POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

There are 6 appeals filed by the Assessee under consideration pertaining to the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2011-12. ITA Nos. 245 to 247/PUN/2016 relate to non-abated assessments whereas ITA Nos. 248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments.

2 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

we shall take up the appeal ITA No.245/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2006-07. Grounds

raised by the assessee in the appeal reads as under :

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in :

the same is extracted here as under :

“Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that disallowance u/s.14A made by the AO in the assessment order passed u/s.153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act is not sustainable in the non-abated assessment as there was no incriminating material found during search ignoring the decision in the case of “All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT 147 TTJ 513 (Mum) (SB) and the decision of Bombay High Court reported at 58 Taxmann.com 78 of CIT-II, Thane Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.”

of the additions raised in the additional ground, which is legal and goes into the

root of the search assessment u/s.153C of the Act, needs to be adjudicated first.

Therefore, Ld. AR started narrating the facts relevant to the additional ground.

Assessee filed the return of income originally on 01-11-2006 and the assessment

was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 25-03-2008. Therefore, the

present assessment made u/s.153C of the Act constitutes a ‘non-abated’

assessment. Further, coming to the details of the additions, we find the contents of

Para No.5 of the assessment order deals with the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act

when there is no reference to any incriminating documents to support the same.

Otherwise, the general facts relating to this addition include that the assessee

claimed the exempt income of around Rs.15 crores and the sum of Rs.22,68,817/-

3 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

was considered disallowable by the assessee suo moto. Reacting to the said claims

of the assessee, the provisions of section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T.

Rules were invoked by the AO during the assessment proceedings u/s.153C of the

Act. Eventually, the AO determined the disallowance at Rs.34,46,681/- vide the

discussion given in Para No.5 of the assessment order. It is evident from the

discussion available in the said para along with its sub-paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3 of the

assessment order that there is no reference whatsoever to any seized

material/incriminating material in support of assuming jurisdiction to make the

above said disallowance u/s.14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules, 1962.

only get part relief in the matter. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the assessee

raised the above said grounds originally on merits and the said additional ground.

attention to the regular assessment proceedings and submitted that this issue of

disallowance u/s.14A of the Act was the subject matter of dispute in the regular

assessment too. Eventually, in the said regular assessment, AO made the addition

vide his order dated 25-03-2008 by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the

Act. Further, the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment on this account vide his order

dated 15-12-2008. The Tribunal set-aside the matter back to the AO for doing a

reasonable disallowance. The AO is yet to give effect to the said direction of the

ITAT.

regular assessment, the same addition is repeated by the AO in the search

assessment made u/s.153C of the Act. Further, referring to the additional ground

which is legal in nature, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that such additions are

not legally sustainable in this case of a non-abated assessment when there is no

4 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

seized material or incriminating material to backup the same. In this regard, Ld. AR

brought our attention to various decisions to support his arguments. The decision

of Special Bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. 147 TTJ 513 (Mum)

(SB) and the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Continental

Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. reported in 58 taxmann.com 78 were

heavily relied by the Ld. AR for the assessee. He also relied on the Pune Bench

decision in of the group cases, i.e. the case of Serum Institute of India Ltd. for the

A.Y. 2008-09 vide ITA No. 1183 and 1537/PUN/2015, order dated 28-11-2017 and

submitted that the present additional ground raised by the assessee should be

allowed deleting the addition made by the AO u/s.14A of the Act in the non-abated

assessment.

the Act in the non-abated assessment. It is an undisputed fact that the AO already

made an addition under the said provisions during the regular assessment

proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act. This issue now stands remitted by the Tribunal

to the file of AO. Further, it is an undisputed fact that no seized material exists to

support the Revenue to assume jurisdiction validly u/s.153C of the Act for invoking

the provisions of section 14A of the Act successfully in this non-abated assessment.

In this regard, we have perused the contents of Para Nos. 5.1 to 5.3 of the search

assessment order and find there is no reference to the seized material of any kind

linked to the assessee as well as to the requirement of making disallowance u/s.14A

of the Act in the search assessment. From this legal position, we find the

judgments of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Continental Warehousing

Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (supra) and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra)

helps the assessee. These judgments do not approve the AO’s attempts to resort

5 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

to make additions by making disallowance u/s.14A of the Act in the assessment

made u/s.153C of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material. Therefore,

we are of the opinion that the additional ground raised by the assessee in this

regard is required to be allowed in favour of the assessee. Considering the same,

we are of the view that adjudication of Ground No.1 becomes an academic

exercise. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed as

academic.

being contribution to Group Gratuity Scheme.

towards payment to employees. Invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(v) of the

Act which allows such claims on “paid basis”, the AO disallowed the claim of the

assessee who failed to furnish the supporting documents evidencing the payment

and proof of approving of the said Group Gratuity Scheme. CIT(A) confirmed the

same again for want of evidences.

that such addition is unwarranted and unsustainable in the non-abated assessments

made u/s.153C of the Act. According to the Ld. AR for the assessee, the addition is

made without having any the support of any incriminating material.

Gratuity Scheme has not been approved till date. Notwithstanding the same, Ld.

AR submitted that the AO is not empowered to assume jurisdiction u/s.153C of the

Act in this case of non-abated assessment. It is a settled legal position in the

matter.

6 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

contrary is brought to our notice by the Ld. DR for the Revenue. Further, perusal

of the orders of the Revenue does not indicate the existence of any incriminating

material linking to the said claim of the assessee. We find the contents of Para

No.7 of the AO and Para Nos. 3.11 and 3.12 of the order of CIT(A) are relevant.

Considering the same, we are of the view that this issue also should be decided in

favour of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is

allowed.

ITA No.246 and 247/PUN/2016 (A.Yrs. 2007-08 and 2008-09)

under:

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in

Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 too.

the First Appellate proceedings, CIT(A) held in favour of the assessee stating that

this issue relates to the regular assessment proceedings made u/s.143(3) of the Act

and granted relief in the appeal relating to the search assessment. Considering the

same, before us, Ld. AR for the assessee mentioned that the said Ground No.1 is

not pressed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as ‘not pressed’.

7 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Group Gratuity Scheme. This issue is identical to the one already adjudicated by us

in the A.Y. 2006-07. It is the submission of the assessee that such additions are

unwarranted and unsustainable in the non-abated assessments made u/s.153C of

the Act when there is no incriminating material to support the said additions.

Notwithstanding, Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press this ground. Hence,

this ground by the assessee has to be decided against the assessee. Resultantly,

the Ground Nos. 1 and 2 by the assessee are dismissed.

to the ones raised in the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08. We have already adjudicated the

said grounds in Para No. 17 to 21 above against the assessee. Therefore, applying

the same reasoning, the grounds raised by the assessee in this assessment year are

also dismissed.

are dismissed.

ITA Nos.248/PUN/2016 (A.Yr. 2009-10)

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in :

8 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee for A.Yrs. 2010-11 and

2011-12.

under :

“Additional Ground of appeal No.2(b) - Alternatively, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have granted relief by reducing the total income assessed by Rs.60,00,000/- being the contingency offered to tax in return of income as no evidence was found during the course of search and/or in assessment proceedings regarding undisclosed income.

With this as additional ground, the original ground No.2 may please be read as ground No. 2(a).”

Similar additional ground has been raised by the assessee for the A.Yrs.

2010-11 and 2011-12.

disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. While Ground No.1 relates to correctness of

making of and the Ground No.2 relates to allowability of the benefit of set off

against the contingency of Rs.60 lakhs disclosed by the assessee in the return of

income in compliance of additional income offered by the assessee in search

proceedings.

AO failed to record satisfaction which is required while invoking the provisions of

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Bringing our attention

to the contents of Para No.5.1 of the assessment order, Ld. Counsel submitted that

the AO failed to record the satisfaction before invoking the provisions u/s.14A of the

9 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Act. Further, Ld. AR read out the relevant lines from the said para of the

assessment order. For the sake of completeness, we proceed to extract the same

as under :

“5.1. . . . . . . .

It is difficult to accept the proposition that all the tax free income has been earned without incurring these expenditures and these expenditure were incurred only for earning taxable income. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee has not made adequate disallowance as mandated u/s.14A of the I.T. Act and therefore, the case of the assessee is a fit case for computation of the said disallowance u/s.14A of the I.T. Act.”

satisfaction , is extremely general and it falls short of the legal requirement as

provided in the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce

Manufacturing Company Ltd vs. DCIT 394 ITR 448 (SC). Contents of Para No.37 of

the said judgment is relied heavily and prayed for deletion of the addition made by

the AO invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act.

satisfaction and perused the above extracted satisfaction recorded by the AO on

this issue. We find the legal position was explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court and

the Para No.37 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej and

Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (supra) are relevant. Hon’ble Supreme Court

explained the provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of section 14A of the Act. For

the sake of completeness, we proceed the extract the same here as under :

“37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the assessment year 2002-03. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. Whether such determination is to be

10 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

made on application of the formula prescribed under rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessing 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.” (emphasis supplied).

of Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, (in the matter of iGate Computer

Systems Limited, (formerly Patni Computer systems Limited amalgamated with

iGate Global Solutions Limited and name changed) Vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos. 216 and

360/PUN/2015, order dated 25-01-2018 and allowed the issue in favour of the

assessee. For the sake of completeness, relevant operational paras are extracted

here as under :

“34. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order in para 10 had observed that the assessee had earned significant amount of tax free dividends and in the computation of income, the assessee has disallowed sum of Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act. Then, reference is made to the Note filed by the assessee on expenditure disallowable under section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter, takes note of the contents of said explanation and observed as under:-

“I have gone through the submissions made by the assessee. It is observed that apart from investments in the overseas subsidiaries (where there is no tax-free income since the dividend is also taxable) the investments made by the assessee are in mutual funds. The entire investment in mutual fund is in non-equity scheme. In respect of investment in mutual funds, except for growth funds, the company receives tax free dividend. The amount of dividend received by the company is substantial. This is a clear case for application of Rule 8D. Hence, the contention of the assessee cannot be accepted. The disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made by applying Rule 8D. As per the working of disallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D, the amount of disallowance comes to Rs.5,68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.”

11 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC).

“37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the assessment year 2002-03. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. Whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessing 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.”

(underline provided by us for emphasis)

in Para No.5.1 is extremely based on the suspicion and surmises. The satisfaction

arrived at by the AO with reference to the entries in the books of account of the

assessee and also having regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. In

that sense of the matter, the satisfaction recorded by the AO is extremely generic

and which falls short of the legal requirement for assuming jurisdiction u/s.14A of

the Act.

Considering the above position, we are of the view that the AO failed to

record the sustainable satisfaction before invoking the provisions of section 14A of

the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically.

Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find

adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an

academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.

12 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

disallowed sum of Rs.51,61,884/- against the contingency of Rs.60 lakhs disclosed

by the assessee in the return of income towards discrepancies/additions if any.

was conducted which resulted in the disclosure of additional income. During the

proceedings u/s.132(4) of the Act pertaining to this assessee and in the assessment

year assessee disclosed additional income of Rs.60 lakhs towards contingency if

any. Assessee filed the return of income offering the said Rs.60 lakhs in the return

of income. Infact, assessee computed the income of year at losses both under

normal as well as MAT provisions. AO did not give said set off of benefit of said

Rs.60 lakhs against the disallowance made by him in the search assessment. It is

the claim of the assessee that said Rs.60 lakhs is intended for set off against the

disallowance, like the present one made by the AO u/s.14A of the Act. With these

background facts, assessee raised Ground No.2 claiming that the disallowance

made by the AO in the search assessment should have been accordingly reduced

out of the said Rs.60 lakhs with special reference to the disallowance u/s.14A of the

Act.

was made u/s.14A of the Act in the case of Adurjee & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. which

belongs to the assessee’s group of cases and the Tribunal allowed similar claim of

set off in favour of the assessee. Further, Ld. AR for the assessee brought our

attention to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Serum

Institute of India Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 985 and 986/PUN/2015 and ITA Nos.

1535 & 1536/PUN/2015, order dated 28-11-2017. Contents of Para No.28 to 41 of

the order of the Tribunal are relevant.

13 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

the Tribunal, we find (1) the similar issue came up for adjudication both in the case

of Adurjee & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and Serum Institute of India Ltd. In the facts of

Serum Institute of India Ltd. (supra), we find the assessee disclosed contingency of

Rs.1 crore and there is a demand for set off of the same towards the

discrepancies/omissions if any. We also find the case of Adurjee & Brothers Pvt.

Ltd. (supra) is relevant for the finding of the Tribunal where the disallowance

u/s.14A of the Act was allowed to be set off against the contingency disclosure

which is similar to the present case. Contents of Para No.12 of the order of the

Tribunal in the case of Adurjee & Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA

No.1067/PN/2014, order dated 10-08-2016 are relevant in this regard and the same

are extracted here as under :

“12. We find merit in the alternate contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount of Rs.75 lakhs offered to tax in the statement recorded u/s.132(4) be set off against the disallowance calculated under the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Admittedly, the assessee had made disclosure of Rs.75 lakhs voluntarily as additional income under the head “Contingencies” to cover any other errors, omissions or discrepancies. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount of Rs.75 lakhs was voluntarily offered and there was no detection of any incriminating material or undisclosed income could not be controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. We, therefore, find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the amount of Rs.75 lakhs offered by the assessee as undisclosed income to cover any errors, omissions or discrepancies in computing the taxable income should be set off against the disallowance made u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D to Rs.18,19,294/- i.e. (Rs.93,24,674 – Rs.75,00,000/-). Grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.

