The Commissioner of income Tax-II vs. M/s.Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 81 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 130/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-08-2009 APPELLANT/S:/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S:/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR. BY ADVS.JOSEPH MARKOS (SR.) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 82 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 854/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-08-2009 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 85 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 700/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-08-2009 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 88 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 346/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-08-2009 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 97 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 345/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 6.8.2009 APPELLANT/S:/APPELLANT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX DEPT. RESPONDENT/S:/RESPONDENT/ASSESSEE: M/S.CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR. BY ADVS.JOSEPH MARKOS (SR.) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 100 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 132/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-08-2009 APPELLANT/S:/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX DEPT. RESPONDENT/S:/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 104 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 812/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 06-08-2009 APPELLANT/S:/RESPONDENT/REVENUE” THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR. BY ADV.SRI.PKR MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX DEPT. RESPONDENT/S:/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.3/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -12 ITA Nos.3, 23, 58, 65, 81, 82, 85, 88, 97, 100 and 104 of 2010 J U D G M E N T K.Vinod Chandran, J. The above appeals are all by the Department challenging various orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. For the assessment year 1999- 2000, there are two appeals filed - ITA Nos.3/2010 and 23/2010 - arising from orders under Sections 143(3) and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short). There are also more than one appeal filed in many of the assessment years. There are also years in which appeals were filed by the Department and the assessee-Bank before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal having held in favour of the assessee-Bank, the Department has filed appeals for the said years arising from those orders of the Tribunal. There are common issues in many of the appeals, which shall be dealt with together. 2. In ITA No.3/2010, the following

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -13 questions arise for consideration:- “(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and amendment to 2nd proviso to section 43B being effective from 01.04.2004 is not payment to the Pension contribution Fund after the due dates an impermissible deduction? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case-, i) the assessee is entitled to claim the expenses under the head Lease Equalization charges; ii) is not the Lease Equalization charges a provision made towards a future liability and hence an impermissible deduction in the light of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Power Finance?” 3. On the first question regarding the pension fund as available under the respondent- assessee-Bank, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there is no question of any employees’ contribution and the contribution is made exclusively by the employer. The specific question raised is also as to whether the second proviso to Section 43B being brought into the statute book on 01.04.2004, the deduction is impermissible insofar as the payment to pension fund having been made after the due dates. The Honourable Supreme Court in (2009) 319 ITR 306

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -14 (SC) [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.] has found that the amendment by introduction of a proviso to Section 43B has to be read retrospectively to give full effect thereto. Hence, the question stands answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue upholding the order of the Tribunal, which affirmed the deduction as granted by the first appellate authority. 4. The second question in ITA No.3/2010 is also covered in favour of the assessee as found by the Honourable Supreme Court in (2018) 404 ITR 409 (SC) [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.]. The issue of lease equalization charges arose in the context of the assessee claiming the lease rentals to be adjusted towards the cost of acquisition of the property or machinery, which is leased out. The Guidance Note of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India providing for separation of capital recovery element and finance income has been approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. Hence, the said question also has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ITA No.3/2010,

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -15 hence, stands rejected. 5. The

aforesaid

issue

lease equalization charges has also been raised in ITA Nos.58, 100, 81, 65 and 104/2010 for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05, respectively. The question raised of lease equalization charges in the aforesaid ITAs is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, ITA Nos.58, 65 and 104/2010 are rejected, as there arose the aforesaid question alone. 6. ITA No.23/2010 raises the following question for the assessment year 1999-2000:- “(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light of the amendment by the Finance Act (2) of 2009 which had introduced Explanation 'g' below Section 115JA(1) which reads: “(g) the amount or amounts set aside as provision for diminution in the value of any asset” is not disallowance of Rs.8,61,53,052/- towards provision for bad debts made under section 36(ii) (viia) while calculating the book profit under section 115JA in accordance with law?” In fact, the specific stand of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Revenue in the statutory appeal was that

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -16 in computing minimum alternate tax payable under Section 115JA, the provision for bad and doubtful debts has to be added back under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JA(2), which speaks of the provisions made for meeting liabilities, other than ascertained liabilities. The Honourable Supreme Court in (2008) 305 ITR 409 [Commissioner of Income Tax-IV v. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd.] categorically held that the addition made under clause(c); of the provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be permitted. However, clause (g) as noticed in the question has now been introduced, which has retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 onwards. We notice that when the Tribunal considered the issue, clause (g) was not introduced, which was introduced by the Finance Act, 2009. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate that the Tribunal considers the issue afresh on the basis of the facts and the specific provision of bad and doubtful debts as provided for by the assessee- Bank. ITA No.23/2010, hence, shall stand remanded. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 11.01.2019 and the Tribunal shall consider the issue

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -17 expeditiously, especially noticing the fact that the assessment is of the year 1999-2000. 7. The question on treatment of loss on amortisation of securities purchased for a price and then sold or redeemed at a lower price, arises in ITA Nos.97, 85 and 82/2010, which appeals are for the assessment years 2000-01, 2003-04 and 2004-05, respectively. The assessee purchases securities at face value or otherwise at a premium. When purchase is made at a premium and the same is redeemed on maturity, the assessee gets only the face value of the security so purchased. Similarly, when the security is sold before the period of maturity, then the assessee at times suffers a loss for reason of the market value having fallen. The assessee claimed write off of such loss in the years at which the assessee held the security, which was allowed by the Tribunal. The issue is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in ITA No.946/2009 [Commissioner of Income Tax v. South Indian Bank Ltd.], the reasoning of which is extracted here- under:-

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -18 “The respondent-assessee is a Bank which purchased securities at market value above the face value. Admittedly, when the securities were redeemed, respondent will be entitled to get only face value. Consequently, the loss arising on account of purchase at market value is written off in instalments by spreading over the same equally for every year until date of maturity. We are of the view that the Tribunal rightly upheld the assessee's entitlement to write-off of the loss in instalments. Consequently the departmental appeal is dismissed.” The Revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition against the fore quoted judgment, which has been dismissed by order dated 18.10.2010 in CC No.15556/2010. Hence, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 8. One other issue arising in ITA Nos.85 and 82/2010 for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05, respectively, is the disallowance of depreciation in respect of the current category of investments. The aforesaid issue is connected with the additions made for appreciation in the value of securities which also arise in ITA No.81/2010 for the assessment year 2002-03. The question on depreciation is as to whether at the time of

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -19 valuation of securities to prepare the balance sheet on closure of the financial year if the market value of the securities is lower, whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation for the reduction in the market value from the face value. The decision in (2003) 264 ITR 545 (Ker) [Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.] held that for the purpose of assessment, cost price or market value which ever is lower should be adopted as per the RBI guidelines. The assessee had valued its securities at the cost price or market value which ever is lower. Hence, when there is a loss on account of reduction of market value from that of the cost price, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation. The question on depreciation is, hence, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue affirming the view of the Tribunal. 9. On the question of additions made for appreciation in the value of securities, the learned Senior Counsel points out the specific instance in which the question arose. The assessee-Bank in a particular year values a security, the cost price of which is Rs.100/- at the market value of Rs.90/-.

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -20 Then, the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the reduction that has been occasioned in the market value, which is the loss suffered by the assessee. However, in the subsequent year, if the market value exceeds the cost price and the same reaches Rs.105/-, the question is as to what is the addition to be made. Then, what is to be adopted is the cost price, since what is required as per the RBI guidelines is to show the profits in accordance with the cost price or the market value whichever is lower. The question of additions made for appreciation in the value of securities also has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 10. Yet another issue arising in ITA Nos.85 and 82/2010 for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 is as to whether the excess bad debts written off over and above the existing provisions in non- rural branches can be claimed as an expense without setting off against the existing provision for bad debts for rural branches. The question is covered in favour of the assessee-Bank by the decision of the Honoruabel Supreme Court in (2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC) [Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -21 Tax]. The question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 11. ITA No.100/2010 for the assessment year 2001-02 arises from an order of remand made by the Tribunal which we would not interfere with at this stage. Hence, we decline to answer the questions as raised in the above ITA. 12. One of the questions arising in ITA No.88/2010 is loss on revaluation of unquoted securities which the RBI directed the Banks to value at Re.1/-. The decision in (2011) 339 ITR 606 (Ker) [Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.] applies squarely with respect to the said issue also. Hence, we affirm the order of the Tribunal answering the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 13. In ITA No.88/2010, a further question arises as to whether the levy of interest as set aside by the Tribunal is proper or not. The Tribunal merely noticed the fact that the assessee had paid considerable advance tax and, hence, there is no warrant for levy of interest under Section 234C. We

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -22 cannot accede to the view that considerable advance tax payment would absolve the liability of interest if it arises under Section 234C. The question, hence, is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed that the AO would determine the interest payable under Section 234C, in accordance with law. Hence, all the ITAs, except ITA Nos.23/2010 and 88/2010, are rejected. ITA No.88/2010 is partly allowed on the question of levy of interest under Section 234C. ITA No.23/2010 is remanded back for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -23 APPENDIX OF ITA 3/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 28.01.2004. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 18.12.2006. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I.T.A. NO. 96/R1/TCR/CIT-V/O3-04 DATED, 14.06.2004. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- I.T.A.NO.48/R1/TCR/CIT-V/06-07 DATED, 11.09.2007. ANNEXURE E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT I.T.A.NO.879/COCH/2004, I.T.A. NO.919/COCH/2007 AND I.T.A.NO.26/COCH/2008 30.06.2009 (COMPOSITE ORDER). [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -24 APPENDIX OF ITA 23/2010 APPELLANT'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3)R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 28.1.2004. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3)R.W.S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 18.12.2006. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- I.T.A.NO.96/R1/TCR/CIT-V/03-04 DATED, 14.6.2004. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I.T.A. NO.48/R1/TCR/CIT-V/06-07 DATED, 11.9.2007 ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT I.T.A.NO.879/COCH/2004, I.T.A. NO.919/COCH/2007 AND I.T.A.NO.26/COCH/2008 30.6.2009 (COMPOSITE ORDER). [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -25

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -26 APPENDIX OF ITA 58/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 DATED, 18.12.2006. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-ITA NO.50/R.1/TCR/CIT(A)-V/06-07 DATED, 29.10.2007. ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT-ITA NO.131/COCH/2007 DATED, 06.08.2009. [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -27 APPENDIX OF ITA 65/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3)OF THE IT ACT DATED,28.03.2006 ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-ITA 7/RI/TCR/CIT-V/06-07 DATED,19.03.2007 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT-ITA NO.406/COCH/2007 DATED,06.08.2009. [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -28 APPENDIX OF ITA 81/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED, 24- 01-2005 ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY ORDER U/S. 143 R.W.S 147 DATED 10-12-2007 ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT ITA NO. 130/COCH/2007 DATED 06-08-2009 [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -29 APPENDIX OF ITA 82/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143 OF THE IT ACT DATED 28.3.2006 AND ORDER U/S.154 DATED 18.1.2007 ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-ITA 8/RI/TCR/CIT (A)-V/06-07 DATED 11.7.2007 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT-ITA NO.854/COCH/2007 DATED 6.8.2009 [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -30 APPENDIX OF ITA 85/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143 OF THE IT ACT DATED 28.3.2006 ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-ITA 7/RI/TCR/CIT-V/06-07 DATED 19.3.2007 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT-ITA NO.700/COCH/2007 DATED 6.8.2009 [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -31 APPENDIX OF ITA 88/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 DATED, 18/12/2006. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF CIT (A)-ITA NO.49/R.1/TCR/CIT(A)-V/06-07 DATED, 29.10.2007 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT-ITA NO.346/COCH/2007 DATED, 06/08/2009. [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -32 APPENDIX OF ITA 97/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3)R.W.S.147 DATED 18/12/2006. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-ITA NO.50/R.1/TCR(A)-V/06-07 DATED.29/10/2007 ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT-ITA NO.345/COCH/2008 DATED, 6/8/2009. [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -33 APPENDIX OF ITA 100/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143 (3) R.W.S.147 DATED 18.12.2006. ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-ITA NO.49/R.1/TCR/CIT(A)-V/06-07 DATED 29.10.2007. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY THE ORDER OF ITAT-ITA NO.132/COCH/2007 DATED,6.8.2009. [True Copy] jg

ITAs3/2010 & conns. -34 APPENDIX OF ITA 104/2010 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF ORDER U/S.143 OF THE IT ACT DATED 28.3.2006 AND ORDER U/S.154 DATED 18.1.2007 ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-ITA 8/RI/TCR/CIT (A)-V/06-07 DATED 11.7.2007 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT-ITA NO.812/COCH/2007 DATED 6.8.2009 [True Copy] jg