing the amount of disallowance of interest expenses. As \nper the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South \nIndian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT:[2021] 438 ITR 1 (SC) and the \njudgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. \nHDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505) Bom there was presumption in the \nfavour of the Assessee that the tax-free investments were made \nout of interest-free own funds and therefore, no disallowance of \ninterest expenses was warranted even if the provisions of Rule 8D \nof the IT Rules were applicable. Since the Revenue has failed to \nbring on record any material to rebut the aforesaid presumption, \nin the facts and circumstances of the present case, we accept the \ncontention of the Assessee and delete the disallowance of interest \nof INR.15,79,260/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section \n14A of the Act. \n \n7. Ground No.3(b) raised by the Assessee pertains to disallowance of \nexpenses of INR.2,48,61,690/- made by the Assessing Officer \nunder Section 14A of the Act holding the same to be \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n12 \n \nadministrative expenses incurred by the Assessee for earning \nexempt income. \n \n7.

1. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the following expenses \naggregating to INR.44.47/- Crores were attributable to earning \nexempt income of INR.54.88 Crores out of total income \nINR.981.83 Crores: \n \n Expenditure Amount (INR ‘000’) \n1. Power & Fuel 8,586 \n2. Repairs 143,120 \n3. Employee Emoluments 272,756 \n4. Rates and Taxes 5,638 \n5. Insurance 7,687 \n6. Miscellaneous Expenses 6,937 \n Total 444,724 \n \nThus, the Assessing Officer made proportionate disallowance of \nINR.2,48,61,690/- computed as under: \n \n 44,47,24,000/- x (54.88 Crores/981.83Crore) \n \n7.

2. In appeal preferred by the Assessee on this issue, the CIT(A) \ndisposed off the ground raised

by the Assessee holding as under: \n \n“9.5 I have considered the submissions made by the AR. I do \nnot agree with the AR that no administrative expenditure is \nattributable to earn exempt income. The CIT(A) in the order \npassed for the AY 2004-05 and in earlier years has held \n10% of employee emoluments and miscellaneous expenses \nought to be apportioned towards earning exempt income in \nthe ratio of exempt income to the total income credited to \nthe Profit and Loss Account. The said method was \nprescribed when rule 8D was not in existence. The Income \ntax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008 inserted w.e.f

24. March \n2008 prescribed method for determining amount of \nexpenditure in relation to income not includible in total \nincome. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of \nthe Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in case of Daga \nCapital Management Private Limited 312 ITR

1. (AT), I remit \nthe matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to \nrecalculate the disallowance as per rule 8D, as held in this \ncase on page 59 para 88 wherein it has been held that: \n \n\"As we have held that sub-sections (2) and (3) of \nSection 14A are retrospective in nature and the \nresultant rule 8D would also fall on the same to the \ndisallowance under section 14A is required to be \ncomputed with reference to the mandate of these \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n13 \n \norders in all the cases before us and remit the \nmatter to the file of the Assessing Officers for \ncomputing the disallowance in terms of Section 14A \nread with rule 8D” \n \n7.

3. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal \nbefore the Tribunal seeking further relief. \n \n7.

4. During the course of hearing it was submitted on behalf of the \nAssessee that the provisions of Rule 8D of the IT Rules were \napplicable only from Assessment Years 2007-2008 and onwards. \nIt was further submitted that Assessing Officer had made similar \ndisallowances in the prior assessment years (i.e. Assessment \nYears 2003-2004 and 2004-05). However, the CIT(A) had directed \nthe Assessing Officer to exclude expenses such as Power and Fuel, \nRepairs, Rates and Taxes and Insurance as these expenses had no \nnexus with the investment activity. Further, the CIT(A) had also \ndirected the Assessing Officer to consider only 10% of Employee \nEmoluments and Miscellaneous Expenses for computing \ndisallowance in the ratio of exempt income to total income. The \nAssessee has accepted the said manner of computation in \n Assessment Year 2003-04 as the ground raised in appeal before \nthe Hon'ble Tribunal for the aforesaid assessment year was not \npressed by the Assessee. In view of aforesaid, without prejudice \nto the contention of the Assessee that no expenditure was \nincurred for earning exempt income, it was submitted that \naforesaid method of computation be adopted for the assessment \nyear under consideration and the Assessing Officer be directed to \ncompute the disallowance of administrative expenses under \nSection 14A of the Act in the same manner as directed by the \nCIT(A) in Assessment Year 2003-04 and Assessment Year 2004- \n05. A copy of similar working for the assessment year under \nconsideration was also placed before the Tribunal. \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n14 \n \n7.

5. Per contra the Learned Departmental Representative placed \nreliance on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. It was \nsubmitted that the CIT(A) has already remitted the matter back to \nAO to calculate as per Rule 8D. Without prejudice to the aforesaid \nby placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High \nCourt in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Godrej Agrovet Ltd [Income Tax \nAppeal No. 934 of 2011, dated 08/01/2013], it was submitted by \nthe Learned Departmental Representative that disallowance at the \nrate of 2% should be upheld. \n \n7.

6. We have perused the material on record and considered the rival \nsubmission on this issue. \n \n7.

7. We have already concluded hereinabove that provisions contained \nin Rule 8D of the IT Rules are not applicable to the Assessment \nYear 2005-2006. \n \n7.

8. We note that method of computation of disallowance of \nadministrative expenses under Section 14A of the Act as adopted \nby the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2005-06, was adopted by \nthe CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2004-2005 as the CIT(A) had \ndirected the Assessing Officer to compute the disallowance in the \nfollowing manner vide order, dated 21/08/2008, passed by the \nCIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2004-05: \n \n“10.4 I have considered the submissions made by the AR. I do \nnot agree with the AR that no administrative expenditure \nis attributable to earn exempt income. In my opinion, \nexpenses not connected at all with earning of exempt \nincome ought not to be attributed. Accordingly, power \nand fuel, repairs, rates and taxes and insurance should \nnot be considered for earning exempt income. However, \nit cannot be ruled out that no expenditure would have \nbeen incurred by the appellant for earning exempt \nincome. Accordingly, I direct the AO to apportion 10% of \nemployee emoluments and miscellaneous expenses \ntowards earning exempt income. Further, for \napportioning the said expenses, the ratios of exempt \nincome of Rs.106,54,33,610 to the total income credited \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n15 \n \nto the Profit and Loss Account amounting to \nRs.5933,58,10,011/- should be taken.” \n \n7.

9. The contention of the Assessee is that even for the Assessment \nYear 2005-2006 same method can be adopted to quantify the \nadministrative expenses to be disallowed under Section 14A of the \nAct. However, we note that the Revenue has not accepted the \naforesaid method adopted by the CIT(A) and has challenged the \nsame in appeal before the Tribunal. Further, we note that identical \nissue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the \ncase of the Assessee in appeals pertaining to the Assessment Year \n2002-2003 [ITA No. 3043 & 2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024] \nwherein this issue was disposed off as under: \n \n“Ground No. 4(b): Disallowance of Administrative expenditure \nattributable to earning of exempt income of Rs.27,388,373/-: \n \n 18. During the relevant assessment year the assessing officer \nhas computed administrative expenditure towards earning exempt \nincome in accordance with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rule of the amount \nof Rs.2,73,88,373/-: \n \n 19. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. \nCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. \n \n 20. During the course of appellate proceeding before us the ld. \nCounsel submitted that the case of the assessee is pertained to \n assessment year 2002-03 and the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule \nhas come into existence only w.e.f assessment year 2007-08, \ntherefore, the disallowance cannot be made in accordance with rule \n8D of the I.T. Rule. The ld. Counsel has referred the decision of the \nHon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Godrej \nAgronet Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No. 934 of 2011 dated 08.01.2013 \nwherein it is held that rule 8D of the Income Tax Rule 1962 is \napplicable prospectively w.e.f assessment year 2008-09 and such \ndisallowance was restricted to 2% of the exempt income. On the \nother hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. \n \n 21. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. \nWe consider that Rule 8D is applicable prospectively w.e.f \n assessment year 2008-09 as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High \nCourt in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Godrej Agronet Ltd. as discussed \nsupra, therefore, following the decision of the Bombay High Court \nwe direct the assessing officer to restrict the disallowance of \nadministrative expenses to the extent of 2% of the total exempt \nincome in the case of the assessee pertained to assessment year \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n16 \n \n2002-03. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly \nallowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) \n \n7.

10. On perusal of the above, it can be seen that the Tribunal had \nrestricted the disallowance to 2% by placing reliance upon the \ndecision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s \nGodrej Agronet Ltd. (supra) cited on behalf of the Assessee. \n \n7.

11. We are also alive to the fact while adjudicating identical issue for \nthe Assessment Year 2003-2004, the Tribunal has [vide order, \ndated 09/09/2024, passed in & 1420/Mum/2007] \naccepted the computation method adopted by the CIT(A) similar \nto the one adopted for the Assessment Year 2005-06. However, \nwe note that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal \non this issue for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 [passed in ITA \nNo. 3043 & 2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024] has skipped the \nattention of the Tribunal even though reference to the aforesaid \ndecision for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 was made in \nparagraph 96 of the aforesaid order, dated 09/09/2024, passed by \nthe Tribunal in appeal for the Assessment Year 2003-2004, while \nadjudicating ground raised by the Assessee relating to \ndisallowance of interest expenses under Section 14A of the Act. \nFurther, we are of the view that method adopted by the CIT(A) \nwas also not reasonable. The CIT(A) had after excluding Power & \nFuel Expenses, Repairs/Rates & Taxes and Insurance Expenses’ \nand thereafter, having allocated 10% of Employee Emoluments \nand Miscellaneous Expenses to earning of exempt income, further \napportioned the expenses so attributed in proportion of exempt \nincome to total income to arrive at the quantum of disallowance. \n \n7.

12. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to depart from \nthe view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in appeal \nfor the Assessment Year 2002-2003 [ITA No. 3043 & \n2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024]. Accordingly, as per the \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n17 \n \njudgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s \nGodrej Agronet Ltd. (supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to \nrestrict the disallowance of administrative expenses to the extent \nof 2% of the total exempt income. Thus, Ground No. 3(b) raised \nby the Assessee is, therefore, partly allowed. \n \n7.

13. By way of Ground No. 3(c), the Assessee has contended that the \nauthorities below erred in applying provisions contained in Rule 8D \nof the IT Rules to the assessment year under consideration. We \nhave already concluded hereinabove that the provisions of Rule \n8D of the IT Rules are not applicable to the Assessment Year \n2005-06. Accordingly, Ground No. 3(c) raised the Assessee is \nallowed. \n \nGround No. 4 \n \n8. Ground No.4 raised by the Assessee pertains to disallowance of \nINR.30,73,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of \npayment towards wealth-tax which was confirmed by the CIT(A). \nDuring the course of hearing the Learned Authorized \nRepresentative for the Assessee, under instruction, submitted that \nthe Assessee does not wish to press this ground. Accordingly, \nGround No.4 raised by the Assessee is dismissed as not pressed. \n \nGround No.5 \n \n9. Ground No. 5 raised by the Assessee, which pertains to \nallowability of deduction in respect of software purchase expenses \namounting to INR.63,32,318/-, reads as under: \n \n“5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in \nupholding the action of the Assessing Officer in treating part \nof the expenses incurred in relation to purchase and up \ngradation of software amounting to Rs 63,32,318/-as \ncapital in nature.” \n \n9.

1. During the relevant previous year the Assessee had incurred \nexpenditure amounting to INR.3,75,05,700/- for New Software \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n18 \n \nPurchases out of which expenditure aggregating to \nINR.1,11,47,525/- was capitalized in the books of accounts and \ndepreciation of INR.33,89,043/- was claimed in respect of the \nsame. However, during the assessment proceedings the Assessee \nclaimed that deduction of INR.3,75,05,700/- should be allowed in \nrespect of the aforesaid New Software Expenses as the same are \nrevenue in nature. It was contended on behalf of the Assessee \nthat the Assessee had merely acquired right to use the software \n(and not the ownership). Further, the aforesaid expenditure did \nnot bring into existence any asset of enduring nature. However, \nthe Assessing Officer was not convinced. The Assessing Officer, \nrejecting the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the \nAssessee, concluded that expenditure amounting to \nINR.3,75,05,700/- for New Software Purchases was capital in \nnature and therefore, deduction for the same could not be \nallowed. However, the Assessing Officer allowed the Assessee to \nclaim depreciation under Section 32 of the Act @ 60%. Thus, a \nnet disallowance of INR. 63,32,318/- was made by the Assessing \nOfficer. \n \n9.

2. In appeal preferred by the Assessee on this issue, the CIT(A) \ndeclined to grant any relief and rejected the ground raised by the \nAssessee by placing reliance upon the decision of Special Bench of \nthe Tribunal in case of Amway India Enterprises reported in 111 \nITD 112. \n \n9.

3. Being aggrieved the Assessee has carried the issue before the \nTribunal. \n \n9.

4. During the course of appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, \nthe Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted \nthat software expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure \nunder Section 37(1) of the Act. It was submitted that the decision \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n19 \n \nof Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amway India \nEnterprises (Supra) has been reversed by the Hon'ble Delhi High \nCourt in the case of CIT Vs Amway India Enterprises : [2012] 346 \nITR 341 (Delhi)[04-11-2011]. Accepting the aforesaid submission \nof the Assessee, the Tribunal has allowed identical ground raised \nby the Assessee in appeal for the Assessment Year 2002-2003 \nvide order, dated 24/06/2024, passed in ITA No. 3043 & \n2899/Mum/2010. The Learned Authorized Representative for the \nAssessee also placed reliance on Page No.74 of the factual paper \nbook giving details of the software expenses in support of the \ncontention that the Software Purchase Expenditure were revenue \nin nature. \n \n9.

5. On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative \nsupported the order of authorities below. He submitted that \nsoftware is an integral part of hardware and therefore, such \nsoftware without which the computer cannot operate is to be \ntreated as plant and equipment which are meant for long term \nuse. Thus, expenditure on New Software Purchased has been \ncorrectly classified as capital expenditure by the Assessing Officer \nand the CIT(A) since the same is resulting in enduring benefit to \nthe Assessee. Further, the Assessee has failed to clarify whether \nthe new software purchased is operating software or application \nsoftware. \n \n9.

6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions \nand have perused the material on record. \n \n9.

7. We note that the Assessee had incurred an expenditure of \nINR.3,75,05,700/- towards New Software Purchase which was \ndebited to the Profit and Loss Account. Out of the aforesaid \nexpenditure, an amount of INR.2,00,34,850/- pertained to the \npurchase of software for research and development purpose and \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n20 \n \ndeduction in respect of the same was claimed by the Assessee \nunder Section 35 of the Act. Further, recovery of INR.63,23,325/- \nwas made by the Assessee from the dealers in relation to software \nexpenses incurred by the Assessee for the dealers forming part of \nNew Software Purchase expenses. For the balance amount of \nexpenditure incurred on New Software Purchase amounting to \nINR.1,11,47,525/- [INR.3,75,05,700/- Less INR.2,00,34,850/- Less \nINR.63,23,325/-], the Assessee claimed depreciation in the return \nof income. However, in the notes to computation of income, the \nAssessee made a claim that the aforesaid expenditure of \nINR.1,11,47,525/- be allowed as a deduction under Section 37 of \nthe Act. It is the contention of the Assessee that expenditure \nincurred on New Software Purchase is revenue in nature and in \nthis regard, reliance was placed upon the details of ‘New Software \nPurchases’ (placed at Page 74 of the factual Paper Book). On \nperusal of the aforesaid details we find that it gives the break-up \nof New Software Purchases made from different vendors alongwith \nbrief discription. However, the grouping of aforesaid vendor-wise \nexpenses into expenditure on ‘Research & Development’, \nexpenditure ‘For Dealers’ and expenditure for ‘Own Use’ is not \navailable on record. Therefore, we deemed it appropriate to \nremand this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer with the \ndirections to allow deduction for New Software Purchase expenses \nof INR.1,11,47,525/- as revenue expenditure after verifying the \nfactual averments made by the Assessee to the effect that (a) the \nsame do not provide any benefit of enduring nature to the \nAssessee; and/or (b) the same include expenses for purchase of \nsoftware licenses not giving any ownership rights to the \nAssessee. In case the Assessing Officer accepts the contention of the \nAssessee and grants deduction for New Software Purchase \nexpenses of INR.1,11,47,525/- as revenue expenditure, the \nAssessing Officer is directed to reverse the depreciation of \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n21 \n \nINR.63,32,318/- granted to the Assessee in respect of the same \nexpenditure. \n \n9.

8. In terms of the above ground No. 5 raised by the Assessee is \nallowed for statistical purposes. \n \nGround No.6 \n \n10. Ground No. 6 raised by the Assessee, which pertains to addition \nmade by the Assessing Officer in respect of Duty Entitlement Pass \nBook (DEPB) benefit, reads as under: \n \n“6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding \nthat entire Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefit \ncredited to the profit and loss account ought to be taxed \nwithout appreciating the fact that as per section 28(iiid) only \nprofit on transfer of DEPB is chargeable to tax and not the \nentire amount credited to the profit and loss account.” \n \n10.

1. The facts relevant for adjudication of the ground under \nconsideration are that the DEPB benefit of INR.1,03,67,73,501/- \nwas credited to the Profit & Loss Account for the relevant previous \nyear. The aforesaid amount was net of the loss on sale of Licenses \namounting to INR.2,90,10,587/-. \n \n10.

2. While framing assessment the Assessing Officer treated the entire \namount of DEPB Benefit of 1,03,67,73,501/- credited to the Profit \n& Loss Account as income for the relevant previous year and \ndenied deduction for loss on sale of licenses amounting to \nINR.2,90,10,587/-. \n \n10.

3. In appeal preferred by the Assessee on this issue, the CIT(A) \ngranted partial relief. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing \nOfficer holding that once an item is accounted as income in the \naccounts, there is no reason to exclude the same for the purpose of \nincome tax. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was correct in \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n21 \n \nbrining to tax the entire amount of DEPB benefit of \n1,03,67,73,501/- credited to the Profit & Loss Account as income \nfor the relevant previous year. However, the CIT(A) granted relief \nto the Assessee by holding that the loss arising in the current \nyear on account lower realisation as compared to the value \nbooked in earlier years ought to be allowed as a deduction. Thus, \nthe CIT(A) accepted Assessee’s claim for deduction/set off of loss \nof Rs.2,90,10,587/-. \n \n10.

4. Not being satisfied the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal \nbefore the Tribunal. \n \n10.

5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. \nIt emerges that identical issue had come up for consideration \nbefore the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for the Assessment \nYear 2002-2003 [ITA No.3043/Mum/2010 & ITA \nNo.2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024], wherein both the sides \nhad agreed that issues raised were to be decided afresh after \nconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case as per the \njudgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries \nLtd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC). The relevant extract of the \naforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under: \n \n“53. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The \nfacts and findings on the issue of taxability is not fully discussed in \nthe order of the assessing officer and the CIT(A) therefore we \nrestore this issue to the file of the assessing officer to decide the \nsame after examination in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble \nSupreme Court in the case of Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR \n295 (SC). Therefore this ground of appeal of the assessee is \nallowed for statistical purpose.” \n \n10.

