ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.

These are two cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue against the

order of ld. CIT (A), Kota pertaining to assessment year 2013-14. Both these appeals

are being disposed off by this consolidated order. First, we take up appeal of the

assessee in ITA No. 362/JP/2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of

appeal :-

2 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

“ The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance out of various expenses as under :- Expenses disallowed by Disallowance of the AO expenses confirmed by CIT (A) Particulars of Amount % Amount Amount Expenses claimed Staff Welfare 1,66,88,611/- 50% 83,44,306/- 10,00,000/- Expenses Charges General 50,26,923/- 20% 10,05,385/- 3,00,000/- Expenses Gift Expenses 16,54,384/- 50% 8,27,192/- 8,27,192/- Sales Promotion 3,27,51,934/- 20% 65,50,387/- 30,00,000/- Expenses Taxi Hiring 32,61,492/- 20% 6,52,298/- 3,26,149/- Expenses

scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 was framed vide order dated 22.03.2016. While framing the assessment,

the AO made various additions/disallowances totalling to Rs. 9,41,02,253/- under

various heads. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT

(A), who considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed the appeal.

Now the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.

10,00,000/- on account of Staff Welfare Expenses, Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of

Charges General Expenses, Rs. 8,27,192/- on account of Gift Expenses, Rs.

30,00,000/- on account of Sales Promotion Expenses and Rs. 3,26,149/- on account

of Taxi Hiring Expenses.

3 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

3.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the

written submissions. He submitted that in respect of staff welfare expenses, the

similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the Assessment

Years 2008-09 and 2010-11. The Tribunal had deleted such disallowance.

Therefore, he submitted that as there is no change into facts, the disallowance made

and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) may be deleted.

3.2. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the order of the authorities below.

3.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone

through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Coordinate Bench of

the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 354/JP/2014 and Others

pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 had deleted the disallowance by observing in

para 7.3 of its order as under :-

“7.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. We find that the Tribunal in respect of the expenses i.e. staff welfare expenses, charges general expenses, gift expenses sales and promotion expenses in AY 2009-10 in ITA Nos. 361 & 419/JP/2012 deleted the disallowance by observing as under:-

6.6 We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the entire material on record. We have found that the AO has made the disallowance by making observation that assessee has failed to produce supporting evidence or expenditure are either personal in nature or not for business purpose or complete details were not filed. On the other hand, Ld. AR contended that AO has made the disallowance on adhoc basis without specifying that details of which expenditure required by the AO is not given. It is stated that all expenses are duly supported by evidence and therefore such adhoc disallowance in unjustified. It is also pleaded that once FBT is paid on the expenditure claimed, the same cannot be disallowed in the tax

4 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

computation for which decision of the Co-ordinate Bench is relied upon. We agree with the arguments of the Ld. AR that no adhoc disallowance can be made. We note that assessee has filed the complete details of expenditure as required by the AO. The AO has not specified any particulars expenditure which is for personal use or for non-business purpose. It is a case of a corporate entity where the contribution made to Gram Panchayat for various welfare measures at a place where the factory of assessee is located as a part of its social obligation is an allowable business expenditure as held in various cases referred in Ground no.3 above. Further, we agree with the contention of the assessee that once FBT is paid the expenditure cannot be subject matter of disallowance as held by this bench in case of M/s Natural State & Sandstone Exports (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 1090/JP/10 dated 04.02.2011. The finding of Ld. CIT (A) that to the extent the expenditure is disallowed, FBT should not be charged is therefore not correct. We, therefore, delete the various adhoc disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). Thus, Ground no. 4 and 5 of assessee's appeal are allowed and the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal is dismissed.”

The revenue has not brought any contrary material on record suggesting that the

facts are different. Therefore, taking a consistent view in the matter, this ground of

the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. The AO is directed to delete the disallowance

of expenses i.e. Staff Welfare Expenses, Charges General Expenses, Gift expenses

and Sales Promotion expenses.

3.4. Regarding Taxi Hiring Expenses, we find that the assessee had claimed that

the expenses were incurred for business purposes from the details furnished before

the Assessing Officer. The AO made the disallowance by holding that the use of

hired vehicles for purposes other than business of the assessee cannot be ruled out.

Similar disallowance was made in the A.Y. 2010-11 against which assessee preferred

appeal before ld. CIT (A), who reduced the disallowance to 10% on the ground that

the expenses are in the nature of non-verifiable and element of non business use.

The Tribunal after considering the matter, confirmed the order of ld. CIT (A) by

sustaining the disallowance @ 10%. The facts are same in the year under

5 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

consideration. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT (A),

the same is hereby affirmed to the extent of Taxi Hiring expenses.

revenue has raised the following grounds :-

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in :- i) Deleting the disallowance of additional expenses of Rs. 1,98,910/- pertaining to the year under consideration but booked/paid succeeding year ignoring the fact that the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting;

ii) Directing the AO that compensation of Rs. 3,92,03,205/- paid to the farmers is to be allowed over a period of 20 years, consequently giving relief of Rs. 19,60,160/- for the current year;

iii) Deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,45,099/-, Rs. 79,39,737/- and Rs. 3,38,996/- claimed as mining rights;

iv) Deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,32,28,375/- made u/s 37(1) on account of payment of demurrage;

v) Deleting the disallowance of Rs. 33,43,330/- out of Social Welfare Expenses;

vi) Reducing the disallowance from Rs. 83,44,306/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- out of Staff Welfare expenses.

vii) Restricting the disallowance to Rs. 10,05,385/- against 3,00,000/- made out of General Charges Expenses;

viii) Reducing the disallowance from Rs. 65,50,387/- to Rs. 30,00,000/- out of Sales Promotion expenses;

ix) Deleting the disallowance of Gardening expenses of Rs. 68,21,188/-;

6 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

x) Reducing the disallowance from 6,52,298/- to 3,26,149/- made out of taxi hiring charges;

xi) Deleting the disallowance of Rs. 33,79,947/- made u/s 37(1) on account of railway siding expenses;

xii) Deleting addition of Rs. 20,23,898/- made u/s 14A by ignoring the CBDT Circular 5/2014;

xiii) The appellant craves liberty to raise additional ground and to modify/amend the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.

Rs. 1,98,910/- pertaining to the year under consideration.

6.1. The ld. D/R supported the order of the AO and opposed the submissions of

the assessee.

6.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the

written submission. He supported the order of the ld. CIT (A). He further submitted

that the case of the assessee is covered by the order of Coordinate Bench of the

Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 wherein similar

disallowance was deleted.

6.3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and

gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Coordinate

Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09

had deleted the disallowance by observing in para 9.1 of its order as under :-

“ 9.1. Apropos revenue ground no. (ii) also we see no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A) in respect of expenditure of Rs. 4,75,121/- as it has not been disputed that same pertained to AY 2008-09 and was booked

7 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

in subsequent year before filing of the audit report. It is trite law that assessee can claim such expenditure relating to a year which is though accounted for in subsequent year but before filing of the audit report. In any case it will amount to postponement of liability and in such eventuality Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Excel Industries is also applicable. Therefore, this ground of the revenue is dismissed.”

Therefore, taking a consistent view of the matter, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT

(A) by dismissing the ground of the revenue.

3,92,03,205/- paid to the farmers over a period of 20 years, consequently giving

relief of Rs. 19,60,160/- for the current year.

7.1. The ld. D/R supported the order of the AO and submitted that ld. CIT (A) was

not justified in giving the direction to allow the expenditure over a period of 20

years.

7.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the

written brief. He supported the order of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. Counsel submitted

that the case of the assessee is covered by the order of Coordinate Bench in the

assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 whereby similar disallowance

was deleted. He further relied on the order of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the

case of RSMM Ltd. in ITA No. 466/JP/2006 and 614/JP/2006 for the A.Y. 2002-03.

7.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone

through the orders of the authorities below. We find that on this issue, the ld. CIT

8 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

(A) placed reliance on the order of his predecessor ld. CIT (A) in appeal no. 239/12-

13 for the assessment year 2010-11 dated 27.03.2014 who has observed as under :-

“ In my opinion, the main purpose of acquiring the land was to extract lime stone which is the raw material for assessee. After the extraction the land becomes unusable for any other purpose.

The assessee cannot use this land perpetually as in the case of a normal agriculture or residential land, this land can be used till its deposit (i.e. lime stone) lasts. Therefore, I agree with the finding of AO in A.Y. 2008-09 wherein he has allowed such expenditure in 20 equal instalments.

Considering the above, the A.O. is directed to allow this expenditure equally in 20 years including the current year.”

The ld. CIT (A) following the above observations of his predecessor CIT (A), held

that the lease rent paid by the appellant for acquiring lease hold right for extracting

minerals from mineral bearing land would be capital expenditure and thereby

confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,92,03,205/-. However, the ld. CIT (A) directed the

AO to allow this expenditure equally in 20 years including the current year. The AO

was directed to allow expenditure of Rs. 19,60,160/- for the year under

consideration.

7.4. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the AO himself had allowed

expenditure in 20 equal instalments in AY 2008-09. In the year under appeal, the

Revenue has not demonstrated the change into the facts and the reason for

changing the stand. Therefore we do not see any reason to interfere into the order

of ld. CIT (A), same is hereby affirmed. This ground of the revenue is dismissed.

9 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

79,39,737/- and Rs. 3,38,996/- claimed as mining rights.

8.1. The ld. D/R supported the order of the A.O and submitted that the ld. CIT (A)

was not justified in deleting the disallowance.

8.2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions as made in

the written brief. He supported the order of ld. CIT (A). The ld. Counsel submitted

that the case of the assessee is covered by the order of Coordinate Bench of the

Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2010-11.

8.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone

through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Coordinate Bench of

the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the assessee’s own case had decided the

identical issue by observing in para 18.3 and 18.4 of its order as under :-

“18.3 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing as under:-

“I have gone through AO’s findings and assessee’s submission. In the assessment order for AY 2008-09, the AO held that an amount of Rs. 3,82,75,607/- is to be allowed in six equal installments. Similarly, in AY 2009-10, the AO held that a sum of Rs. 67,79,925/- is to be allowed in 20 years.

In my opinion, finding of one AO cannot be disturbed by his successor. The proper course could be to invoke provisions of section 263. The same was not done by the AO, therefore, he should not have disturbed the finding of his predecessor. Secondly, while deciding Ground no. 1, I have held that similar expenditure was allowable in 20 equal installments.

10 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

Considering the above, the AO is directed to delete addition of Rs. 79,39,737/- & Rs. 3,38,996/-.”

18.4 The revenue has not disputed that in the AY 2008-09, 2009-10 the AO had allowed the claim of the assessee in 6 yearly installments and 20 yearly installments respectively. The Revenue has not pointed out any change into facts and circumstances for taking a different stands. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, this ground of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.”

The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has also adjudicated identical issue in the

assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2012-13 by rejecting the grounds of

the revenue. In the year under consideration the facts are identical to assessment

year 2010-11 and 2012-13. Therefore, following the orders of the Tribunal for

assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 and taking a consistent view of the matter, we

affirm the order of the ld. CIT (A) by dismissing the ground of the revenue. This

ground of the revenue is dismissed.

made under section 37(1) on account of payment of demurrage.

9.1. The ld. D/R supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that

ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance. The ld. D/R submitted that

the AO made the disallowance on the basis that the expenditure was in the nature of

fine and also on the ground that there was a clause into the agreement which

indemnify/mandated C & F agent to indemnify the assessee.

11 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

9.2. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions

as made in the written brief. He submitted that the case of the assessee is covered

in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s

own case for the A.Y. 2010-11. He supported the order of the ld. CIT (A).

9.3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the orders of the

authorities below. We find that the Tribunal had decided identical issue for the

assessment year 2010-11 by observing in para 15.3 as under :-

“15.3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on fact that there is no clause by which the demurrages was required to be paid by the C & F Agent not by the assessee. It is also not brought on record by the revenue that the assessee had claimed such expenditure from C & F agent. Under these facts, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nanhoomal Jyoti Prasad Vs. CIT (supra). We do not see any merit into the ground of revenue’s appeal, same is hereby affirmed. This ground is dismissed.”

Therefore, by following the order of the Tribunal and taking a consistent view of the

matter, we dismiss the ground of the revenue.

Social Welfare Expenses.

12 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

10.1. The ld. D/R supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that

the ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance.

10.2. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions

as made in the written brief. He supported the order of ld. CIT (A). The ld. Counsel

submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the

Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Ys. 2010-11, 2009-10 and 2008-09.

10.3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on

record. We find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal had adjudicated the

identical issue in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own case for the

assessment year 2010-11 by observing in para 5.3 of its order as under :-

“ 5.3. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. Admittedly, these expenses were made on adhoc basis which in our considered view, is not a justified way. Therefore, taking a consistent view as taken by the Coordinate Benches in earlier years in assessee’s own case, we direct the AO to delete the disallowance.”

Therefore, by following the order of the Tribunal and taking a consistent view of the

matter, we dismiss the ground of the revenue.

reducing/restricting/deleting the disallowances of various expenses on account of

13 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

Staff Welfare expenses, General charges expenses, Sales Promotion expenses,

Gardening expenses and Taxi hiring charges.

11.1. We have dealt with these issues in the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.

362/JP/2017 in para 3.3 above. The issues are covered by the decision of the

Coordinate Bench in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own case for the

assessment year 2010-11 in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 425/JP/2014 vide para 13

and 13.1. Since we have already decided these grounds in the assessee’s appeal

(supra), for the same reasoning, these grounds of the revenue are dismissed. Hence

ground nos. (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x) are dismissed.

under section 37(1) on account of railway siding expenses.

12.1. The ld. D/R supported the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that

ld. CIT (A) was not justified in deleting the disallowance.

12.2. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions

as made in the written brief. He supported the order of the ld. CIT (A). The ld.

Counsel submitted that the issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the decision

of Coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11.

12.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone

through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Coordinate Bench of

the Tribunal adjudicated this issue for the assessment year 2010-11 by observing in

para 16.3 of its order as under :

14 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

“ 16.3 . We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record. The issue which required to be adjudicated is whether the AO was justified in disallowaning the claim of the expenditure incurred on maintenance of railway track at the railway siding. The AO while disallowing the expenditure as relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madura Coats 205 Taxman 357. The contention of the assessee is that the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court is not applicable as the fact is that the cases were with regard to replacement of old machinery and renovation of the buildings. We find that in the case of CIT vs. Madura Coats (supra) the AO disallowed the claim in respect of replacement of Auto Corner etc by holding that replacement of old machinery cannot be treated as the revenue expenditure. This view of the AO was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. In the present case, it is not the case of replacement of old machinery by new machinery and repair of rented buildings. In the present case the expenditure is incurred on the day to day maintenance of the railway tracks at the railway siding. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed. This ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.”

In view of the above observation and taking a consistent view of the matter, we

affirm the order of ld. CIT (A) and reject the ground of the revenue.

14A by ignoring the CBDT Circular 5/2014.

13.1. The ld. D/R supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

15 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

13.2. On the contrary, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions

as made in the written brief. He supported the order of the ld. CIT (A). The ld.

Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of

Cheminvest Ltd. vs. ITO, 378 ITR 33 (Del.) submitted that the issue is decided in

favour of the assessee. He further submitted that no disallowance u/s 14A was made

in the assessment year 2012-13 with reference to investment in shares of Mangalam

Timber Products Ltd. Therefore, he submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has justified in

deleting the addition.

13.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone

through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld. CIT (A) while

deciding the issue has elaborately discussed the matter. The ld. CIT (A) has deleted

the addition by observing at page 77 and 78 of his order as under :

“ I have gone through assessee’s submission and AO’s findings. The Delhi High Court in the recent case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33/234 Taxman 761/61 taxman.com 118 held that there should be an actual receipt of exempt income during the relevant year for the purpose of disallowance of any expenditure incurred in relation to such income. Over ruling ITAT Special Bench’s (SB) ruling in this case and following its own prior ruling in the case of CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd. (2015) 57 taxmann.com 28 (Delhi), the Delhi HC held that there can be no disallowance of expense if no exempt income is actually earned during the relevant tax year.

High Court of Madras in Redington (India) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Range-V, Chennai, 77 taxmann.com. 257 (Madras) Has recently held vide order dated December 23, 2016 that – “ Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Condition precedent) – Assessment year

16 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

2007-08 – Whether provision of section 14A is relatable to earning of actual income and not notional or anticipated income, hence, where there is no exempt income in a year, there cannot be a disallowance of expenditure in relation to an assumed income – Held, yes. Thus the disallowance made by the A.O. is not held to be justified and is to be deleted. The ground of appeal is therefore allowed.”

The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has decided this issue in the assessee’s own

case for the assessment year 2010-11 by observing in para 19.3 of its order as

under :-

“19.3 We have heard the rival contentions, this issue we have decided in assessee’s appeal by observing as under:-

“8.2 We have heard the rival contentions we find merit into the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the provisions of section 14A can be invoked in the event of the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the expenditure related to the exempt income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of CIT vs. Godrej Boycer vs CIT has held that provision of section of 14A can be invoked when the AO is dissatisfied with the claim of expenditure related to the exempt income.

8.3 In the present case the Ld. CIT(A) has recomputed the disallowance by applying rule 8D. He has disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 2,38,454/- and administrative expenses of Rs. 6,89,497/-. The grievance of the assessee is that the no interest expenditure is related to the exempt income. As it is claimed that the entire investment in mutual funds have been made from own fund. The Ld. CIT(A) has not given any reason as to why the contention of the assessee is not acceptable. Revenue has not placed any material rebutting the claim of the asessee. Therefore, out of disallowance of Rs. 9,27,956/- a sum of Rs. 2,38,454/- is deleted and Rs. 6,89,497/- is sustained. This ground is partly allowed.”

17 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.

Therefore, taking a consistent view, there is no change into facts and circumstances. This ground of the Revenue’s appeal is rejected.”

In view of the above, and following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the

Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT (A), same is

hereby affirmed. The ground of the revenue is dismissed.

revenue is dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 13/09/2017. Das/

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

18 ITA Nos. 362 & 461/JP/2017 M/s. Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota.