Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:
These two appeals by the assessee and one appeal by the Revenue are arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-3, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)- 3/DCIT02(1)/IT-17/2016-17 vide dated 15.12.2017. The Assessments were framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income, Circle2(1)(1), Mumbai (in short ACIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 vide order dated 17.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the expenses relatable to exempt income by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules amounting to ₹ 42,24,81,971/-. As the issues and facts are same in both years except quantum, hence, we will take the facts from AY 2010-11 in and will decide the issue. For this assessee has raised the following four grounds: - "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) in confirming disallowance of ₹ 42,24,81,971/- made by the learned assessing officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act).
3 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of ₹ 42,2481,971 made by the AO under section 14A of the Act by invoking the Rule 8D, when such addition was made by the AO without recording any objective satisfaction regarding the correctness of the claim of the appellant in the return of income that only ₹ 13,18,029/- was disallowable under section 14A of the Act.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant has claimed that no expenditure is incurred with regard to exempt income when the appellant has already disallowed ₹ 13,18,029/- on its own in the return of income. It was also submitted that only Treasury expenses can be attributed to earning the exempt income. Therefore, no further disallowance under section is warranted.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law without prejudice to the above the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that since the tax free investments are made by the appellant out of its own funds, no amount of the interest of ₹ 2166,37,36,489/- paid on borrowings qualifies for disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961."
4 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of refining / exportation of crude Oil and marketing of petroleum/ petrol chemical products/ lubricants. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has received exempt income by way of dividends from Indian Government and share of income from AOP amounting to ₹ 131,84,18,642/-. The assessee suo moto disallowed a sum of ₹ 13,18,029/- under section 14A of the Act acknowledging that the expenditure were incurred for earning of exempt income. The assessee before AO filed that the assessee company has invested in shares of its subsidiaries, joint ventures and associates over the period of time and complete detail of investment amounting to ₹ 2085.14 crores as on 31.03.2010 was provided. The assessee also filed the details of own funds invested amounting to ₹ 132.35 crores and the investment was to the tune of ₹ 131.36 crores in the instruments giving rise to exempt income. But the AO made disallowance of proportionate interest, holding that the same is relatable to investment in exempt income amounting to ₹ 33.03 crores. The AO also disallowed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) i.e. 0.5% of average value of investment at ₹ 8.45 crores. Thereby, the AO computed the disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules at ₹ 42.38 crores after giving deduction and computed the disallowance, the AO finally disallowed a sum of ₹ 42,24,81,971/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by AO of interest under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) but partly set aside the mater to AO to verify in regard to advance for investment against which no share have been allotted during the year. For this, the CIT(A) observed in Para 5.2.7 as under: - "5.2.7 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of my
5 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 learned predecessors decisions vide ITA No CIT(A)-4/IT-139/Addl.CIT 2(1)/2010-11 dated 15.03.2013 (AY 2008-09) and 4/IT-144/Addl.CIT 2(1)/2011-12 dated 25.04.2013 (AY 2009-10), the AO is directed to verify if any such “advance for investment," against which no shares were allotted during the year has been included in the figure of investment for calculating average investment as per Rule 8D, then the same is to be excluded after verification and accordingly as per Rule 8D, then the same is to be excluded after verification and accordingly re-calculate the disallowance as per Rule 8D. Respectfully following the appellate orders in the case of the same appellant and on identical facts and circumstances Ground of appeal No. 1 is partly allowed.”
Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
4. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case in ITAs No. 4820 & 5121/Mum/2013 vide order dated 28.06.2019 on identical grounds allowing the claim of the assessee and the relevant para read as under: - " 7. At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that these grounds are covered by the order of Hon’ble ITAT in for AY
6 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 2004-05 in assessee’s own case, wherein the identical grounds raised in the present appeal have already been decided on merits. The operative portion of the decision of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced below:-
Disallowance u/s. 14A 6. That the assessee corporation had received an amount of Rs.117,79,32,321/- on account of interest on tax free securities and bonds and dividends from shares, which were claimed as exempt during the year under consideration. The A.O observing that the assessee had not allocated any disallowance of expense u/s. 14A relatable to the said exempt income, therefore estimated 10% of the exempt income as expense relatable to earning of such income and disallowed the same. The CIT(A) after deliberating on the contentions of the assessee, followed the view taken by his predecessor in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003-04, and directed the A.O to recompute the disallowance u/s. 14A by adopting a reasonable method in conformity with the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom).
7. The 7 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 assessee being aggrieved with the aforesaid directions of the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. That during the course of the hearing of the appeal it was submitted by the ld. A.R. that as the assessee company had utilized its self owned funds for the purpose of investing in the tax free securities, therefore, no expenditure was liable to be disallowed in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utility Powers Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340) (Bom). The ld. A.R further submitted that the assessee company had not incurred any expenditure for earning of the exempt income, therefore no disallowance u/s. 14A was called for in its hands. The ld. A.R. submitted that a similar adhoc disallowance involving identical facts had been looked into by the ITAT „B‟ bench, Mumbai in the case of the assessee, viz. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Mumbai (ITA No. 2257 and 2258/Mum/2011), for A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2003-04, dated 19.10.2016, wherein the Tribunal had deleted the addition by observing as under:-
8 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 “8.4 After considering the facts of the afore mentioned decided case and the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court we are of the considered view that if there is interest free funds available with the assessee which are sufficient to meet its investment and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan, then it can be presumed that the investments were from interest free funds available. We find support from the judgment rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ‘Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.”. and also while the relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of East India (supra) and considering the decision of Calcutta High Court in similar issue had arisen it was rightly held that if assessee is having interest free fund sufficient to meet the investments then it can be safely presumed that the investments were from the interest free fund available. Therefore, after considering the facts of the present case and also taking into consideration the findings recorded by the Revenue Authority, this presumption is established. Hence, in the net result, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” It was thus averred by the ld. A.R. that the disallowance made by the A.O u/s. 14A which thereafter had been upheld by the CIT(A), was liable to be set aside. The Ld. A.R in order to 9 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 drive home his contention that the assessee corporation had substantial interest free funds during the year under consideration, and thus it could safely be presumed that the investments made by the assessee corporation in the tax free income yielding investments during the year were made out of the interest free funds, and as such no part of the tax free income yielding investments could be related to the interest bearing funds, therein took us through his Paper book‟ filed on 09.03.2017. We have perused the Final accounts of the assessee corporation for the year under consideration, Statement of dividend income/Interest income exempt from tax, as well as its Computation of income, placed at Page 1-35 of the „APB‟. The Ld. A.R had drawn our attention to a „Chart‟ marked as „Incremental Cash Flow of own funds from F.Y. 1986-87 to F.Y. 2003-04‟ , placed at Page 35 of the „APB‟, in order to fortify his contention that the assessee corporation possessed substantial interest-free funds of its own since the Financial year 1986-87 till the year under consideration, from where it could safely be presumed that the investments in the tax free income yielding investments were throughout made by the assessee out of its interest-free funds, and thus no part of the interest expenditure could be related to such tax free income yielding investments. It was in the backdrop of the 10 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 aforesaid facts therein averred by the Ld. A.R that no part of the interest expenditure could be related with the tax free income yielding investments, and as such disallowed u/s 14A of the „Act‟. The Ld. D.R. did not controvert the aforesaid contentions so placed before us.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material produced before us. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the Ld. A.R and perused the APB‟ placed on record. We have perused the Incremental Cash Flow of own funds from F.Y. 1986-87 to F.Y. 2003-04‟, placed at Page 35 of the „APB‟, and are persuaded to observe that „Col. 5‟ ,„Col. 6‟ and „Col. 7‟ of the „Chart‟, establish beyond any scope of doubt that the Incremental total own funds‟ with the assessee corporation since the F.Y. 1986-87 were substantially enough to fund the „Incremental investment in the investments yielding tax free income‟, and as averred by the Ld. A.R, it could safely be concluded that the investments in the tax free income yielding investments, were throughout made by the assessee corporation out of its interest-free funds, and thus no part of the interest expenditure could be related to such tax free income yielding investments. We are of the 11 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 considered view that the issue involved in the case of the present assessee, as observed by us hereinabove is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2003-04. We thus are of the considered view that if the assessee was having substantial interest free funds, then irrespective of the fact that it had also borrowed interest bearing funds, it can safely be presumed that the investments had been made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. We find that our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. (Supra), which thereafter had been followed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom) and HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 383 ITR 529 (Bom). We thus are of the considered view that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, as well as the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the immediately preceding years, viz. A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2003-04.