The above decision of the Tribunal allows the set off against the

disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)

for set off against the disallowance u/s.14 of the Act. However, in the present

case, the question of set off does not arise as we have already granted relief to the

14 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

assessee on legal issue relating to the recording of satisfaction before invoking the

provisions of section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground

No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic.

submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60

lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings.

relating to the reduction of returned loss, Ld. AR submitted that the said ground

being legal in nature needs to be admitted. He also submitted that there is no need

for investigation into the facts.

said additional ground raised by the assessee during the second appeal

proceedings. According to him, the adjudication of this ground requires

investigation into certain facts. Detailing the said investigation, Ld. DR submitted

that there is need to examine the manner of disclosure of Rs.60 lakhs given by the

assessee for the year under consideration in the name of the assessee. Further, for

reduction of the returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs, it requires investigation into the

seized material and books of account, if there exists any discrepancy which requires

set off against the said contingency of Rs.60 lakhs. According to the Ld. DR, the

additional ground should not be admitted when adjudication of the same calls for

investigation into facts at the level of the AO. For this proposal, she relied on the

Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC).

ground, and if it is admitted whether adjudication of the same demands

investigation into the primary facts. We examined the objections raised by the Ld.

15 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

DR for the Revenue and find there is need for investigation into the seized material

and other documents that were discovered during the search and seizure operation

and the reasons that led to the disclosure of Rs.1.91 crores in general and Rs.60

lakhs in particular for the year under consideration. In our view, this exercise falls

in the zone of investigation of facts. Accordingly, the conditions mentioned by the

Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra) do not allow in this case for

admission of the additional ground. Accordingly, the additional Ground No.2(b)

raised by the assessee is not admitted. Thus, the requirement of going into the

allowability of issue becomes academic in nature. Therefore, the additional Ground

No.2(b) is dismissed pro tanto.

Rs.40,772/- being contribution to Group Gratuity Scheme.

the CIT till date. No evidence of such approval was placed before the Revenue

authorities or even before us. Thus, this issue is consistently being raised by the

assessee over the years before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee

merely submitted that a direction may be issued to the Assessing authority to allow

the claim of the assessee as and when the Scheme gets the approval of CIT in

accordance with law.

of the assessment order and Para No.6.21 of the order of CIT(A). On hearing both

the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of CIT(A) on this issue is fair and

reasonable as the scheme has not been approved till date, as admitted by the Ld.

AR for the assessee. Hence, it does not call for any interference on this issue.

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed.

16 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

disallowance of Portfolio Management Fees of Rs.17,15,457/-.

already discussed and adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s favour in the case

of Serum Institute of India Ltd. (supra) order dated 28-11-2017.

nature of the issue, we proceed to extract the finding of the Tribunal here as under:

“59. After hearing both the sides on this issue, we perused the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08. We find the Tribunal in Para Nos. 12 and 12.1 of the order has decided this issue in favour of the assessee relying on the order of Tribunal in the case of KRA Holding and Trading Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We proceed to extract the operational para No.12.1 and the same reads as under :

“12.1 Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of KRA Holding and Trading Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) we hold that the ‘PMS’ fees paid by the assessee is an allowable deduction from the capital gains.”

the claim of the assessee with regard to payment of PMS fees paid by the assessee

is an allowable deduction from the capital gains. Therefore, we direct the AO to

examine the facts of the present case and apply the ratio laid down by the Tribunal

in the case of Serum Institute of India Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, Ground No.4

raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

17 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

ITA Nos.249 and 250/PUN/2016 (A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12)

raised by the assessee are identical and they relate to (1) the issue of disallowance

u/s.14A without recording proper satisfaction, (2) granting of set off of the said

disallowance against the contingency of Rs.60 lakhs, (3) disallowance of

Contribution to the Group Gratuity Scheme, (4) disallowance of PMS fees. Further,

the issue of reducing the returned losses to the extent of contingency was the issue

raised in the additional ground vide Ground No.2(b) filed by the assessee for the

first time before the Tribunal.

These issues are exactly similar to the ones already adjudicated by us while

dealing with the appeal ITA No.248/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10. The arguments

as well as the counter arguments by the Ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. DR for the

Revenue were identical. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decisions and

directions given in A.Yrs. 2009-10 are applicable to these appeals also. Considering

the same, we are of the opinion that the grounds raised by the assessee are

allowed/dismissed, as the case may be.

Order pronounced on this 28th day of February, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) �ाियक सद� / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 28th February, 2018. Satish

18 ITA Nos.245 to 250/PUN/2016 Poonawalla Investment and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)-11, Pune 3. आयकर आयु� / The CIT-11, Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “बी बी” / DR ‘B’, 5. बी बी ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदे आदे आदेशानुसार आदे शानुसार शानुसार/ BY ORDER,स शानुसार

स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune