Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ram Lal Negi
O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member: These are appeals by the Revenue against separate orders of CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2012 -13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common they were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
We shall first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the following grounds have been raised:
“i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in treating the interest receipt of Rs.59,11,170/- as business receipt as against treatment of the Assessing Officer as revenue receipt and taxed under the head income from other sources which is supported by the Apex Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in not adjudicating upon the disallowance made in respect of interest expenses u/s 57 of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has treated the interest receipt of Rs.59,11,170/- as business receipt as against treatment of the same by the Assessing Officer as revenue receipt and taxed under the head income from other sources which is supported by the Apex Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172. iii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in treating the interest expenses as WIP when assessee is not engaged in any business activity and neither there was any project during the year under consideration. iv. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in holding that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for once there is no exempt income received or receivable by the assessee in contrary to CBDT Circular No.5/2014 which clarified that the Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income". v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment made to Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act on account of expenses relatable to exempt income u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT 'D' Bench in the case of ITO vs. RBK Share Broking Pvt. Ltd. - 37 taxman 128(2013) and the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT 'F' Bench in the case of D.C.I.T. Cen. Cir. 18 & 19, Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 52 (Mumbai -Trib.)/2016, 156 ITD 72 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein it is clear that the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D is applicable for computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed revised return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 09.01.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 21,87,360/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the appellant. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, from the balance sheet and profit and loss account, observed that the assessee had shown project development expenses added during the year of Rs.6,15,25,903/-. Out of the total interest expenditure of Rs.8,93,02,861/- the assessee had transferred an amount of Rs.6,15,25,903/- to the WIP and the balance interest of Rs.2,77,76,958/- was claimed as an expense. Further, during the year under consideration, the assessee had received interest income of Rs.61,51,523/- the breakup of which is as under:-
Particulars Amount Remark (Rs.) Interest on 58,21,480 The appellant has offered ICD's interest earned on ICD of Rs. 10 crores made with its group concern Antevorta Developers Pvt. Ltd under the head 'Business'. Interest on 89,690 The appellant has offered bank deposits interest earned on bank deposits under the head 'Business'. Interest on IT 2,40,353 The appellant has offered refund Interest on IT refund under 'Income from other sources' Total interest 61,51,523 income
Further, the assessee had also received professional fees (Project Management Consultancy Fees) of Rs.2,43,62,424/- from Suadela Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1,34,44,386/- and Rs.1,09,18,038/- respectively. In respect of the above, the assessee was asked to explain why the interest income and the professional fees should not be brought to tax under the head "income from other sources". In response, the assessee made submissions vide letter dated 23/02/2015 and 12/03/2015 which was considered by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing officer stated that in the assessee's case the ICD's or even shares are not held as stock in trade and so the income derived therefrom cannot be assessed as business income. The interest income earned by the assessee in the ICD's cannot be said to be business income since the assessee is not an NBFC and its business does not include financing. Further, in respect of the Project Management Consultancy Fees the assessing officer accepted the assessee’s contention and accepted the same as revenue from business operation of the assessee company. The assessing officer relied on various judicial pronouncements and concluded that the action of the assessee of treating interest income under the head 'Business' as incorrect and accordingly the interest income of Rs.61,51,523/- was taxed under the head "Income From Other Sources". Further the assessing officer had allowed the interest expense of Rs.43,33,333/- u/s,57(iii) as discussed by the assessing officer in Para 4.9 of the assessment order. The assessee had shown Rs.9,28,14,746 in work in progress out of which Rs.6,15,25,903/- was shown to be incurred during the year. On being asked to explain about the projects undertaken, the assessee vide letter dated 12.03.2015 stated that the same pertains to interest attributable to investment made by it in Saudela Construction Pvt. Ltd. The assessee further stated that since it could not earn any income from the said investment, the expenditure was debited to WIP and not claimed in the current year. However, no change in the position of facts in the current year with respect to the expenses debited to WIP A/c. vis-a-vis last assessment year. Also on perusal of the details filed, the assessing officer observed that the expenses claimed in WIP are interest expenses which were not incurred for the purpose of the business activity of the assessee company since there was admittedly no business activity whatsoever conducted by the assessee company and the expenses shown by the it could not be allowed. In absence of any business activity, the expenses could not be allowed. Moreover, the fact that there was no project in this case was admitted by the assessee vide its letter dated 12.03.2015.The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire project development expenses shown in WIP and the WIP of the assessee for AY 2012-13 was computed at Rs.Nil. The assessing officer further observed from the accounts that the assessee had made long-term investments, the income from which is exempt from tax. Therefore, the assessee was asked to furnish details of expenses incurred for making long term investments and also show cause as to why the expenses incurred and claimed in respect of such a business should not be disallowed as per the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8Dof the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In response, the assessee vide its letter dated 12/03/201 contended that there is no change in the position of facts in the current year with respect to the expenses debited to WIP A/c. vis-a-vis last year. The facts of the earlier assessment year were that the assessee had not earned any dividend and hence disallowance under section 14 A was not applicable. The assessee stated that it had opted for overdraft facility on which the interest was paid and demand loan was availed on which the interest cost incurred was Rs.8,92,87,976/-.The assessee further submitted that out of the said interest cost, it had transferred interest expense of Rs.6,15,25,903 to the project WIP and the balance of Rs.2,77,62,073 was claimed under the head business. Further, expense of Rs. 50,160 (Bank charges of Rs.2,298/-, interest on service tax Rs.12,587/-, and other expenses of Rs.35,275/-) have been debited to the profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer considered the submissions of the assessee but the same was not accepted by the assessing officer. The Assessing Officer relied on the various decisions of jurisdictional courts and considering the facts of the case invoked the provisions of Rule 8D for computation of attributable expenditure in respect of long- term investments for disallowance under section 14A after considering that interest expenditure directly attributable for such long-term investments. Applying the formula prescribed in Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer computed the expenses attributable for exempt income at Rs.7,75,59,640/-. The Assessing Officer also stated that the assessee had added only Rs.6,15,25,903/- to the project development expenses to during the year and therefore, the disallowance for making long term investments was restricted to the extent of expenditure transferred to the W.I.P during the year. Thus the WIP of the assessee was to be reduced by Rs.6,15,25,903/ under section 14A r .w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Assessing Officer recomputed the project development expenses of the assessee shown as WIP for A Y 2012-13 as under:
Current assets Inventories/Project Work in progress Opening Balance Nil Add: Finance cost added during the year 6,15,25,903 Less: Disallowance U/S.14A (Para 6.3/7.9 of the 6,15,25,903 assessment order. ___________ project development expenses Nil The assessing officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and vide order dated 25/03/201 assessed the appellant's total income at Rs. 2,58,60,490/- and book loss u/s. 115JB at Rs. 1,87,35,451/-.
The assessee’s appeal as regards the issue relating to treatment of interest income, the learned CIT(A) noted that the said issue was considered and decided in favour of the assessee by his predecessor in A.Y. 2011-12. Noting that the facts for the year under consideration are same except for the amount involved, the learned CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
As regards the issue of disallowance of interest claimed, the learned CIT(A) was of the opinion that the same was decided in favour of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) held as under:
“5.2.1 This ground relates to the claim of interest expenditure amounting to Rs.2,77,76,985/- debited to profit & loss account. The assessing officer has discussed this disallowance in para 6 of the assessment order. The assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the appellant company had incurred financial cost to the tune of Rs. 8,93,02,861/-. Out of this expenditure, the appellant has debited the interest expenditure of Rs.2,77,76,985/- and the remaining was inventorized. The assessing officer disallowed this claim of interest expenditure on the ground that no project has been undertaken by the appellant company.
5.2.2 It is noted that the appellant company during appellate proceedings has submitted that the appellant has incurred the said interest as business expenditure. The appellant has made investments in Suadela Constructions Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.86,96,34,643/-. This is strategic investment with a view to have controlling interest on this company. One of an ancillary object of the appellant company is to control business operation of any other company having similar object and therefore, such investment in share of SCPL was in line with the objects given in MoA of the appellant company. The appellant company is holding 31% shares of SCPL. Further, the appellant has made investment in ICDs in another group company. The borrowings have been invested for the purpose of business. Accordingly, the interest expenditure on the borrowings is expenditure for the purpose of business and therefore, the appellant was of the view that interest expenditure should be allowed to the appellant as business expenditure.
5.2.3 It is noted that the interest receipt of the appellant has been held as income from business as against AO's contention that the same should be treated as income from other sources. When the receipt of interest has been held as income from business then the expenditure of interest payment should also be treated as business expenditure. In the instant case, receipt of interest has been held as income from business and therefore, there is no reason to treat interest expenditure as not business expenditure. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that interest income received was in respect Of business activity of the appellant company and therefore, a corollary of that decision lead to the conclusion that interest and other expenditure shown by the appellant also relate to business activity.
5.2.4 It is also noted that during the year under consideration the appellant has started receiving substantial amount of project management consultancy income. Since the appellant company had borrowed funds for business purpose and invested part of funds in sister concerns for strategic purpose or given as ICD to sister concern with whom the appellant has deep business relations is eligible for as deduction as business expenditure the benefit of deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act are applicable. Interest paid on borrowed capital and that is invested in shares for strategic purpose is eligible for deduction. 5.2.5 In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, assessing officer is directed to deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.2,77,76,985/-”
As regards the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure debited to work- in-progress amounting to Rs.6,15,25,903/-, the CIT(A) held that on same facts the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
As regards the disallowance of Rs 7,75,59,640/- u/s. 14A with reference to Rule 8D, learned CIT(A) held that identical issue on similar facts was decided in the favour of the assessee by his predecessor. Therefore, following the same, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
9. As regards the disallowance u/s. 14A in computation of book profits u/s. 115JB, the learned CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the issue had been decided in favour of the assessee in the earlier ground.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel contended that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. A detailed submission in this regard is as under:
“1) In A.Y. 2011-12, the paid up share capital of the company was Rs.2,50,000/-, which has remained unchanged in subsequent year A.Y. 2012-13 under consideration before Hon'ble Tribunal.
2) In A.Y. 2011-12, Unsecured loan from promoters of the group, Shri Surendra Hiranandani stood at Rs.23.20 crores which went up to Rs.31.26 crores in A.Y. 2012-13, Rs.32.56 crores in A.Y. 2013-14 and increased to Rs.102.85 crores in the last year under consideration. 3) The secured loan from Banks by way of overdraft facility, which was Rs.82.43 .crores from three Banking Institutions were Rs.69.63 crores in subsequent year A.Y. 2012-13 and increased to Rs.76.78 crores in A.Y. 2013-14 and stood at Nil in A.Y. 2014-15.
4)The total borrowings from promoters, other group companies and financial institutions comes to Rs.105.62 crores in A.Y. 2011-12 stood at Rs.100.89 crores in A.Y. 2012-13, Rs.109.34 crores in A.Y. 2013-14 and Rs.lOZ85 crores in A.Y. 2014-15 confirming that overall picture of borrowed funds has remained more or less strategic for all assessment years taken together.
5)The funds detailed above have been invested in construction activity to the extent of Rs.86.96 crores in A.Y. 2011-12 and have continued to remain at this level in subsequent year as well being Rs.86.99 crores in A.Y. 2012-13, remaining unchanged in A.Y. 2013-14 and stood at Rs.78.72 crores in A.Y. 2014-15.
6)It follows that the overall factual position of Balance Sheet for the three assessment years starting A.Y. 2012-13 has remained almost unchanged from the position of A.Y. 2011-12, except that the funds from the banking institutions have been diluted in A.Y. 2014-15 by funds borrowed from promoters and other group companies.
7) As far as the fixed deposit with banking institutions is concerned, the amounts are negligible in proportion to the total funds and are utilized for business purpose of the assessee. The quantum is as under:
A.Y. Amount (Rs.) 2011-12 12.03 crores 2012-13 Nil
The fixed deposits with banks as on last day of the previous year for assessment year 2011-12 continued during the period relevant for A.Y. 2012-13 but at the end of the year stood at NIL. The total interest income earned from FDs during A.Y. 12-13 is Rs. 89,690/- only. These are an extension of FDs existing in earlier year and Hon'ble ITAT in their order for A.Y. 2011-12 have categorically held that FDs have been taken for commercial consideration, having been pledged with banks for related concerns to obtain loans from banks. Therefore the interest earned in . A.Y. 12-13 has a business character as it does in the earlier year.
8)It follows that the borrowed funds have essentially gone into projects and construction, which have been accepted to be business activity of assessee by Hon'ble Tribunal for A.Y. 2011-12 and the overall position has remained unchanged over the next three years. Whatever interest income has been earned in subsequent years is on Inter-Corporate Deposits, which are intricately linked ; with the business activity of the assessee and a small amount on fixed deposit which has already been held to be of commercial nature in AY 2011-12.
9)The subsequent grounds of appeal bearing no. 2 against CIT (A) declining to adjudicate disallowance of interest expense under the head of income "Income from Other Sources" is covered by order of Hon'ble ITAT for A.Y. 2011-12 i wherein para no. 16 on page 17 of the order is directly on the issue under consideration and departmental ground of appeal has been dismissed by Hon'ble ITAT.
10)The ground of appeal no. 3 challenging the transfer of interest expense as WIP is also covered by the said order of ITAT for A.Y. 2011- 12 where in para nos. 17 and 18 the issue has been decided by Tribunal against the department.
11)The issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is also covered by order of ITAT for A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the disallowance u/s 14A has been deleted on the ground that during the relevant period there was no income that was not chargeable to tax was received by the assessee. This finding has been given in para no.19 to 21 of the order of ITAT. In the assessment year 2012-13 also there is no income earned which is not chargeable to tax. Therefore the matter is covered by the order of ITAT for A.Y. 2011-12.
12) The issue of adjustment of amount of disallowance u/s 14A for calculation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act becomes academic because when there is no disallowance u/s 14A there cannot be any adjustment for calculation of book profit In view of the facts narrated above and relying upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Ys. 2012-13 where he has categorically admitted that there is no change in the facts of the case, the assessee is of the conserted view that the matter of taxability of the interest income as well as liability of the interest expense is covered by the findings given for A.Y. 2011-12 by this Hon'ble Tribunal in order dated 30.08.2019. It is therefore prayed that the matter under consideration be decided in accordance with the findings given by Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2011-12.”
Per contra, the learned DR relied on the assessment order.
Upon careful consideration we find that identical grounds 1, 2 and 3 were adjudicated by the tribunal, vide order dated 30.08.2019, in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12, as under:
“11. After having gone through the facts of the present case, we find from the records that AO treated the interest income as income from other sources by relying upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Commandal Cements Ltd,, 234 ITR 412 (SC) find Shams Tabrez Vamti vs CIT of Authority of Advance Rulings (Delhi) in AAR 635 of 2005 dt J 7/01/2005. Whereas on the contrary, we notice that assesse had taken demand loan from various financial institutions which had been procured by the assessee company for the sole business purpose of constructing and developing a project at Bangalore and investing in the SCPL which is an SPY of the group for the purposes of project at Bannergatta, Bangalore. On perusal of the balance sheet of 31.03.11 and also notes forming Part of Accounts relating to AS 18, disclosure given under part C of the Notes. Assessee had also incurred the interest cost towards the same and these facts had not been disputed by the AO. The AO had concluded that the assessee was not engaged in any business activity and the borrowed funds have been used for funding other group companies and to offer pledge/security for loans obtained by those companies from other banks.
12, As per the facts of the present case, we notice that in the assessment order for AY 2010-11, u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, wherein the AO had accepted that the Assessee Company is engaged in the business of Construction Development & Leasing Activity and when the AO had himself admitted the same, then in that eventuality, the AO cannot be allowed to take contrary stand. In this respect, we draw strength from the judgment of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Janak S, Kangwala vs. ACIT (H SOT 627) wherein it was held as under :-
"Though the principle of res judicata does not apply to the income-tax proceedings as each year is an independent year of the assessment but in order to maintain consistency, it is a judicially accepted principle that same view should be adopted for the subsequent years, unless there is a material change in the facts".
We find from the records that Ld, DR failed to point out that there is no material change in the facts for the instant assessment year with that of previous assessment year. Therefore in these circumstances, we have to abide by the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case ofjanak S. Kangwala vs. ACIT (11 SOT 627) in order to maintain judicial discipline and judicial consistency.
14. Apart from above, we also notice that substantial part of the outstanding unsecured loan is from Mr. Surendra Hiranandani, one of the main promoters of the group companies. Further, OD facility of Rs. 79,08,26,609/- is against FD of another group company M/s Hiranandani Township Pvt Ltd, All these facts have not been disputed by the parties, which indicates that assesse company itself was substantial beneficiary of funds from the promoter and other group companies. Apart from that SCPL, a SPV for Bannergatta project in Bangalore is under implementation. All these facts indicate that there is no change in material facts for the year under consideration and thus the AO concluded differently from the conclusion in AY 2010-11 with regard to the status of business of the assessee. The funds obtained by the assessee for its infrastructure project has been temporarily parked to reduce interest burden thereon and accounted for in accordance with Accounting Standard 16 of ICAI The principle that the interest earned out of term deposits made out of the business funds available with the assessee before they are utilized for actual business, is incidental to business activity of the assessee and accordingly, should be considered as business income and not income from other sources. In this respect, we also relied upon the judgments, which are contained in para no. 5.5.5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A).
15. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us. Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed.
16. The other ground raised by the revenue relates to allowance of interest expense u/s 57, does not require adjudication because of the detailed reasoning as mentioned above. Therefore, this ground raised by the revenue also stands dismissed.” Since facts are identical following the above precedent we uphold the order of learned CIT appeals. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
13. As regards ground no 4 is concerned, the same is also covered in favour of the assessee by the same ITAT order and orders of the Hon’ble High Court's on the similar issue. The disallowance under section 14 A is to be restricted to the exempt income earned. This view is supported by various decisions referred in the appellate order referred above. Hence this ground is also dismissed.
As regards ground No. 5 is concerned, the same is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the special bench in the case of Vereet investments. In the said case that Special Bench had expounded that disallowance under section 14 A cannot be imported for adjusting the book profit under section 115 JB. Hence the order of Ld CITA on this issue is also upheld. Hence this ground raised is also dismissed
We shall now take up appeal for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The common grounds of appeal read as under:
“i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in treating the interest receipt of Rs.7,56,61,324/- as business receipt as against treatment of the Assessing Officer as revenue receipt and taxed under the head income from other sources which is supported by the Apex Court decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. V/s CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was right in holding that no disallowance u/s 14A is called for once there is no exempt income received or receivable by the assessee in contrary to CBDT Circular No.5/2014 which clarified that the Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has not earned any exempt income". iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment made to Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act on account of expenses relatable to exempt income u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT 'D' Bench in the case of ITO vs. RBK Share Broking Pvt. Ltd. - 37 taxman 128(2013) and the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT 'F' Bench in the case of D.C.I.T. Cen. Cir. 18 & 19, Mumbai vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 52 (Mumbai -Trib.)/2016, 156 ITD 72 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein it is clear that the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D is applicable for computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act.”
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is misplaced in as much as the learned CIT(A) has not held that the interest receipt of Rs 3,78,21,104/- for A.Y 2014-15 and business receipt of Rs. 7,56,61,324 for A.Y. 2013-14 should be treated as business receipt. Hence, the learned counsel claimed that the ground itself is misconceived and, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.
As regards the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A learned counsel contended that this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee in as much as the assessee has not earned any exempt income.
As regards disallowance u/s. 115JB, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that disallowance u/s. 115JB and U/s. 14A cannot be imported. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cheminvest Ltd.
Per contra learned departmental representative relied upon the orders of authorities below.
Upon careful consideration we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel of the assessee that the 1st ground relating to the revenue challenge to the treatment of interest receipt as business receipt as against treatment of the same by the AO of revenue receipt and taxed under the head income from other sources is totally misplaced. Nowhere in the order the Ld CITA has gave any decision that the said interest income is to be treated as business income. Hence ground No. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed as misconceived and not arising out of the order of learned CIT(A).
As regards ground No. 2 is concerned the same is also covered in favour of the assessee on the same reasoning as in ground No. 4 above in the revenues appeal for assessment year 2012-13 above.
As regards ground No. 3 is concerned the same is also covered in favour of the assessee on the same reasoning as in No. 5 of the revenues appeal for assessment year 2012-13 as above.
In the result Revenue’s appeals stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 30th January, 2020.