9. Alternatively, we find that the A.O after rejecting the claim of the assessee that no disallowance was called for u/s. 14A, had therein estimated the said disallowance @10%
12 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 of the exempt income, and madea consequential addition of Rs.11,77,93,232/-. We are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the whimsical estimation of disallowance by the A.O. We are of the considered view that the very process of determination of the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income would be triggered, only if the A.O. returns a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure. That it is only if the A.O., having regard to the accounts of the assessee, as placed before him, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee that no expenditure had been incurred in relation to the exempt income, therein only after recording cogent reasons as regards the same, that the A.O. can embark upon the process of determination of the amount of expenditure under Section 14A. We find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of : Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held as under:-
“Whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under Rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessing
13 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 Officer, what the law postulates is the requirement of a satisfaction in the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, as placed before him, it is not possible to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. It is only thereafter that the provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.
10. We thus in light of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that both on facts and the settled position of law, the adhoc disallowance made by the A.O u/s 14A cannot be approved. We thus set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the disallowance made in the hands of the assessee u/s 14A. The Ground of appeal No. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee before us are thus allowed.
8. On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the appeal and relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
After having heard the counsels at length and after having gone through order of ITAT as mentioned above in assessee’s own case, we find that the identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA
14 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 No. 5963/Mum/11 for AY 2004-05 in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT and in order to maintain judicial consistency, we apply the same findings which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Resultantly, these ground raised by the assessee stands allowed."
The learned CIT Departmental Representative also stated that the issues are covered.
After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the AO while giving appeal effect to this order, will restrict the disallowance in regard to the expenses relatable to exempt income under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules as under: - (i) The disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules on account of interest, there cannot be any disallowance because the assessee’s interest from funds or assessee’s own funds are more than investment made in instruments giving rise to exempt income. This fact has been narrated in detail before the AO as in the assessment order entire detail are reproduced. Hence, no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) on account of interest can be made.
(ii) in respect of disallowance under 14A that Rule 8D(2)(iii) being 0.5% of average value of investment, only this investment which have yield tax free income can be considered in view of the decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet
15 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 Investments (P.) Ltd. [2017] 58 ITR(T) 313 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB). Hence, this issue of the assessee is partly allowed.
Similar are the facts in AY 2011-12, hence taking a consistent view in this year also, this issue of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
In regards to Revenue’s appeal in for AY 2011-12, the issue regarding disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules is also covered by the decision of Tribunal and hence, taking consistent view, we dismiss this appeal of Revenue.
8. The next common issue in these appeals appeal of assessee for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance prior period of expenditure amounting to ₹ 16,30,80,891/- & ₹ 10,09,12,626 respectively. As the issue and facts are same in both years except quantum, hence, we will take the facts from AY 2010-11 in and will decide the issue. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 5: -
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of prior period expenditure made by Assessing Officer amounting to ₹ 16,30,80,891/-."
9. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has shown prior period expenditure in its books of account amounting to ₹88,64,88,074/- and the AO disallowed by observing as under: - "a) Assessee is following mercantile/ accrual system of accounting.
16 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 b) The said expenditure are pertains to previous years on account of errors/ omissions of those years. c) As per provisions of IT Act, Prior period expenses are disallowed, however prior period expenses on account of employees remuneration and other benefits amounting to ₹ 72,00,17,191 which was already disallowed under section 43B on its own and as per provisions of IT Act, same expenditure cannot be disallowed twice. Also, the depreciation as per books is already added back in the computation of income.
Accordingly, the claim of the assessee is rejected and the same is added to its taxable income. The addition on account of prior period expenditure is worked out to ₹ 16.30,80,891/-."
The assessee carried the matter to CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO. Now, before us the assessee contended that the amount represents expenses that pertain to earlier years. But either crystallized or was ascertained during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2010-11 as well as some errors/ omissions on the part of assessee occurred during previous years during creation of provisions. He also stated that this issue is also covered by Tribunals decision in assessee’s own case in ITAs No. 4820 & 5121/Mum/2013 for AY 2008- 09 and 2009-10 respectively, vide order dated 28.06.2019 on identical grounds allowed the claim of the assessee and the relevant para read as under: -
17 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 "20. At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that this ground is covered by the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in and 4279/Mum/14 for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 in assessee’s own case, wherein the identical ground raised in the present appeal have already been decided on merits. The operative portion of the decision of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced below:-
Ground No.7 relates to prior period expenditure. The ld. AR of the assessee argued that this ground of appeal
is also covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2002- 03 in ITA No. 2557/M/2011. The ld. DR for the Revenue not disputed the contention of ld. AR of the assessee. We have considered the submission of both the parties and find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2002-03 have passed the following order: “Ground No. 4.
10. This ground is against the disallowance of Rs.5,33,97,234/- held to be prior period expenses. Similar issue was decided by coordinate bench in and the operative para is reproduced below:- “2. Ground 18 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 No.1 of the appeal is regarding disallowance of prior period expenses amounting to Rs.34,51,324/-.
Learned Departmental Representative of the revenue supported the orders of authorities below.
It is submitted by ld. AR of the assessee that the amount of prior period expenses of Rs.34.51 lakhs arises on account of various expenses for the reason that there was some mistake in making provisions in the relevant year and it constitutes only 0.03% of the turnover of the assessee, which is Rs.1045.22 crores. It is submitted that under these facts, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of Escorts Limited Vs. IAC reported in 79 ITD 291 (Del). Our attention was drawn to para No.118 to 121 of this Tribunal Judgment as per which under similar situation this issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. Relevant para no. 121 is reproduced below:- "121. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the turnover or .he assessee is substantial, some bonafide adjustments in the books of accounts where the accounts for the relevant year may have been closed or the assessee's avenues
19 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 for claiming these deductions in the relevant year have been exhausted. The assessee would be entitled to claim such deductions. Therefore we are unable to come to any other conclusion and are or the opinion that no interference in the impugned order is called for. Accordingly the ground raised by the Revenue is rejected." .
5. In the present case also, we find that the turnover of the assessee is substantial i.e. Rs. 1045.22 crates and the amount of prior period expenses disallowed by the: Assessing Officer is only Rs: .34.51 lakhs, Since, facts and circumstances of the present' case are similar with the facts in the case (X Escorts Limited (supra), we decide this issue in favour of the assessee' by respectfully following this Tribunal Judgement. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
11. As identical facts and circumstances have been brought before us in the present case hence we decide this issue in favour of assessee by respectfully following the order of coordinate bench in the case of “Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers ltd.” vs. JCIT, ITA No. 1013/Mum/2001. Therefore, this ground is allowed.”
20 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 26. Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2002- 03 and respectfully following the decision of Co- ordinate Bench, this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of assessee.
On the other hand, Ld. DR contested the appeal and relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
22 After having heard the counsels at length and after having gone through order of ITAT as mentioned above in assessee’s own case, we find that the identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in and 4279/Mum/14 for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT and in order to maintain judicial consistency, we apply the same findings which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Resultantly, this ground of appeal is allowed. "
11. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in & 4280/Mum/2013 (supra), we delete the disallowance of made by the lower authorities and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal.
Similar are the facts in AY 2011-12, hence taking a consistent view in this year also, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.
21 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 13. The next common issue in these appeals of assessee and Revenue, in AY 2010-11 & in for AY 2011-12, is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in disallowing the deduction in respect of amortization of premium on leasehold land. For this Assessee has raised the following additional ground: -
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in disallowing ₹ 2,19,98,049/- being deduction in respect of amortization of premium on leasehold land.
Revenue has raised the following ground: - “3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of amortization of lease premium relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-3 vs. Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd., reported in (2015) 379 ITR 340 (Bom) when the said decision is distinguishable on facts ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. vs. DCIT, of 2010 on same facts?”
14. This issue is square covered by Tribunals decision in assessee’s own case in ITAs No. 4820 & 5121/Mum/2013 for AY 2008-09 and 2009- 10 respectively, vide order dated 28.06.2019 on identical grounds allowed the claim of the assessee and the relevant para read as under: -
22 | P a g e ITAs No.3062,2685/Mum/2018 7606/MUM/2014 “5. After having heard the counsels at length and after having gone through order of ITAT as mentioned above in assessee’s own case, we find that the 7 5121/Mum/2013 identical issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No. 5963/Mum/11 for AY 2004-05 in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT and in order to maintain judicial consistency, we apply the same findings which are applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands allowed.”
Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in & 4280/Mum/2013 (supra), we delete the disallowance made by the lower authorities and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal. Accordingly, this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2019.