Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A) which deleted disallowances made by the AO concerning deduction u/s 80IA, disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, provision for leave encashment, and depreciation on amortization of land.
Held
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA was covered by previous ITAT decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, issues related to Section 14A and depreciation on land amortization were also covered by the assessee's own case precedents. The provision for leave encashment was also upheld by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Key Issues
Whether disallowances made by the AO for deduction u/s 80IA, u/s 14A, provision for leave encashment, and depreciation on land amortization are justified. Whether Section 14A is applicable for computing book profit under Section 115JB.
Sections Cited
80IA, 14A, 8D, 115JB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.
Order : 29.10.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)) dated 24.07.2023 for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19.
& 2652/DEL/2023 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- AY 2017-18
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting disallowance of Rs.3,58,67,279/-claimed u/s 801A of the Act."?
2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.14,42,66,500/- made by the AO in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 being expenditure relatable to the income not include in the total income of the assessee while computing income under normal provisions as well as while computing book profit for MAT purposes u/s 115JB of the IT Act.?
3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.49,25,45,342/- made by the Assessing Officer mentioning that the concerned provisions are not an ascertained liabilities,?
4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.9,80,29,086/- on account of amortization of land made by the Assessing office in computing the book-profit u/s 115JB in respect of depreciation claimed on amortization of land unclassified by the assessee even though there is no depreciation allowable on land under Companies Act and no rate of depreciation is provided in Companies Act?” AY 2018-19 “1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting disallowance of Rs.5,35,87,871/-claimed us 80IA of the Act.
2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of & 2652/DEL/2023 Rs.16,43,59,000/- made by the AO in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 being expenditure relatable to the income not include in the total income of the assessee while computing income under normal provisions as well as while computing book profit for MAT purposes us l15JB of the IT Act.? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.3,73,32,190/- on account of amortization of land made by the Assessing officer in computing the book-profit us 115JB in respect of depreciation claimed on amortization of land unclassified by the assessee even though there is no depreciation allowable on land under Companies Act and no rate of depreciation is provided in Companies Act.”
4. With regard to Ground No.1 regarding disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in both the AYs i.e. 2017-18 & 2018-19, at the outset, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) amounting to Rs.3,58,67,279/- & Rs.5,35,87,871/- in AYs 2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19 respectively. The additions were made by the AO on account of disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80-IA of the Act. The Revenue is now in appeal before the ITAT challenging the deletion of the aforesaid disallowances by the NFAC. In this regard, he submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by multiple decisions of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case in preceding assessment years and a tabulated summary of the Page Relevant para and PB of Paper Book Page 2010-11 Page 61-96 Page 91, Para 50 2011-12 ITA No.297/Del/2016 Page 97-123 Page 108-109, Para 16 2013-14 ITA No. 5211/Del/2016 Page 138-166 Page 149, Para 15 ITA No. 5106/Del/2016 2014-15 ITA No. 1803/Del/2018 Page 167-176 Page 176, Para 7 2015-16 ITA.No.1804/Del./2018 Page 177-193 Page 192, Para 9.1 2016-17 ITA No.5299/Del./2019 Page 194-211 Page 205-210, Para 23 ITA No.4915/Del./2019 5. Further he submitted that it is pertinent to mention that in the impugned assessment orders, the AO disallowed the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA on the ground that such deduction is admissible only in respect of profits derived from generation and distribution of power, and not on income classified as ‘other income’. He further submitted that however, in the assessee’s own case for AYs 2010-11, the ITAT has already adjudicated upon this issue and deleted the similar disallowance made by the AO.
6. Ld. AR submitted that the present appeals for AYs. 2017-18 and 2018-19 involve identical issues and the additions made by the AO have been consistently set aside by the ITAT in earlier years in the assessee’s own case, forming a binding precedent. In light of the above facts, and the settled judicial position in the assessee’s favour as per the ITAT’s own orders, he pleaded that the additions made by the AO are wholly & 2652/DEL/2023 unsustainable in law, contrary to judicial discipline, and therefore liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, ld. DR could not controvert the submissions made by the assessee.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that the issue involved in ground no.1 in both the assessment years is squarely covered by the ITAT decisions in assessee’s own case in its favour. We further observe that ITAT in assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 in order dated 08.05.2019 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the relevant extract of the order is reproduced below: “50 “In view of the above quoted decisions, we are of the considered view that the disallowance made of Rs.4,46,54,883/- while computing the deduction allowable u/s 80-IA of the Act is not justified. Hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to recomputed the deduction allowable to the assessee u/s 80-IA of the Act without excluding Rs.4,46,54,883/-. Thus, this ground of appeal
of the assessee is allowed”
9. Respectfully following the orders of the ITAT in assessee’s own case in earlier years, we dismiss ground no.1 in both the assessment years raised by the assessee.
10. With regard to Ground No.2 in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, at the outset, ld. AR submitted that in the present case, the AO made the disallowance of Rs.14,42,66,500/- & Rs. 16,43,59,000 in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 provisions as well as in computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. He submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the said addition by relying upon the order passed in the assessee’s own case for preceding years He further submitted that similar issue was dealt by ITAT during the earlier years and the same has been decided in favour of the assessee. In this regard, he heavily relied on the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2016-17 order dated 14.09.2023.
Ld. AR pleaded that assessee’s case is covered by following orders passed by Hon’ble High Court and ITAT in Assessee's Own Case in the following years :-
Page of Relevant para and PB Paper Book Page Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee's own case 2006-07 of 2015 Page 13-21 Page 19-20, Para 17 2008-09 ITA 502/2024 & 503/2024 Page 22-25 Page 23-24, Para 3 Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case 2006-07 & ITA No.1956 & 35-45 Page 43-44, Para 20-21 2008-09 1437/Del/2012 ITA No.1402/Del/2012 2009-2010 46-60 Page 58-60, Para 17 2010-11 ITA No.3650/Del/2015 61-96 Page 73-75, Para 25 2011-12 ITA No.297/Del/2016 97-123 Page 115-116, Para 26 2012-13 ITA No. 2786/Del/206 124-137 Page 130, Para 12 2013-14 ITA No. 5211/Del/2016 138-166 Page 160-162, Para 29-30 ITA No. 5106/Del/2016 2016-17 ITA No. 5299/Del/2019 194-211 Page 197-199, Para 9
He pleaded that in view of the above facts and the binding precedent in the assessee’s case for AY 2016-17, the additions made by the AO in the present appeals are unsustainable in law, illegal, and liable to be quashed.
o In this regard, ld. AR submitted that the department has sought to invoke the provisions of section 14A of the Act for the purpose of making an adjustment to the book profit computed under section 115JB. This action is contrary to the settled legal position, as section 115JB is a complete code in itself and provides for specific adjustments to be made to the net profit as per the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the Companies Act. o The disallowance under section 14A, which pertains to computation under normal provisions of the Act, cannot be imported into the computation mechanism under section 115JB, unless expressly provided. o It is well settled through judicial pronouncements that section 115JB is a self-contained code, and only specific adjustments provided in the Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) can be made to the book profits. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [(2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC)] “Assessing Officer has no power to tinker with the profit declared in the Profit and Loss Account prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, except to the extent provided in the Explanation to section 115J.” No Scope for Importing Section 14A into Section 115JB & 2652/DEL/2023 o The adjustment for disallowance under section 14A is not expressly provided in section 115JB, except through clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2), which refers to: “the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to any income to which any of the provisions of section 10 (other than section 10(38)) or section 11 or section 12 apply.” ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. [2017] 165 ITD 27 (SB) (Delhi ITAT) Special Bench held: “No disallowance under section 14A can be made while computing book profits under section 115JB unless the amount is debited to P&L and satisfies clause (f) of Explanation 1.” ITAT MUMBAI-STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED VERSUS ITO 15 (3) (2), MUMBAI-2025 (4) TMI 137- Dated: - 20-3-2025 GUJARAT HIGH COURT-THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.- 2023 (12) TMI 713-Dated: - 5-9-2023 ITAT MUMBAI-ARKIS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ITO WARD 1 (1) (3), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT-2024 (12) TMI 705-Dated: - 11-12-2024
No Disallowance under Section 14A When No Fresh Investment Made, No Expenditure Incurred & Investments Not Regularly Traded o Ld. AR submitted that no fresh investments were made during the relevant previous year. The dividend income earned was from long-term strategic investments, primarily in subsidiaries, joint ventures, and government-mandated & 2652/DEL/2023 entities, which were not acquired for the purpose of earning exempt income, but for business and strategic reasons. These investments are not regularly traded on the stock exchange. Investments details are tabulated below:
NHPC LTD AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 Data of investment in securities which have yield dividend during the year Investment in No. of shares/securities AY 2018-19 AY 2017-18 AY 2016-17 Investments(In Exempt Investment (In No. Exempt Income As at 31st march, No. of Income of shares/securities earned 2016 shares/securities earned as on 31st March, as on 31st 2017) March 2018) Investment in subsidiary - NHDC 10024200 6,28,51,73,400 10024200 2,04,49,36,800 10024200 PTC India Ltd 120000000 3,60,00,000 120000000 3,00,00,000 120000000 Note: From the above it is clear that no fresh purchase made by assessee.
Further, the assessee has not incurred any direct or indirect expenditure in relation to such exempt income during the year under consideration. The receipt of exempt income (like dividend) was purely incidental, and no separate resources—financial, administrative, or human—were deployed exclusively for earning such income. Disallowance Requires Actual Expenditure – The mandate of section 14A is clear: only expenditure “incurred” in relation to exempt income can be disallowed. Where no expenditure is incurred, no disallowance is warranted. Reliance being placed on the following judicial pronouncements: o ITAT DELHI-COMORO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. VERSUS ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6 (1), NEW DELHI-2025 (3) TMI 1082-Dated: - 19-3-2025 o ITAT DELHI-DHANUKA LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NEW DELHI- 2025 (3) TMI 452-Dated: - 5-3-2025 & 2652/DEL/2023 o ITAT DELHI-ACIT, CIRCLE-17 (1) NEW DELHI VERSUS MODERN MVL CREDITS HOLDING & LEASING LTD.- 2021 (9) TMI 1125-Dated: - 21-9-2021 o ITAT BANGALORE-Karnataka Bank Ltd versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Mangalore*-[2024] 169 taxmann.com 687-Dated 30-09-2024
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue did not controvert the submissions of the assessee that this issue is covered by the decision of ITAT in its own case in earlier years.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that ground no.2 in both the years is squarely covered by the earlier decision of ITAT and in this regard, ld. AR relied on the decision of ITAT in AY 2016-17 and other decision as tabulated above. In this regard, we find that the ITAT decided this issue in favour of the assessee in its order dated 14.09.2023 for assessment year 2016-17 and the ITAT has decided the matter in favour of the assessee by holding as under :- “We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by series of Tribunal orders. We may gainfully refer to Tribunal order dated 17.02.2021 in assessee’s own case in AY 2013-14 in & 5106/Del/2016 as under :- “We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14A. We find that identical issue arose for A.Y. 2012-13 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal held that AO was not justified in disallowing the expenditure by invoking the provision of Section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under:
“8. Though the Ld. DR placed reliance on the assessment order there is no denial of the fact that the assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the investments were made even out of assessee's own funds or out of interest free funds provided by the government and no part of the borrowed funds were utilised for investment. Further it could be seen from the assessment order, on a perusal of the computation of income, learned Assessing Officer noticed that no disallowance was made by the assessee under the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules and without having regard to the accounts of the assessee, learned Assessing Officer straightaway proceeded………………………………. Further it has also not brought on record any material to show that the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in earlier years has been set aside/ stayed or over ruled by the higher judicial forum. Considering the totality of the aforesaid facts and following the order of the Co- ordinate bench in the assessee’s own case and for similar reasons we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus the ground of the Revenue is dismissed.” Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we reject this ground of the Revenue.”
We observe that in the IT (14th Amendment) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 16. 03.06.2016, Rule 8D (2) was amended as under :- “8D (2) The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely – (i) the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income; and (ii) an amount equal to one per cent of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment income from which does not or shall not form part of total income.”
As per the above amended Rule 8D (2), only amount of expenditure directly related to income which does not form part of the total income and an amount equal to 1% of the annual average of the monthly averages of the opening and closing balances of the value of investment which earned the income from which it does not form part of the total income. The current Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are subsequent to the amended Rules. We observe that the assessee had relied on the decision of coordinate Benches in the previous assessment years wherein the old 8D Rules were applicable wherein direct expenses, interest expenditure and administration expenditure were disallowed under Rule 8D. In the amended Rule 8D, there is no concept of any interest expenditure, only direct expenditure and 1% of the average investment which fetch the exempt income towards administration expenditure. Since the Rule has changed and also we observe that the Assessing Officer has proceeded to make the addition as per the new Rule considering the total investment under Rule 8D(2ii) of the Income-tax Rules. From the financial statement submitted before us, we observe that the assessee has declared dividend income of Rs.3 crores only and it is forming part of the other income declared by the assessee at Rs.1503.78 crores and the details of the other income are as under :-
Therefore, we are not able to separate the dividend income and other exempt income from the abovesaid other income declared by the assessee in the financial statements. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to redo the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2) as per the amended Rules. We direct the Assessing Officer to calculate 1% of the average of monthly average of the opening and closing balance of the investment which actually fetch the exempt income. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to determine the actual exempt income and also determine the 1% of the annual average of the investment which actually yield the exempt income. Accordingly, ground no.2 in AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed for statistical purposes.
With regard to Ground No.3 in AY 2017-18 on account of provision for leave encashment in AY 2017-18, ld. AR submitted that in the present appeal, the Assessing Officer has made a disallowance of Rs.49,25,45,342/- for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on account of provision for leave encashment. He brought to our notice that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the said disallowance by placing reliance on the consistent decisions rendered in favour of the assessee in earlier assessment years by both the Hon’ble High Court and the ITAT. It is submitted at the outset that the issue is no longer res integra, as it stands decisions of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the ITAT. He submitted a brief summary of the relevant judicial precedents which are reproduced below :-
Page of Paper Relevant para and PB Book Page Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee's own case 2002-03 0f 2009 Page 1-4 Page 3, Para 12-13 2005-06 ITA No.336,367 & 362 of Page 5-12 Page 8, Para 3 2015 2006-07 ITA No.136 of 2015 Page 13-21 Page 17, Para 11 Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case 2004-05 ITA No.2449/Del/2008x Page 26-34 Page 28-29, Para 3 2006-07 & ITA No.1956 & Page 35-45 Page 39, Para 9 2008-09 1437/Del/2012 ITA No.1402/Del/2012 2009-10 ITA No.3650/Del/2015 Page 46-60 Page 50, Para 8-9 2010-11 ITA No.297/Del/2016 Page 61-96 Page 79, Para 30-33 2011-12 ITA No. 2786/Del/206 Page 97-123 Page 119, Para 31 2012-13 ITA No. 5211/Del/2016 Page 124-137 Page 134, Para 22 ITA No. 5106/Del/2016 2016-17 ITA No. 5299/Del/2019 Page 194-211 Page 203-204, Para 17
He particularly relied on the decision in of 2009 decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the assessee’s case titled Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. dated 06.07.2010, the Court upheld the allowability of provision for leave encashment, thereby setting a binding precedent.
He submitted that the present appeal pertains to A.Y. 2017-18 and the issue involved is identical to those adjudicated in the above-mentioned years and the disallowance made by the AO has consistently been deleted & 2652/DEL/2023 in earlier years, both by the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court, thereby fully covering the issue in favour of the assessee. In light of the settled judicial position and the principle of consistency, he pleaded that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance is well reasoned, legally sound, and deserves to be upheld.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that ground no.3 in AY 2017-18 is squarely covered by the earlier decision of ITAT and by the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. In this regard, ld. AR relied on the decision in of 2009 decided by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the assessee’s own case dated 06.07.2010 (supra) and the Hon’ble Court upheld the allowability of provision for leave encashment, thereby setting a binding precedent. The relevant extract of order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is as under :- “12. The Tribunal while considering the issue in hand had specifically recorded that the provision for gratuity, leave encashment and post-retirement medical benefit had been estimated on actuarial basis and was a liability which was created in praesenti though it was to be discharged at a future date. It was further recorded that the provisions which were created in respect of gratuity, leave encashment and post-retirement medical benefit on actuarial basis had been estimated with reasonable certainty and, therefore, such an estimate cannot be treated to be contingent one. It was also observed that the provision made by the assessee in & 2652/DEL/2023 respect of gratuity, leave encashment and post-retirement medical benefit on actuarial basis cannot be said to be provisions of unascertained liabilities so as to fall under clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 115JB (2) of the Act.
In view of the above, no substantial question as claimed arises for consideration of this Court. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.”
Respectfully following the precedent and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, we dismiss Ground No.3 raised in AY 2017-18 by the Revenue.
With regard to Ground No.4 and Ground No.3 in Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively on account of disallowance u/s 115JB regarding depreciation on amortization of land, at the outset, ld. AR submitted that in the present appeals, the Assessing Officer has made disallowances of Rs.9,80,29,086/- and Rs. 3,73,32,190/- in Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively, while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Act and these disallowances pertain to depreciation claimed on amortization of land. He brought to our notice that the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the said disallowances by placing reliance on the consistent decisions rendered in favour of the assessee in earlier years. He further submitted that this issue has been consistently adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as the ITAT in the assessee’s own case across several & 2652/DEL/2023 preceding assessment years wherein identical additions were deleted on similar grounds. The details of the relevant decisions are summarized as under: AY Page Relevant para and PB of Paper Book Page Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in assessee's own case 2005-06 ITA No.336,367 & 362 of 2015 Page 5-12 Page 8, Para 3 2006-07 ITA No.136 of 2015 Page 13-21 Page 16-17, Para 9 Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case 2004-05 ITA No.1402/Del/2012 Page 26-34 Page 32-33, Para 8-10 ITA No. 1956/Del/2009 2006-07 & ITA No.1956 & 1437/Del/2012 Page 35-45 Page 37, Para 5 2008-09 ITA No.1402/Del/2012 2009-10 ITA No.3650/Del/2015 Page 46-60 Page 52-53, Para 12-13 2010-11 ITA No.297/Del/2016 Page 61-96 Page 80-82, Para 37 2011-12 ITA No. 2786/Del/206 Page 97-123 Page 122, Para 36 2013-14 ITA No. 5211/Del/2016 138-166 Page 164-165, Para 36- ITA No. 5106/Del/2016 37
In view of the above binding judicial precedents and the consistent stand taken in earlier years, ld. AR pleaded that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and the order of the ld. CIT(A) is therefore justified in law and on facts and deserves to be upheld.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that ground no.4 in AY 2017-18 and ground no.3 in AY 2018-19 is squarely covered by the earlier decision of ITAT and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. We further observed that this issue has been consistently adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court as well as the ITAT in the assessee’s own case & 2652/DEL/2023 across several preceding assessment years wherein identical additions were deleted on similar grounds, as mentioned in table in ld. AR’s submissions above. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedent and decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, we dismiss Ground No.4 and Ground No.3 in AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively raised by the Revenue.
In the result, both the appeals for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19 filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of October, 2025.