6. The above decision of the Tribunal was followed by the Co ordinate bench while adjudicating identical ground raised in appeal \nfor the Assessment Year 2003-2004 [ITA No. 1496 & \n1420/Mum/2007, dated 09/09/2024]. \n \n10.

7. Since the facts and circumstances prevailing during the relevant \nprevious year were identical to those prevailing in Assessment \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n22 \n \nYears 2002-03 and 2003-04, we find no reason to depart from the \nconsistent view taken by the Tribunal in appeals for the \n Assessment Year 2002-2003 and 2003-04. Accordingly, the issues \nraised by way of Ground No.6 in the present appeal are remanded \nback to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication as per \nthe judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel \nIndustries Ltd. (supra). The Assessee is directed to furnish before \nthe Assessing Officer the details of corresponding cost, sale \nproceeds and utilisation of DEPB Benefit. All the rights and \ncontentions of the Assessee are left open. In terms of the \naforesaid, Ground No. 6 raised by the Assessee is allowed for \nstatistical purposes. \n \nGround No.7 \n \n11. Ground No. 7 raised by the Assessee, which pertains to \nallowability of weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the \nAct, reads as under: \n \n“7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding \nthat the appellant is not entitled for weighted deduction \nunder section 35(2AB) for expenditure incurred on research \nand development for the period from 1 April 2004 to 21 \nSeptember 2004”. \n \n11.

1. During the relevant previous year the Assessee had incurred \ncapital and revenue expenses on Research and Development \namounting to INR.54,58,88,905/- on automobiles [notified by the \nCentral Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 35(2AB) of \nthe Act vide Notification No. S.O. 1021(E) dated 21/09/2004]. Out \nof the aforesaid expenditure, an amount of INR.22,32,70,367/- \nwas incurred upto 21/09/2004 and the balance amount of \nINR.26,18,538/- was incurred between 22/09/2004 to \n31/03/2005. \n \n11.

2. Under Section 35(2AB) of the Act the notified industries were \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n23 \n \nentitled to claim weighted deduction of 150% in respect of \nexpenditure incurred on research and development. As per \nNotification No. S.O. 1021(E), dated 21/09/2004, automobile \nincluding automobile components became notified industry falling \nwithin the ambit of Section 35(2AB). In the return of income, the \nAssessee claimed weighted deduction of INR.48,39,27,807/- in \nrespect of expenditure incurred after 21/09/2004 [i.e. on \nINR.32,26,18,538/-]. No weighted deduction was claimed by the \nAssessee on the balance amount of INR.22,32,70,367/- [i.e. \nexpenditure incurred on research and development prior to \n21/09/2004]. However, by way of Note 13 to Computation of \nIncome enclosed along with the said return, the Assessee made a \nclaim for weighted deduction for research and development \nexpenditure of INR.22,32,70,367/- incurred prior to 21/09/2004. \n \n11.

3. The Assessing Officer rejected the aforesaid claim of the Assessee \nby holding that since the notification for including the automobile \nand automobile components within the ambit of section 35(2AB) \nof the Act was silent on the date of its applicability, the Assessee \nwas entitled for weighted deduction only for expenditure incurred \nafter 21/09/2004. \n \n11.

4. In appeal preferred by the Assessee, the CIT(A) concurred with \nthe Assessing Officer and concluded that on a plain reading of \nSection 35(2AB) read with Notification No.245 of 2004 \n[S.O.1021(E)], dated 21/09/2004 weighted deduction under \nSection 35(2AB) of the Act could not be allowed in respect of \nresearch expenses incurred prior to 21/09/2009. \n \n11.

5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue before the \nTribunal. \n \n11.

7. In our view, it would be pertinent to refer to the provisions \ncontained in Section 35(2AB)(1) of the Act as applicable at the \nrelevant time which read as under: \n \n“Section 35 (2AB)(1) Where a company engaged in the \nbusiness of bio-technology or in the business of manufacture or \nproduction of any drugs, pharmaceuticals, electronic equipments, \ncomputers, telecommunication equipments, chemicals or any other \narticle or thing notified by the Board incurs any expenditure on \nscientific research (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of \nany land or building) on in-house research and development facility \nas approved by the prescribed authority, then, there shall be \nallowed a deduction of a sum equal to one and one-half times of \nthe expenditure] so incurred.” (Emphasis Supplied) \n \n11.

8. Bare perusal of the above provisions of Section 35(2AB) of the Act \nshows that weighted deduction is allowed in respect of \nexpenditure incurred on scientific research to a company engaged \nin business of manufacture or production of any item or thing \nnotified by the CBDT. It is admitted position that by virtue of \nNotification No.245 of 2004 [S.O.1021(E)], dated 21/09/2004 \nautomobiles and automobile components were notified as \nitems/things in respect of which aforesaid weighted deduction \nwould be available. \n \n11.

9. Notification No.245 of 2004 [S.O.1021(E)], dated 21/09/2004 \nreads as under: \n \n“SECTION 35(2AB)(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - \nSCIENTIFIC RESEARCH EXPENDITURE - NOTIFIED ARTICLE OR \nTHING FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (1) OF SECTION \n5(2AB)(1) \n \nNOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 1021(E), DATED 21-9-2004 \n \nIn exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of sub-section \n(2AB) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), \nthe Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby notifies automobiles, \nincluding automobile components, as article or thing for the \npurposes of the said clause.” \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n25 \n \n11.

1. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee has installed wind \nfarms in six phases, each qualifying for exemption as power \ngenerating units as per the provisions of Section 80-IA(4)(iv) of \nthe Act. The Assessee opted to claim deduction in respect of the \nPhase I of Wind farm for the first time in Assessment Year 2005- \n06 being the sixth year of operation Phase I of Wind farm. In the \nreturn of income the Assessee computed and claimed deduction \nunder Section 80IA of the Act at ‘Nil’ after deducting depreciation \n(including brought forward depreciation of earlier years). \nHowever, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee \nclaimed that only the depreciation claimed and allowed under \nSection 32 for the Assessment Year 2005-06 ought to be deducted \nand unabsorbed deprecation of earlier years ought not to be \ndeducted since the Assessee had opted to chose Assessment \n2005-06 as the initial assessment year. The aforesaid claim of the \nAssessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer by placing reliance \nupon the provisions contained in Section 80I(5) of the Act which \nread as under: \n \n \n “Section 80-IA. \n \n (1) Where the gross total income of an assessee includes any \nprofits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from \nany business referred to in sub-section (4) (such business being \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n28 \n \nhereinafter referred to as the eligible business) there shall, in \naccordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be \nallowed in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction \nof an amount equal to hundred per cent. of the profits and gains \nderived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. \n \n (2) The deduction specified in sub-section (1) may, at the option \nof the assessee, be claimed by him for any ten consecutive \n assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in \nwhich the undertaking or the enterprise develops and begins to \noperate any infrastructure facility or starts providing \ntelecommunication service or develops an industrial park or \ndevelops a special economic zone referred to in clause (iii) of sub section (4) or generates power or commences transmission or \ndistribution or power or undertakes substantial renovation and \nmodernisation of the existing transmission or distribution lines. \n \n (3) xx xx \n \n (4) This section applies to- \n \n (i) any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing, \nor (ii) operating and maintaining, or (iii) developing, \noperating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which \nfulfils all the following conditions, namely :- \n \n (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by \na consortium of such companies (or by an authority or \na board or a corporation or any other body established \nor constituted under any Central or State Act) ; \n \n (b) it has entered into an agreement with the Central \nGovernment or a State Government or a local \nauthority or any other statutory body for (i) \ndeveloping, or (ii) operating and maintaining, or \n(iii)developing, operating and maintaining a new \ninfrastructure facility ; \n \n (c) it has started or starts operating and maintaining \nthe infrastructure facility on or after the 1st April, \n1995. \n \n (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of \nthis Act, the profits and gains of an eligible business to which the \nprovisions of sub-section (1) apply shall, for the purposes of \ndetermining the quantum of deduction under that sub-section for \nthe assessment year immediately succeeding the initial assessment \nyear or any subsequent assessment year, be computed as if such \neligible business were the only source of income of the assessee \nduring the previous year relevant to the initial assessment year \nand to every subsequent assessment year up to and including the \n assessment year for which the determination is to be made.” \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n29 \n \n \n12.

2. In appeal preferred by the Assessee, the CIT(A) declined to grant \nany relief on this issue and rejected the ground raised by the \nAssessee challenging the order passed by the Assessing Officer on \nthis issue. \n \n12.

3. Being aggrieved the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal \nbefore the Tribunal. \n \n12.

4. We have head both the sides, perused the material on record and \nexamined the position in law in view of the submission made by \nboth the sides and judicial precedents cited during the course of \nhearing on this issue. \n \n12.

5. During the course of hearing heavy reliance was placed on behalf \nof the Assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in \nthe case of M/s Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs ACIT \n(340 ITR 477) (Madras High Court) which was confirmed by the \nHon'ble Supreme Court ((2016) 244 Taxman 58 (SC). On perusal \nof the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court we \nfind that, inter alia, following substantial questions of law was \nraised for consideration: \n \n“(c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, \nthe Tribunal is right in law in saying that unabsorbed depreciation \nof earlier years before the first year of claim, which has already \nbeen absorbed, could be notionally carried forward and taken into \nconsideration for computation of deduction under section 80-IA ? \n \n12.

6. Answering the above question of law in favour of the Assessee, \nthe Hon’ble High Court held as under: \n \n “17. From a reading of sub-section (1), it is clear that it provides \nthat where the gross total income of an assessee includes any \nprofits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from \nany business referred to in sub-section (4), i.e., referred to as the \neligible business, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the \nprovisions of the section, be allowed, in computing the total income \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n30 \n \nof the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to 100 per cent. \nof the profits and gains derived from such business for ten \nconsecutive assessment years. Deduction is given to eligible \nbusiness and the same is defined in sub-section (4). Sub-section \n(2) provides option to the assessee to choose 10 consecutive \n assessment years out of 15 years. Option has to be exercised, if it \nis not exercised, the assessee will not be getting the benefit. \nFifteen years is outer limit and the same is beginning from the year \nin which the undertaking or the enterprise develops and begins to \noperate any infrastructure activity, etc. Sub-section (5) deals with \nquantum of deduction for an eligible business. The words "initial \n assessment year" are used in sub-section (5) and the same is not \ndefined under the provisions. It is to be noted that "initial \n assessment year" employed in sub-section (5) is different from the \nwords "beginning from the year" referred to in sub-section (2). The \nimportant factors are to be noted in sub-section (5) and they are \nas under : \"(1) It starts with a non obstante clause which means it \noverrides all the provisions of the Act and other provisions are to \nbe ignored ; (2) It is for the purpose of determining the quantum \nof deduction ; (3) For the assessment year immediately succeeding \nthe initial assessment year ; (4) It is a deeming provision ; (5) \nFiction created that the eligible business is the only source of \nincome ; and (6) During the previous year relevant to the initial \n assessment year and every subsequent assessment year.\" \n \n18. From a reading of the above, it is clear that the eligible business \nwere the only source of income, during the previous year relevant \nto the initial assessment year and every subsequent assessment \nyears. When the assessee exercises the option, the only losses of \nthe years beginning from initial assessment year alone are to be \nbrought forward and no losses of earlier years which were already \nset off against the income of the assessee. Looking forward to a \nperiod of ten years from the initial assessment is contemplated. It \ndoes not allow the Revenue to look backward and find out if there \nis any loss of earlier years and bring forward notionally even \nthough the same were set off against other income of the assessee \nand the set off against the current income of the eligible business. \nOnce the set off is taken place in earlier year against the other \nincome of the assessee, the Revenue cannot rework the set off \namount and bring it notionally. A fiction created in subsection does \nnot contemplate to bring set off amount notionally. The fiction is \ncreated only for the limited purpose and the same cannot be \nextended beyond the purpose for which it is created. \n \n19. In the present cases, there is no dispute that losses incurred by \nthe assessee were already set off and adjusted against the profits \nof the earlier years. During the relevant assessment year, the \nassessee exercised the option under section 80-IA(2). In Tax Case \nNos.909 of 2009 as well as 940 of 2009, the assessment year was \n2005-06 and in Tax Case No. 918 of 2008 the assessment year \nwas 2004-05. During the relevant period, there were no \nunabsorbed depreciation or loss of the eligible undertakings and \nthe same were already absorbed in the earlier years. There is a \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n31 \n \npositive profit during the year. The unreported judgment of this \ncourt cited supra considered the scope of sub-section (6) of section \n80-I, which is the corresponding provision of sub-section (5) of \nsection 80-IA. Both are similarly worded and, therefore, we agree \nentirely with the Division Bench judgment of this court cited supra. \nIn the case of CIT v. Mewar Oil and General Mills Ltd. (No. 1) \n[2004] 271 ITR 311 (Raj) ; [2004] 186 CTR (Raj) 141, the \nRajasthan High Court also considered the scope of section 80- I \nand held as follows (page 314 of 271 ITR) : \n \n “Having considered the rival contentions which follow on the \nline noticed above, we are of the opinion that on finding the \nfact that there was no carry forward losses of 1983-84, \nwhich could be set off against the income of the current \n assessment year 1984-85, the recomputation of income \nfrom the new industrial undertaking by setting off the carry \nforward of unabsorbed depreciation or depreciation \nallowance from previous year did not simply arise and on the \nfinding of fact noticed by the Commissioner of Income-tax \n(Appeals), which has not been disturbed by the Tribunal and \nchallenged before us, there was no error much less any \nerror apparent on the face of the record which could be \nrectified. That question would have been germane only if \nthere would have been carry forward of unabsorbed \ndepreciation and unabsorbed development rebate or any \nother unabsorbed losses of the previous year arising out of \nthe priority industry and whether it was required to be set \noff against the income of the current year. It is not at all \nrequired that losses or other deductions which have already \nbeen set off against the income of the previous year should \nbe reopened again for computation of current income under \nsection 80-I for the purpose of computing admissible \ndeductions thereunder. In view thereof, we are of the \nopinion that the Tribunal has not erred in holding that there \nwas no rectification possible under section 80-I in the \npresent case, albeit, for reasons somewhat different from \nthose which prevailed with the Tribunal. There being no \ncarry forward of allowable deductions under the head \ndepreciation or development rebate which needed to be \nabsorbed against the income of the current year and, \ntherefore, recomputation of income for the purpose of \ncomputing permissible deduction under section 80-I for the \nnew industrial undertaking was not required in the present \ncase. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed \nwith no order as to costs." \n \n20. From a reading of the above, the Rajasthan High Court held that it \nis not at all required that losses or other deductions which have \nalready been set off against the income of the previous year should \nbe reopened again for computation of current income under section \n80-I for the purpose of computing admissible deductions \nthereunder. We also agree with the same. We see no reason to \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n32 \n \ntake a different view. \n \n 21. The standing counsel appearing for the Revenue is unable to \nbring to our notice any relevant material or any compelling reason \nor any contra judgment of other courts to take a different view. He \nonly relied heavily on the Memorandum explaining the provisions in \nthe Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980, [1980] 123 ITR (St.) 154 to support \nthis case and the same reads as follows : \n \n\"Clause 30(iii). In computing the quantum of 'tax holiday' \nprofits in all cases, taxable income derived from the new \nindustrial units, etc., will be determined as if such units were \nan independent unit owned by a taxpayer who does not have \nany other source of income. In the result, the losses, \ndepreciation and investment allowance of earlier years in \nrespect of the new industrial undertaking, ship or approved \nhotel will be taken into account in determining the quantum \nof deduction admissible under the new section 80- I even \nthough they may have been set off against the profits of the \ntaxpayer from other sources.\" \n \n22. We are not agreeing with the counsel for the Revenue. We are, \ntherefore, of the view that loss in the year earlier to the initial \n assessment year already absorbed against the profit of other \nbusiness cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against \nthe profits of the eligible business as no such mandate is provided \nin section 80-IA(5).” (Emphasis Supplied) \n \n12.

7. The above judgment was followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the \nTribunal in the case of Bajaj Finserv Limited Vs. The deputy \nCommissioner of Income Tax –LTU [ITA No.4223/Mum/2012, \n Assessment Year 2008-09, dated 24/06/2021] cited on behalf of \nthe Assessee. \n \n12.

8. Keeping in view the judicial precedents cited in behalf of the \nAssessee, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and \ndirected the Assessing Officer to recomputed the deduction under \nSection 80IA of the Act as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras \nHigh Court in the case of M/s Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) \nLtd. (supra) wherein it was held that the unabsorbed \ndepreciation/loss pertaining to assessment years preceding the \ninitial assessment year to the extent already absorbed against the \nprofit of other business of the Assessee cannot be notionally \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n33 \n \nbrought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible \nbusiness for the purpose of the computing deduction under \nSection 80IA of the Act as no such mandate has been provided by \nSection 80IA(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed \naccordingly. In terms of the aforesaid directions, Ground No. 8 \nraised by the Assessee is allowed. \n \nAppeal by Revenue: A.Y. 2005-06: ITA No.535/Mum/2010 \n \n13. We would now take up the grounds raised

by the Revenue in the \ncross-appeal for the Assessment Year 2005-2006. \n \nGround No. 1 \n \n14. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue, which pertains to the claim \nof deduction under Section 35D of the Act in respect of GDR issue \nexpenses amounting to INR.1,17,19,960/- written off during the \nrelevant previous year, reads as under: \n \n

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the \nLearned CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s.35D \namounting to Rs.1,17,19,960/-.” \n \n14.

1. The relevant facts in brief are for the Assessment Year 1995-96, \nthe Assessee had claimed deduction under Section 37(1) of the \nAct in respect of expenses incurred in connection with the issue of \nGlobal Depository Receipts (GDR). In alternative, the Assessee \nclaimed deduction for the aforesaid expenses be allowed under \nSection 35D of the Act. In the assessment order passed under \nsection 143(3) for Assessment Year 1995-96, the Assessee’s claim \nfor deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act was rejected. \nHowever, in respect of the alternative claim for proportionate \ndeduction under Section 35D of the Act, the Assessing Officer was \nof the view that the claim was required to be examined in the year \nin which the extension of the industrial undertaking is completed \nor the new industrial undertaking commences production. \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n34 \n \nAccordingly, the Assessee claimed deduction under Section 35D of \nthe Act for the first time in Assessment Year 1997-98 since the \nexpansion project was completed during the previous year (ended \n31/03/1997) relevant to Assessment Year 1997-98. The aforesaid \nclaim of the Assessee made for the Assessment Year 1997-1998 \nwas rejected by the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(A) \nallowed Assesssee’s claim for deduction under Section 35D of the \nAct in respect of GDR Issue expenses. The appeal preferred by the \nRevenue against the aforesaid relief granted by the CIT(A) was \ndismissed by the Tribunal vide order, dated 14/03/2023, [ITA \nNo.5030/Mum/2001]. \n \n14.

2. For the Assessment Year 2005-06, in the return of income the \nAssessee had claimed deduction of INR.1,17,19,960/- under \nSection 35D of the Act in respect of 1/10th of the GDR issue \nexpenses which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. However, \nin appeal, the CIT(A) accepted Assessee’s claim and allowed \ndeduction for the aforesaid expenses. Therefore, the Revenue has \ncarried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. \n \n14.

3. During the course of hearing, both sides agreed that following the \nabove decision of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1997-98 \n[ITA No.5030/Mum/2001, dated 14/03/2023], the Hon'ble Tribunal \nhas consistently upheld/allowed Assessee’s claim for deduction \nunder Section 35D of the Act in respect of 1/10th of the GDR issue \nexpenses. \n \n14.

4. We note that the Tribunal has dismissed identical ground raised

by \nthe Revenue in appeals preferred for Assessment Years 1998-1999 \nto 2002-2003: \n \n(a) AY 2002

03. (ITA No.2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024) \n(b) AY 2001

02. (ITA No.4372/Mum/2005, dated 23/02/2024) \n(c) AY 2000

01. (ITA No.2655/Mum/2005, dated 28/11/2023) \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n35 \n \n(d) AY 1999

00. (ITA No.1933/Mum/2005, dated 28/11/2023) \n(e) AY 1998 99. (ITA No.8952/Mum/2004, dated 22/08/2023) \n(f) AY 1997 98. (ITA No.5030/Mum/2001, dated 13/04/2023) \n \n14.

5. There is nothing on record to persuade us to depart from the view \ntaken by the Tribunal in appeals for the preceding assessment \nyears. Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of \nthe Tribunal, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the \nCIT(A) on this issue. Thus, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is \ndismissed. \n \nGround No. 2 \n \n15. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue, which pertains to allowability \nof depreciation on leased assets amounting to INR.20,21,264/- \nwritten off during the relevant previous year, reads as under: \n \n“2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the \nLearned CIT(A), erred in directing the A.O. to consider the \ntransaction entered with M/s. JCT as genuine lease \ntransaction which is nothing but finance loan transaction.” \n \n15.

1. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee entered into a \nlease transaction with JCT Limited during the previous year \nrelevant to Assessment Year 1996-97 for lease of new textile \nmachineries amounting to INR.6,99,22,335/-. The Assessee \nearned lease rental income and claimed depreciation on leased \nassets. However, the Assessing Officer held the aforesaid \ntransaction with JCT Limited was a finance loan transaction \nclothed in the form of the lease for the purpose of getting tax \nbenefit by claiming depreciation on the leased assets. Thus, the \nAssessing Officer denied depreciation claimed by the Assessee and \nbrought to tax entire amount of lease rental as ‘Income from \nOther Sources’. On appeal, the CIT(A) decided the said issue in \nfavour of the Assessee. The appeal preferred by the Revenue on \nthis issue was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated \n20/06/2022 for the Assessment Year 1996-1997 passed in ITA No. \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n36 \n \n2230/Mum/2000, and therefore, depreciation claimed by the \nAssessee was allowed as deduction against the lease rentals \noffered to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. \n \n15.

2. For the Assessment Year 2005-06, the Lease Rent received by the \nAssessee in relation to aforesaid transaction with JCT Limited was \noffered to tax under the head ‘Income from Other Source’. \nFurther, the leased assets were sold during the relevant previous \nyear and the deemed short term capital gains arising thereon was \nclaimed as exempt under Section 54EC of the Act. Since the lease \nassets were sold during the relevant previous year, no \ndepreciation was claimed in respect of leased assets. The \nAssessing Officer, following the stand taken in preceding \n assessment years, held the entire amount of lease rent received \nas income chargeable to tax while holding the said transaction \nwith JCT Ltd to be finance lease. \n \n15.

3. In appeal, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to consider \nthe lease transaction entered by the Assessee with JCT Limited to \nbe a genuine transaction by following the order passed by the first \nappellate authority for Assessment Years 1997-98 to 2001-02, \nand accept the claim as made by the Assessee in relation to the \nsame. \n \n15.

4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has carried the issue in appeal \nbefore the Tribunal. \n \n15.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the \nmaterial on record. \n \n15.

6. On perusal of the order impugned, we find that the CIT(A) has \ngranted relief to the Assessee by holding the transaction between \nthe Assessee and JCT Ltd. to be genuine. We note that while \nholding so the CIT(A) had placed reliance upon the order passed \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n37 \n \nby the first appellate authority for the preceding assessment \nyears which have since been confirmed by the Tribunal. During \nthe course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the \nAssessee on the following decision of the Tribunal: \n \n(a) AY 2002-03 (ITA No.2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024) \n(b) AY 2001-02 (ITA No.4372/Mum/2005, dated 23/02/2024) \n(c) AY 2000-01 (ITA No.2655/Mum/2005, dated 28/11/2023) \n(d) AY 1999-00 (ITA No.1933/Mum/2005, dated 28/11/2023) \n(e) AY 1998-99 (ITA No.8952/Mum/2004, dated 22/08/2023) \n(f) AY 1997-98 (ITA No.5030/Mum/2001, dated 13/04/2023) \n \n15.

by the \nrevenue. The Relevant portion is extracted below: - \n \n“25.3 We have heard the submissions made by \nrival sides and have examined the orders of \nauthorities below. In the light of findings given by \nAssessing Officer to reject assessee's claim \nfollowing points were considered by the CIT(A). \n \n\"(a) Whether the assessee can be said to \nhave acquired ownership of the assets in \nquestion from the Electricity Boards for \npurpose of claiming depreciation. \n \n(b) Whether the transactions entered into \nwith the Electricity Boards were genuine \nlease transactions. \n \n(c) Whether the transactions can be \ncharacterized as loan transactions \nagainst security of the assets in question. \n \n(d) Whether the transactions can be treated \nas hire-purchase agreements" \n \nThe CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case \nand lease agreement threadbare answered the first \ntwo issues in affirmative holding that the assessee \nhad acquired the ownership of the assets \npurchased from Electricity Board and hence, \neligible to claim depreciation on the said assets. \nThe CIT(A) further held that the lease agreements \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n39 \n \nwith the State Electricity Board i.e. HSEB and PSEB \nare genuine lease transactions. \n \nAs regards the issue raised in (c) & (d) above, the \nCIT(A) answered the question in negative holding \nthat the transaction of purchase of assets from \nHSEB and PSEB and leasing it back to the State \nElectricity Board is not a hire purchase agreement \nnor it is a loan transaction against security of the \nassets. We, concur with the detailed and reasoned \nfindings of the CIT(A) on this issue, they are not \nreproduced for the sake of brevity. The Hon'ble \nSupreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. \nK.Y.Pillah & Sons,

63. ITR 411 and Hon'ble Delhi \nHigh Court in the case of CIT vs. Global Vantedge \nP. Ltd., 354 ITR 21 held that where the Tribunal \nconcur with the view of CIT(A), the findings of \nCIT(A) need not be reproduced. \n \n25.4 We find that in the case of CIT vs. Punjab \nState Electricity Board, wherein after the sale of \nasset the same asset was leased back to the \nPunjab State Electricity Board and the Electricity \nBoard claimed deduction in respect of lease rental, \nthe Department allege that sale of asset to third \nparty and the same asset being taken on lease for \nclaiming deduction in respect of lease rental is a \ncolorable device to reduce tax liability and have \ndenied the same. The Tribunal decided the issue in \nfavour of the assessee holding the transaction of \nsale and lease back of asset as genuine. The \nRevenue carried the issue in appeal before the \nHon'ble High Court raising following substantial \nquestion of law: \n \n \"Whether on the facts and in the \ncircumstances of the case, the income-tax \nAppellate Tribunal is legally correct in \nholding that in the present case/ no \ncolourable device has been adopted by \nthe assesses, even when the intention of \nthe assessee behind drafting the \nagreements between the assessee and \nthe financial institution was to reduce the \ntax liability artificially of both the parties \nand as such the ratio of the decision of \nthe hon'ble apex court in the case of \nMcDowell Ltd. v, CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 \n(SC) has wrongly been, interpreted" \n \nThe Hon'ble High Court rejected the appeal of \nRevenue by holding as under: \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n40 \n \n3. "Only contention raised by the \nlearned counsel for the Revenue is that \nthe machinery was integral part of the \nbollers and the same continued to be with \nthe assessee in spite of sale. The fact \nremains that the sale consideration was \nreceived by the assessee and lease rental \nwas paid by the assessee. Merely because \ntax liability was reduced could not be \nconclusive of arrangement being sham or \na device. As regards the observations of \nthe-hon'ble Supreme Court in McDowell \n[1985] 154 ITR 148, the matter has. \nbeen explained in subsequent judgments \nincluding in Union of India v. \nAzadiBachaoAitdokn [2003] 263 ITR 706 \n(SC); AIR 2004 SC 107. Reiterating the \nview that the assessee was entitled to \narrange his affairs to reduce his tax \nliability, without violating the law, it was \nobserved in AzadiBachaoAndolan [2003] \n263 ITR 706 (SQ; AIR 2004 SC 107 that \nthe principle laid down in IRC v. Duke of \nWestminster [1936) AC 1 was still valid. \n \n4. It was further observed that the \nabove principle had been approved in \nIndia in the Judgment of the hon'ble \nSupreme Court in CZT v, A. Roman and \nCo. [1968]

67. ITR

11. (Mad) and the \nobservations of Chinnappa Reddy J. in \nMcDowell could not be treated as the ratio \nof the Judgment in view of opinions of \nmajority to the effect (head note of 154 \nTR 148): \n \n Tax planning may be legitimate provided \nit is within the framework of law. \nColourable devices cannot be part of tax \nplanning and it is wrong to encourage or \nentertain the belief that it is honourable \nto avoid the payment of tax by resorting \nto dubious methods. It is the obligation of \nevery citizen to pay the taxes honestly \nwithout resorting to subterfuges." \n \n5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court \naffirmed the view token by the Madras \nHigh Court in M. V. Valliappan v. TTO \n[1988] 170 ITR 238 and the Gujarat High \nCourt in Banyan and Deny vs. CIT (1996) \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n41 \n \n222 ITR 831. Reference was also made to \nthe judgment in CWT v. Arvind Narottam \n[1988] 173 FIR 479 and Mathuram \nAgrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh \n(1999)

8. SCC 667. It: was further \nobserved that the word "device" or \n"sham" could not be used to defeat the \neffect of a legal situation. \n \n6. In view of the finding recorded by \nthe Tribunal in the facts of this case, no \nsubstantial question of law arises. The \nappeal is dismissed." \n \n25.5 Thus, the Hon'ble Court held that lease \nagreement where the asset is leased back to the \nvendor is not a ploy to reduce tax incidence and is \nan accepted arrangement. In view of our above \nfindings, we see no merit in Ground No.11 raised \nby the Revenue, hence, the same is dismissed.” \n \n59. Respectfully following the above decision and \nfollowing the principle of consistency, the view taken \nby the Tribunal in A.Y. 1996-97 is respectfully \nfollowed and the issue involved in relation to \ntransaction with JCT Ltd are similar to the above \nfindings in relation to transaction with PSEB, \naccordingly, ground raised by the revenue is \ndismissed.” \n \n11. Respectfully following the above decision and following the \nprinciple of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in \nA.Y.1997-98 is respectfully followed, accordingly, ground raised \nby the revenue is dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied) \n \n15.

9. In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the \nAssessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the \nCIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, we decline to interfere with \nthe same. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, \ndismissed. \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n42 \n \nGround No.3 \n \n16. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue, which pertains to allowability \nof expenditure on dies and moulds amounting to \nINR.24,79,56,477/- written off during the relevant previous year, \nreads as under: \n \n“3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the \nLearned CIT(A). erred in directing the A.O. to treat \nexpenditure on dies and moulds amounting to Rs. \n24,79,56,477/- as revenue expenditure.” \n \n16.

1. The relevant fact in brief are that the Assessee had claimed \ndeduction for INR.24,79,56,477/- as revenue expenditure being \nexpenditure incurred for purchase of dies and moulds during the \nrelevant previous year. The Assessee accounted for the aforesaid \nexpenses as capital expenses in the books of accounts. However, \nin the notes to the computation of income it was stated that the \ndies and moulds are used in the press to produce press parts used \nin the manufacture of automobiles. Since the dies and moulds \nrepresent a part of the plant and machinery, the expenditure on \npurchase of the same originally was capitalized along with plant \nand machinery cost. However, the cost of new dies and moulds \nused during the year represents replacements cost incurred on \naccount of wear & tears of die; or change in the design of the \npress parts. A particular die/mould can cast approximately \n1,00,000 impressions and considering the turnover of the \nAssessee, the life of the dies/mould would be approximately six \nmonths in majority of the cases. Therefore, the cost of dies and \nmoulds put to use during the year, was claimed as an allowable \ndeduction. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the \naforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee and therefore, \ndisallowed deduction as claimed by the Assessee holding the \nexpenditure on mould and dies as capital in nature. However, the \nAssessing Officer allowed depreciation on the same. \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n43 \n \n16.

2. In appeal, the CIT(A) overturned the decision of the Assessing \nOfficer and allowed deduction for expenditure incurred on mould \nand dies as revenue expenditure accepting the explanation \nprovided by the Assessee. \n \n16.

3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has carried the issue in appeal \nbefore the Tribunal \n \n16.

4. We have given thoughtful consideration to rival submission and \nperused the material on record. We find that while adjudicating \nidentical issue in appeals pertaining to the preceding assessment \nyears, the Tribunal has held that the expenditure incurred on \nmoulds and dies is in the nature of revenue expenditure. The \nTribunal has accepted the submission of the Assessee that \nexpenditure incurred on replacement of moulds/dies was in the \nnature of revenue expenditure and that the same was allowable as \ndeduction as replacement cost in terms of Section 31 of the Act. \nIn this regard, reliance was placed on behalf of the Assessee, inter \nalia, on the following decisions in the case of the Assessee: \n \n(a) AY 2002-03 (ITA No.2899/Mum/2010, dated 24/06/2024) \n(b) AY 2001-02 (ITA No.4372/Mum/2005, dated 23/02/2024) \n(c) AY 2000-01 (ITA No.2655/Mum/2005, dated 28/11/2023) \n(d) AY 1999-00 (ITA No.1933/Mum/2005, dated 28/11/2023) \n(e) AY 1998-99 (ITA No.8952/Mum/2004, dated 22/08/2023) \n(f) AY 1997-98 (ITA No.5030/Mum/2001, dated 13/04/2023) \n \n16.

1. We find that for the Assessment \nYear 1991, 1993 94 & 1994-95, \nthe only ground raised by the \nrevenue is with regard to the \ndirection of the Ld. CIT(A) in \nallowing the revenue expenditure \nin respect of replacement of jigs \nand fixtures and dies and moulds. \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n45 \n \nThe decision restored by us in \nground no. 1 for Assessment Year \n1990-91 would hold good for the \nsame. Accordingly, the grounds \nraised by the revenue are \ndismissed. \n \n56. Therefore, respectfully following the \nabove decisions of Coordinate bench of \nITAT in assessee’s own case which is \napplicable mutatis mutandis in the \npresent case, we are inclined to accept \nthe submission of Ld. AR. Accordingly, \nthis ground raised by the revenue is \ndismissed.” \n \n7. We further observe that in assessee’s own case for the \nimmediately preceding Assessment Year i.e. \nA.Y. 1996-97, the Tribunal decided the above issue \nin favour of the assessee following the decision for \nthe A.Y.1995-96. Respectfully following the above \ndecisions and following the principle of \nconsistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y. \n1995-96 is respectfully followed, ground raised by \nthe revenue is accordingly dismissed.” \n \n15. Respectfully following the above decision and following the \nprinciple of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in \nA.Y. 1997-98 is respectfully followed, accordingly, ground \nraised by the revenue is dismissed.” \n \n16.

6. Similarly, while deciding identical issue in appeal for the \n Assessment Year 1998-99 [ITA No. 8952/Mum/2004, dated \n22/08/2023] it was held by the Tribunal as under: \n \n“16.

7. Thus, this is a recurring issue. Identical explanation offered by the \nAssessee in the preceding assessment years has been accepted by \nthe Co-Ordinate Benches of the Tribunal to hold that expenditure \non replacement of mould and dies is in the nature of replacement \ncost allowable as deduction under Section 31 of the Act being \nrevenue in nature. There is nothing on record to persuade us to \ntake a different view of the matter. Accordingly, we decline to \ninterfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. \nTherefore, Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. \n \nGround No. 4 \n \n17. Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue, which pertains to allowability \nof penalty charges recovered on capital goods and to reduce the \ntotal income amounting to INR.1,52,846/- written off during the \nrelevant previous year, reads as under: \n \n“4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the \nLearned CIT(A), erred in directing the A.O. to allow the \npenalty charges recovered on the capital goods and to \nreduce the total income by Rs.1,52,846/- without reducing \nthe aforesaid amount while computing the depreciation.” \n \n17.

1. During the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2005-06, the \nAssessee recovered a sum of INR.1,52,846/- on account of penalty \ncharges for breach of contractual obligations from suppliers of \ncapital goods for delay in execution of orders. The aforesaid \nreceipts were credited to the Profit & Loss Account. However, the \nsame were excluded from the computation of income for tax \npurposes. During the assessment proceedings it was claimed by the \nAssessee that the aforesaid receipts were in the nature of capital \nreceipts not liable to tax. However, the Assessing Officer rejected \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n47 \n \nthe aforesaid contention of the Assessee and held that the \naforesaid receipts were liable to tax in the hands of the Assessee as \nthe same were revenue in nature. \n \n17.

2. In appeal preferred by the Assessee, the CIT(A) held that the \nabove receipts were capital in nature and the same should not be \nreduced from the cost of acquisition of the respective capital asset. \n \n17.

3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is appeal before the Tribunal on this \nissue. \n \n17.

5. We have perused the decision of the Tribunal in appeal preferred \nby the Revenue for the AY 2001-2002 (ITA No. 4372/Mum/2005, \ndated 23/02/2024) and the relevant extract of the same reads as \nunder: \n \n“16. With regard to Ground No. 4 which is in respect of allowing \npenalty charges recovered from suppliers of capital goods as \ncapital receipts, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice \nthat the issue in appeal has been considered by the Co ordinate Bench of this tribunal and decided the issue in \nfavour of the assessee and against the revenue. \n \n17. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the \nsubmissions of the Ld.AR. \n \n18. Considered the submissions and material placed on record, \nwe observe from the record that identical issue is decided in \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n48 \n \nfavour of the assessee for the A.Y. 1997-98. While deciding \nthe issue, the Coordinate Bench ITA. No. 5030/Mum/2001 \ndated 13.04.2023 held as under:- \n \n“8. With regard to Ground No. (b) which is in respect of \ndeleting the addition of ₹.27,95,851/- representing \npenalty charges received from machinery suppliers, \nLd. AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the \nissue in appeal has been considered by the Co \nordinate Bench of this tribunal in assessee’s own case \nand decided the issue in favour of the assessee and \nagainst the department. \n \n9. On the other hand, Ld. DR has fairly accepted the \nsubmissions of the Ld.AR. \n \n10. Considered the submissions and material placed on \nrecord, we observe from the record that identical \nissue is decided in favour of the assessee in the A.Y. \n1995-96. While deciding the issue, the Coordinate \nBench of the Tribunal in ITA.No. 3493/Mum/1999, \nheld as under: - \n \n“34. At the outset, Ld. AR brought to our notice para \n4 of assessment order and para 3 of CIT(A)’s \norder and submitted that this issue has already \nbeen decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT \nin assessee’s own case for Assessment Year: \n1993-94 & 1994-95 (ITA No. 2739, 3175, 3491 \n& 3492/Mum/1999) on merits in favour of the \nassessee. \n \n35. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders \npassed by revenue authorities, however he \nconceded that this ground is covered by the \ndecision of ITAT. \n \n36. Considered the rival submission and material \nplaced on record. We notice from the records \nthat the identical issue has already been \ndecided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in \nassessee’s own case for Assessment Year : 1990-91 \nto 1994-95 (ITA No. 6324 & \n6325/Mum/2010 and 6963 & \n6964/Mum/2014) on merits. For the sake \nof clarity, relevant portion of the decision in \nassessee’s own for Assessment Year 1993-94 \n(ITA No. 3491/Mum/1999) is reproduced \nbelow:- \n \n3. The first issue in this appeal filed by \nthe revenue is against the deletion of \nan addition 22,80,791/- representing \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n49 \n \npenalty charges received from \nmachinery suppliers. Both the parties \nagreed that the issue is covered by \nthe decision of this Tribunal in \nassessee’s own case for the \n assessment year 1989-90 to 1992-93 \nwherein the receipt in question has \nbeen held as a capital receipt. The \nTribunal in the above referred orders \n(ITA 2468/Mum/98 & ITA No. \n2643/Mum/99 for the assessment \nyear 1992-93 – ‘J’ Bench order dated \n16th November, 2006, paragraph 15) \nhas dealt with the issue in the \nfollowing manner in rejecting the \nground raised

by the Revenue:- \n \n

15. Ground no. 8 relates to the \naddition of Rs.24,14,323/- \nbeing the penalty charges \nreceived from the suppliers of \nmachineries on account of \nsome default. The learned \nCIT(A) has deleted the addition \nfollowing his order for \n Assessment Years 1989-90 to \n1991-92 as well as the decision \nof Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High \nCourt in the case of Barium and \nChemicals Ltd 168 ITR164. \nAfter hearing both the parties, \nwe find that this issue is \ncovered in favour of the \nassessee by the decisions of \nthe Tribunal in assessee’s own \ncase pertaining to Assessment \nYears 1988-89 and 1991-92. \nTherefore following the same, \nthe order of the learned CIT(A) \nis upheld and the ground o the \nRevenue is dismissed. \n \n We do not have a reason \ndeviate from this consistent \nview of the Tribunal on the \nissue. Accordingly, this ground \nof the revenue is rejected. \n \n37. Therefore, respectfully \nfollowing the above decisions of \nCoordinate bench of ITAT in \nassessee’s own case which is \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n50 \n \napplicable mutatis mutandis in \nthe present case, we are \ninclined to accept the \nsubmission of Ld. AR. \nAccordingly, this ground raised \nby the revenue is dismissed.” \n \n11. Further, in assessee’s own case in \nITA.No. 2230/Mum/2000 dated \n20.06.2022 for the A.Y. 1996-97, \nCoordinate Bench, held as under: - \n \n

15. During the period relevant to \n assessment year under appeal, \nthe assessee recovered penalty \ncharges amounting to \nRs.2,56,209/- from suppliers of \nthe capital goods. The assessee \nclaimed the aforesaid charges \nas capital receipt, whereas, the \nAssessing Officer treated the \naforesaid charges as revenue in \nnature. The CIT(A) following \nthe order of his predecessor in \n Assessment Year 1991-92 to \n1994-95 held the penalty \ncharges to be capital receipt. \nWe find that in the preceding \n Assessment Year this issue had \ncome up in the appeal of \nassessee. The Co-ordinate \nBench after considering the \ndecisions in assessee’s own \ncase for Assessment Year \n1993-94 in ITA \nNo.3491/Mum/1999 decided \nthe issue in favour of assessee \nholding penalty charges to be \ncapital receipt. The aforesaid \ndecision of the Tribunal has not \nbeen controverted by the \nRevenue, hence, following the \nsame we uphold the findings of \nCIT(A) and dismiss ground \nNo.2 in the appeal by \nRevenue.” \n \n12. Respectfully following the above \ndecision and following the principle \nof consistency, the view taken by the \nTribunal in A.Y.1996-97 is respectfully \nfollowed, accordingly, ground raised \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n51 \n \nby the revenue is dismissed.” 19. \nRespectfully following the above decision \nand following the principle of consistency, \nthe view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1996- \n97 is respectfully followed, accordingly, \nground raised by the assessee is allowed.” \n \nFollowing the decision of the ITAT we don’t find any merit \ntherefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue stand dismissed. ” \n(Emphasis Supplied) \n \n61.

4. The Revenue has failed to bring on record any material to \ndifferentiate the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the \nTribunal either in law or on facts. Therefore, respectfully following \nthe same, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the \nCIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, Ground No. 14 raised by the \nRevenue is dismissed. \n \nGround No.15 \n \n62. Ground No.15 raised by the Revenue, reads as under: \n \n“15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe learned CIT(A) erred in allowing provision made for \ncompensation in respect of labour dispute although the \nmatter has not reached finality and the liability has not yet \naccrued.” \n \n62.

1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) \nallowing deduction for provision created for compensation to be \npaid to employees is respect of labour disputes. \n \n62.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that in the return of income the \nAssessee had claimed deduction to INR.41,54,84,092/- in respect \nof compensation paid to the workers amounting to \nINR.29,98,57,938/- and provision created for compensation \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n96 \n \npayable in labour disputes amounting to INR.11,56,26,154/-. The \nAssessing Officer disallowed deduction in respect of deduction \nclaimed for provision for compensation payable in labour disputes \namounting to INR.11,56,26,154/-. \n \n62.

3. In appeal preferred by the Assessee the CIT(A) accepted the claim \nof the Assessee and allowed the deduction for the aforesaid \nprovision holding as under: \n \n“20.8 I have gone through the facts of the case and submissions \nmade by the AR from which it is evident that the appellant \nhad claimed deduction for labour dispute amounting to \nRs.41,54,84,092/- in the return of income. Out of the \naforesaid amount Rs.29,98,57,938/- was actually paid \nduring the year and balance amount of Rs.11,56,26,154/- \nwas provided by the appellant for 507 workers in respect of \nwhich cases are pending at various labour forums on the \nissue of reinstatement with back wages etc. under the MRTU \n& PULP Act, 1971. \n \n20.

9. Thus the issue to be decided is whether provision for labour \ndispute made by appellant is of contingent in nature or it \nrepresents provision for liability which has crystallized during \nthe previous year so as to be eligible for deduction while \ncomputing profits and gains of business or profession. \n \n20.10 It is evident from the submission reproduced on para 22.2 of \nthe Assessment Order that the appellant during the year was \nin receipt of two Supreme Court Orders in connection with \nlabour disputes filed under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade \nUnion and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. \n \n20.11 Based on the order of Supreme Court the appellant made \nprovision for Rs.11,56,26,154/- for 507 workers in respect of \nwhich cases are pending at various labour forums on the \nissue of reinstatement with back wages etc. under the MRTU \n& PULP Act, 1971. \n \n20.12 In earlier year the appellant did not make any provision for \nthe said amount because it had filed writ petition in the \nSupreme Court against the order of division bench of \nMumbai High Court. Since the order of Supreme Court was \npassed during the previous year according to me the issue \nwhich was contested by the appellant has reaced finality. \n \n20.13 The Assessing Officer in his order has not given any findings \nwhy said provision is of contingent in nature. The fact that \n \n \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n97 \n \n507 workers had filed cases on the issue of reinstatement \nwith backwages which are pending at various labour forums \nwas not disputed by the AO. \n \n20.

14. The Supreme Court in Metal Box Co. India Ltd. vs Their \nWorkmen held that in the case of an assessee maintaining \nhis accounts on mercantile system, a liability already \naccrued, though to be discharged at a future date, would be \na proper deduction while working out the profits and gains of \nhis business regard being had to the accepted principles of \ncommercial practice and accountancy, It is not as if such \ndeduction is permissible only in case of amounts actually \nexpended or paid. Just as receipts though not actual receipts \nbut accrued and due are income for Income tax assessment, \nso also liabilities accrued and due would also be taken into \naccount while working out the profits and gains of the \nbusiness. \n \n20.15 In view of the above facts I am of the opinion that provision \nmade by the appellant is for liability which has crystallied \nduring the year and is not of contingent in nature \nAccordingly the appellant is entitled for deduction in respect \nprovision made of Rs.11,56,26,154/-. Thus the addition \nmade by A.O. is deleted.” \n \n62.

4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has carried the issue in appeal \nbefore the Tribunal. \n \n62.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the \nmaterial on record on this issue including the judgment of the \nHon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4999 of 2002 and Civil \nAppeal No. 5003 of 2002. \n \n62.

6. We find that the provision has been created after taking into \nconsideration the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in \nthe case of similarly placed workmen terminated by the Assessee \ncompany. During the relevant previous year two order were \npassed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Orders in connection with \nlabour disputes filed under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade \nUnion and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [for \nshort ‘MRTU & PULP Act, 1971’] pertaining to Akurdi Unit and \nWaluj Unit of the Assessee. In respect of Akurdi Unit, the \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n98 \n \nCompany was directed to pay each workmen terminated in 1997- \n98 a lump-sum amount calculated at 65 days salary, inclusive of \nall allowances, for the number of years each workman has actually \nworked irrespective of the days a workman may have put in a \nyear. Accordingly, Compensation was paid to the 301 workmen, \namounting to INR.58,750,000. Since, similar disputes pertaining \nto 15 employees of Akurdi Unit were pending before various \nCourts/Tribunal, provision of INR.54,48,718/- was created keeping \nin view compensation payable to the workmen as per the \naforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In respect of \nWaluj unit, the Company had offer compensation to 1197 \ntemporary workmen on a similar basis as that of Akurdi unit. In \nresponse to the same, 1012 temporary workmen came forward to \naccept the compensation and accordingly, an amount of \nINR.192,566,400 was paid to these 1012 workmen during the \nfinancial year 2003-2004. However, as per the judgment of \nHon’ble Supreme Court the Company was required to pay \ncompensation by adopting changed formula. Instead of 1.50 years \nas per earlier formula, the Supreme Court ordered to \ncompensation be paid for 2.00 years and 85 days. Accordingly, \nadditional amount of INR.4,85,41,538/- was paid during the \nrelevant previous year and provision of INR.110,177,436/- was \ncreated. Thus, the Assessee paid aggregate compensation of \nINR.29,98,57,938/- and created aggregate provision for \ncompensation of INR.115,626,154 /-. \n \n(a) Details of Compensation paid: \n \n In respect of 301 Workmen at Akurdi INR. 5,87,50,000 \n In respect of 1012 Workmen at Waluj INR. 19,25,66,400 \n In respect of 185 Workmen at Waluj INR. 4,85,41,538 \n \n Total INR. 29,98,57,938 \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n99 \n \n(b) Details of provision for Compensation created: \n \n In respect of 15 Workers at Akurdi INR. 54,48,718 \n In respect of 487 Workers at Waluj INR. 11,01,77,436 \n \nTotal INR. 11,56,26,154 \n \n62.

7. The CIT(A) allowed deduction for provision for compensation \nholding that the provision was created for ascertained liability \nwhich had crystalized during the relevant previous year. We are in \nagreement with the view taken by CIT(A) since the judgment of \nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of similarly placed workmen \nwould have binding effect on the Assessee Company in identical \ndisputes raised under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971’. Accordingly, we \ndecline to interfere on the issued passed by the CIT(A). Ground \nNo. 15 preferred by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. \n \nGround No.16 \n \n63. Ground No.16 raised by the Revenue, reads as under: \n \n“16. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, \nthe learned CIT(A) erred in holding as "transfer of capital \nassets the receipt of Cumulative Redeemable Preference \nShares in lieu of equity shares held by the assessee on \nreduction in equity capital of a company and allowing capital \nloss after indexation.” \n \n63.

3. Being aggrieved the Assessee carried the issue in appeal before \nCIT(A). After examining both the transactions, the CIT(A) \naccepted Assessee’s claim holding as under: \n \n“21. The twentieth ground of appeal

is not considering loss on \nconversion of investments aggregating to Rs 2.53,25,577/- \nwhile computing capital gains \n \n21.1 The AR submitted that during the previous yea, relevant to \n Assessment Year 2004-05 the loss arising on conversion of \ninvestments aggregating to Rs.2,53,25.577/- was debited to \nthe Profit and Loss Account. The said less comprised of the \nfollowing: \n \nOn Mukand Limited Shares 1,46,14,590 \nOn UTI MIP Bonds 1,07,10,987 \nTotal 2,53,25,577 \n \n21.2 In connection with loss on conversion of investments in \ncase of Mukand Ltd., the AR submitted the following \nfacts: \n \n21.3 The appellant was holding 9,80,853 equity shares of Rs.10/- \nin Mukand Limited at an aggregate cost of Rs.8,28,81,667/-. \n \n21.4 During the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2004- \n05, Mukand Limited effected a reduction in equity share \ncapital by 20% and in lieu of the reduction in capital, the \ncompany issued to its equity share holders, 0.01% Cumulative \nRedeemable Preference Shares (CRPS), without any payment \nbeing received from the shareholders. The reduction in equity \nshare capital and issuance of CRPS took place on 12th \nJanuary, 2004. \n \n21.5 As per the scheme of reduction of capital 20% of 9,80,853 i.e \n1,96,169 shares stood cancelled. \n \n \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \n ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n101 \n \n21.6 During the relevant previous year, the appellant wrote off to \nthe profit and loss account an amount of Rs.1,46,14,590/- \nrepresenting excess of cost of the equity shares over the face \nvalue of CRPS issued. The said amount was computed as \nunder: \n \nCost of 1,96,169 equity shares of \nRs.10 each \n1,65,76,280 \n \nLess: Face value of 196169 CRPS \nof Rs.10/- each allotted \n19,61,690 \n \nInvestments Written off 1,46,14,590 \n \n21.7 The AR argued that loss of Rs.1,46,14,590/- had arisen on \naccount of reduction in the share capital made by Mukand \nLimited which amounted to extinguishment of rights in shares \nand accordingly constituted a transfer. \n \n21.8 In connection with loss on conversion of investments in \ncase of UTI MIP-99 the relevant facts submitted by the \nAlt are as under: \n \n21.9 On post restructuring of the erstwhile Unit Trust of India, the \nspecified undertaking of UTI which was managing MIP-99 \nscheme decided to redeem MIP-99 Units. The investors were \ngiven an option to receive cash or alternatively receive 6.60% \nTax-free Bonds. The appellant opted for receiving 6.60% free \nbonds. \n \n21.10 The appellant was holding 4,00,000 units of MII at cost of \nRs.41,07,10,987/-, In lieu of the said units, 6.60% Tax Free \nBonds of Rs 40,00,00,000- were issued. The loss amounting \nto Rs.1,07,10,987/- on the issue of new bonds was debited to \nthe Profit and Loss Account. \n \n21.11 The appellant vide letter dated 31 March, 2006 made detailed \nsubmissions on the said issue and submitted that the loss \nafter indexation aggregating to Rs.8,25,37,070/-should be \nallowed as a deduction since there was a transfer of capital \nasset. \n \n21.12 Further in this connection the AR placed reliance on the \nfollowing decisions: \n \na. Kartikey Sarabhai vs. CIT (SC) (228 ITR 163) \n \nb. CIT vs. Grace Collis and Others (SC) (248 ITR 323) \n \n21.13 The AR vehemently argued that additional shares/units were \nallotted to the appellant without making any payment and \naccordingly as per provisions of Section 55(aa) (i) and (iii) the \ncost of acquisition for original financial assets should be the \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n102 \n \namount actually paid by the appellant for acquiring the \noriginal financial assets and in relation to the financial asset \nallotted without any payment and on the basis of holding of \nany ether financial asset, the cost of acquisition shall be taken \nto be nil. \n \n21.14 I have gone through the facts of the case and submission \nmade by AR. \n \n21.15 The issue to be decided is whether there is transfer of capital \nassets within the meaning as given in section 2(47), if yes, \nwhat should be the cost of acquisition for such assets. \n \n21.16 According to me said issue is squarely covered by the decision \nof the Supreme Court in case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai (supra) \nwherein it has been held that definition of transfer in relation \nto a capital asset is an inclusive definition which inter alia. \nprovides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of \nany right therein amounts to transfer of a capital asset. It is \nnot necessary that for a capital gain to arise, there must be a \nsale of capital asset. Sale is only one of the modes of transfer \nenvisaged by section 2(47) of the Act. Relinquishment of the \nassets or extinguishment of any right in it, which may not \namount to sale, can also be considered as a transfer and any \nprofit or gain which arises from transfer of a capital assets is \nliable to be taxed under section 45. Even as per the decision \nof the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Grace Collis and \nOthers(SC) (248 ITR 323) there would be an extinguishment \nof rights resulting in a transfer in the instant case. \n \n21.17 In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that reduction \nin the share capital made by Mukand Limited amounts to \nextinguishment of rights in shares and accordingly constitutes \na transfer. \n \n21.18 In case of Unit Trust of India, the specified undertaking of UTI \nwhich was managing. MIP-99 scheme decided to redeem MIP 99 Units. The investors were given an option to receive cash \nor alternatively receive 6.60% Tax-free Bonds. The appellant \nopted for receiving 6.60% tax free bonds. In the above case \naccording to me there is exchange of an asset. The appellant \nin lieu of UTI MIP-99 received 6.60% Tax-free Bonds. \nAccordingly to me the said transaction is also squarely \ncovered by the definition of transfer as given in section 2(47) \nwhich includes exchange of assets. \n \n21.19 In view of the above facts, I hold that in both the cases i.e. \nMukand Limited and UTI MIP-99 there is transfer of asset. \nOnce it is decided that there is transfer of capital assets the \nlogical consequences would follow and if the said transfer \nresults in a capital loss the same has to be allowed. \n \n \n \n \nITA No. 6838/Mum/2008, ITA No.6674/Mum/2008 \nITA No.1223/Mum/2010, ITA No. 535/Mum/2010 \nITA No.5299/Mum/2010, ITA No.4632/Mum/2010 \n Assessment Years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 \n \n103 \n \n21.20 In view of the above facts, I hold that loss after indexation \naggregating to Rs.8,25,37,070/- should be allowed as a \ndeduction since there is a transfer of capital asset. Thus the \nsaid ground of appeal is decided in the favour of the \nappellant.” \n \n63.

4. Being aggrieved by the above relief granted by the CIT(A), the \nRevenue has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. \n \n63.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the \nmaterial on record on this issue. \n \n63.

6. As regards reduction in the share capital is concerned we find that \nthe CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the Assessee that \nreduction of shares results in extinguishment of rights in shares \nand therefore, constitutes ‘transfer’ in terms of Section 2(47) of \nthe Act as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the \ncase of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai: 228 ITR 163. Therefore, we do not \nfind any reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) \nin this regard. \n \n63.

7. As regards redemption of units of UTI MIP-99 and allotment of \n6.60% Tax-free Bonds is concerned, we concur with the CIT(A) \nthat the said transaction is also squarely covered by the definition \nof transfer as given in section 2(47) of the Act since the same \nconstitutes ‘exchange’ specifically included in the definition of \n‘transfer, as contained in Section 2(47)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, \nwe reject the contention of the Revenue that there was no \ntransfer of capital asset in the two transactions under \nconsideration. Accordingly, Ground No.16 raised by the Revenue is \ndismissed. \n \n64. In result appeal preferred by the Assessee as well as the Revenue \nfor the Assessment Year 2004-05 are partly allowed. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \