Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Shri Wasim Ahmed, AM]
Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: These four cross appeals by assessee and by revenue are arising out of different orders of CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata vide Appeal Nos. 368 & 628/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/10-11, both of even date 21.01.2011. Assessments were framed by JCIT, Range-56, Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 vide his orders of different date 31.12.2010 & 30.12.2011.
The first common issue, in these two appeals of assessee in ITA No. 665 & 666/kol/2013 for the AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10, is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act with respect to new industrial undertaking with development of industrial park. For this assessee has raised identically worded grounds in both the years and hence, we will take up the facts and issue from lead assessment year 2008-09, wherein the grounds raised are as under:-
“1. For that in view of the fact and circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified in not allowing benefit of exemption u/s 80IA (4)(iii) to your appellant and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in confirming the action of the AO.
2 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
For that in view of the facts and circumstances and the new industrial undertaking of your petitioner in connection with development of an industrial park having been duly approved by ministry of commerce and industry being the authorised person under the income tax Act to approve the same for the purpose of exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iii) under the then existing scheme, and such ministry of commerce and industry having duly notified the approval of such industrial undertaking of your appellant, the same was fully eligible for exemption u/s 80IA (4)(iii) and in view of the facts and circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified in not allowing the exemption and CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in confirming the said action of the AO in view of the facts and in the circumstances and your petitioner being eligible for exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iii) it may kindly be held accordingly. 3. For that in view of the facts and circumstances and the petition for approval of such industrial undertaking having made to ministry of commerce and industry who were authorised to approve the same during the relevant period and the same having been also approved and notified by ministry of commerce and industry, the CBDT was bound to notify the same for eligibility for such exemption u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as held by different Judicial Authorities and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm consists of four partners i.e. all four companies. The assessee is engaged in the business of development of Special Economic Zone i.e. software park. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued shown cause notice requiring the following information respect to this issue: “2. If the assessee has claimed business income, then, whether the assessee will be entitled/eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA and whether it fulfils the conditions laid down by government of India for creation of SEZ inter alia includes: (a) Whether the assessee has constructed the software Park within time. (b) Whether the assessee has commenced the business of the Software Park within one year. (c) Whether other conditions like the number of units specified were constructed by the assessee. (3) whether the assessee has correctly shown the business income during the year and the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA has correctly been claimed.” According to AO, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act on the income earned from software park mainly on the following grounds: “i) Completion certificate of the building of Bangalore Development Authority was not furnished. ii) The appellant has constructed 15 units instead of 3 units approved by the Ministry of Commerce when the appellant himself has admitted in IPSII before the appropriate authority as on 1st July, 2007.” 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the action of AO by observing as under: “However, the fact remains that the appellant has not been able to produce the notification issued by CBDT which is being issued by the board and which entitles the appellant for deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii). It remains to fact that the said unit has been developed as Industrial park as approved by Ministry of Commerce vide its letter no. 15/23/ 2006/ IP & ID dt 25.7.2006. However, the appellant has not been able to furnish the evidence of completion of said unit before the prescribed date i.e. 31.3.2007. Indeed, the copy of certificate as having been obtained from the Bangalore Development Authority shows the date of completion is 23.6.2007 only. Hence, the appellant cannot under any circumstances be allowed deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii).
3 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
As regards the contention of the appellant regarding the power and architecture's certificate the same cannot be treated as conclusive since the certificate issued by Bangalore Development Authority i.e. local authority in this respect can only be considered as sacrosanct. The appellant claimed that the application in this regard was made earlier cannot be also considered since the appellant failed to furnish any copy of such application and even otherwise only from the date of certificate being granted by Bangalore Development Authority, the building is considered as habitable since the certificate as issued by Bangalore Development Authority is 23.6.2007 even though income from activity of developing industrial park started from February, 2007. In my opinion the building cannot held to be completed before the prescribed date i.e. 31.3.2007.
Hence, the appellant having not completed the units within the prescribed period the appellant is not entitled to such deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) and hence this ground of the appellant is discussed.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in second appeal before Tribunal.
We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through case records including assessee’s paper books. The assessee has developed and is operating an Industrial Park at Bangalore, which was approved by D.I.P.P. (Ministry of Commerce & Industry) vide approval dated 25.7.06. This approval is filed in assessee’s Paper book page 46 Volume – II. As per approval, commencement of Industrial park was to happen before 31.3.06 but the same was delayed by more than one year or less from 31.3.2006, hence, fresh approval was required. Accordingly, since the assessee was covered under non automatic route of Industrial Park Scheme 2002, it filed IPS-II dt. 01.01.08 as on 01.07.07 given in assessee’s paper book page147 Volume II, wherein the area of Industrial Park was enhanced and numbers of unit were also increased from 3 to 15 for which approval was also issued on 16.03.09 enclosed at assessee’s paper book page17 Vol-II. The assessee completed the project in December 2006 i.e. within one year from 31.3.2006 and for which a provisional completion certificate dated 29.12.06 and final completion certificate dated 16.01.07 which is given at assessee’s paper book page 417,Vol-II. The assessee also submitted application to Bangalore Development Authority on 29.12.06. Further since 3 lessees were given space in the said Industrial Park much before 31.03.07, hence, it cannot be said that the Industrial Park had not commenced before 31.03.07. More so, since application for completion certificate was made on 29.12.06, hence, completion of such Industrial Park has to be reckoned from the date of application i.e. 29.12.06 and hence the Industrial park has to be held as completed much before 31.3.2007. As regards AO's contention of CBDT having not notified it as eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii), a number of Courts have already held that once approval is granted by Ministry
4 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
of Commerce, Notification by CBDT is mere formality and cannot be determinant for eligibility for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii), which we will discuss in the later part of this order. Further, even if there is a variation in the project the approval so granted by Ministry of Commerce and Industry has not been withdrawn till date. 6. But CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO denying such benefit only on the ground that assessee had not been notified by CBDT and further that the assessee has not completed the Industrial Park before 31.03.2007 but for that we have to see the dates, which are under: (i) Relevant dates: - a) Application for approval of Industrial Park was filed before on 11.02.2006 Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi, (which was Empowered Committee) during relevant time for approval of such park \ under Non-automatic route. b) The aforesaid application was duly registered within on 20.02.2006 Empowered Committee on 20th February, 2006 under Registration no. 23/SIAlIP/2006 dt. 20.02.2006. Subsequently, approval for developing Industrial Park in terms of Industrial Park Scheme was given by the Empowered Committee on 25.07.2006.
Further particular Date of Date of receipt application d) Commencement certificate from Bangalore Development - 21.10.2004 Authority No objection certificate from Bangalore Electricity Supply - 10.01.2005 e) Co. Ltd. f) Plan sanction from Bangalore Development Authority 26.11.2005 21.12.2005 Completion certificate from the Architect - 16.01.2007 g) h) No objection certificate from Karnataka State Emergency 28.12.2006 24.04.2007 Services Occupancy certificate from Bangalore Development 29.12.2006 23.06.2007 i) Authority Fire NOC from Karnataka State Emergency Services 28.12.2006 24.4.2007 j)
The company had already entered into deeds for leases with some of its clients for leasing premises within the Industrial Park. The date of such lease deeds and the date by which the premises were to be handed over (as mentioned in the deed) are tabulated below: Name of the client Date of lease deed Date by which occupation/
5 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 handing over was scheduled N.I. System (India) Pvt. Ltd. 25.09.2006 1.12.2006 Carrier Net Technologies (P) Ltd. 25.10.2006 15.11.2006 Timken Engineering & Research India (P) Ltd. 01.12.2006 10.02.2007
In view of the above factual position, we are of the view that the entire Industrial Park was completed and all the Units were located in the Industrial Park much before expiry of one year from the date of commencement as mentioned in the application and which was duly approved by the Empowered Committee. The assessee had already enclosed a copy of the approval dated 25.07.2006 at assessee’s paper book page 52, Vol-I. We are reproducing the relevant para 5(2i) of the Scheme which reads as under: “In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date as indicate in Para 4(xi) of the approval letter, fresh approval shall be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under Sub-section 4(iii) of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
Further, the AO in his remand report, given at page 86 of assessee’s Paper book Volume - Ill had merely contended that - (a) The date of lease agreements prior to 31.03.2007 cannot be construed as to the actual date of commencement of lease rental and for which he also submitted the magnitude of electricity bill from March 2007 to till March 2008. (b) Further, he contended that the architect's completion certificate was dt. 16.01.2007 whereas the assessee had applied for completion certificate before the Bangalore Development Authority vide letter dated 29.12.2006. (c) The assessee had increased the number of Industrial Units in the project from 3 units in the original proposal to 15 units. (d) In view of the deviation from the original proposal and the deviation not having been accepted in CBDT's Office Memorandum, disallowance u/s 80IA(4)(iii) was made. We find from the facts that Date of Lease Agreement with the Clients to lease out space in "Salarpuria Softzone" shows and proves that the agreement have been entered with the parties for a definite area located in the industrial park. The assessee has entered agreement with the clients before 31.03.2007 and the date of lease deed only indicates the date of registration of an agreement and is done only at the behest of client's requirement. The contention taken by the AO is that the date of lease deeds are different from the agreement is not correct. As per the approval letter dated 25th July 2006 minimum 3 numbers of units are required to be located in
6 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 the industrial park. The expected date of commencement as mentioned in the IPS-I is 28.03.2006. As per the approval letter terms & conditions mentioned in the clause No. 5(ii) reads as under: "If the required no of units needs to be located are within one year from the date of expected date of commencement, no fresh approvals are required to be taken under the non-automatic route". Further, understanding with Career Net Technologies (P) Ltd is based on certain terms & conditions as mentioned in the lease agreement and on fulfilling those terms & conditions lease rental started. So the contention of the authority that the industrial park was not ready and is under construction is not true. The completion certificate of all the electrical drawing and the infrastructure were completed on 20.03.2007 including the transformers and other electrical equipments and the official memorandum was issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector to Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalore dated 20.03.2007, which proves that all the equipments and electrical works were completed before 31.03.2007. The amount of the electrical bills is always based on the consumption made by the clients. Assessee has no control over the consumption. The infrastructure for the electrical connection in the industrial park was ready on 20.03.2007. The date of occupation certificate issued by the Bangalore Development Authority on 23.06.2007 for which the assesse had Bangalore Development Authority on 29.12.2006 with a provisional Completion Certificate issued by the Architect. It is not within the control of the assessee company to obtain completion certificate from Bangalore Development Authority and the contention of the assessing authority is not correct. The Provisional completion certificate issued by M/s Venkataramanan Associates dated 26.12.2006 was submitted along with the application made to Bangalore Development Authority for completion certificate on 29.12.2006. Subsequently another inspection was done by 10.01.2007 and accordingly completion certificate was issued on 16.01.2007 and the same was submitted to Bangalore Development Authority. The copy of the Provisional Completion Certificate dated 26.12.2006 has been filed before AO and his contention of make - believe is only to create unnecessary doubt. The observation made by the AO about the details of the IPS-II as on 01.07.2007 filed on 19.07.2008 and IPS-II as on 01.07.2008 should be read as 01.01.2008 filed on 19.07.2008. Since all other facts remains the same except that the number of units lease out are different & have been mentioned correctly. The contention of the AO that the fresh approval was required under the non-automatic route for more than the minimum number of units required to be established in the industrial park is not correct because the approval was for minimum number of units and there was no restriction
7 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 imposed for increasing the number of units and hence no fresh approval is required under the current scenario. Further, assessee sent all the details to CBDT for notification on the basis of the first approval as well as after receipt of the renewed approval. The new notification and the Industrial policy 2008 has come subsequently. Assessee has given a representation to the Chairman of Empowered Committee & the Director of CBDT for giving an opportunity to assessee. The Empowered Committee has still not withdrawn the approval granted and hence its validity cannot be disputed. As regards the approval issued by the DIPP, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, we are of the view that the said approval was for non-automatic route and the said approval so granted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry has not been cancelled till date. Further, such change has been duly intimated vide IPS- II dt. 01.01.2008 and on consideration of the same the approval dated16.03.2009 has been granted and further the said approval remains in force till date and has not been withdrawn. 8. We find that in similar facts and circumstances Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ittina Properties (P) Ltd. ITA No.556 of 2013 and 105 of 2014 dated 15.07.2014 held in respect to controversy regarding the date on which the project was completed to be eligible for the benefit of section 80IB of the Act. Hon’ble High court held as under: 6. One of the project has been sanctioned subsequent to the Act. The point of controversy is regarding the date on which the project was completed to be eligible for the benefit of the said provision. The Revenue contends, the completion certificate issued by the Village Panchayat is not valid and therefore the assessee is not entitled to the said benefit. Admittedly the plan is sanctioned by the BDA. The BDA has not issued any completion certificate. The reason being, in the BDA Act or the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, there is no provision for issue of completion certificate. The provision in the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act is for issuance of occupancy certificate. When the statute does not provide for issue of a completion certificate, if the authorities were insisting on such certificate, the assessee has gone to the Village Panchayat within whose limits the property is situated and has obtained the completion certificate and has produced the same for availing the benefit. Whether that certificate would satisfy the requirement of law need not be gone into in these proceedings because, when the statute does not provide for issue of such a certificate, if the Revenue insists on such certificate, the assessee would be left with no option except to get such certificate with some authority which would be called as a local authority. In the facts of this case, we are of the view that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the building was completed within the stipulated period and therefore de hors this certificate issued by the Panchayat after the building is completed, the assessee is entitled to the said benefit. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
Further, exactly on the same issue Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. – Ackruti City Ltd. (2013) 214 Taxman 398 (Bom) has held that once Industrial Park was approved by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, CBDT has to suo motto issue notification. Any
8 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
delay on the part of the CBDT in issuing notification would not warrant assessee being denied benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Hon’ble High Court has decided this issue as under: “3………….The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal have held that the Ministry of Commerce and Industry had finally by letter dated 31st December, 2004 approved the industrial park and a copy of the same was forwarded to the CBDT. In terms of Rule 18C(4) of the Rules, once the indusrrial park is approved by the Ministry of Commerice and Industry, the CBDT has to suomotto issue the notification. The Tribunal, on examination of all facts concluded that all the requisite conditions for claiming benefit under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act has been complied with by the respondent assessee during the assessment year in question. Further, there is no reason to hold the benefit under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act is available only prospectively from the date of the issue of Notification by the CBDT. In these circumstances, as the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact and mere delay on the part of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in issuing the notification would not warrant the respondent - assessee being denied the benefit of Section 80IA(4)(iii). " Similarly, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Creative Infocity Ltd. Vs. Under 10. Secretary [2012] 19 Taxmann.com 270 (Guj.) also held that , once Industrial Park was approved by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, CBDT has to suo motto issue notification and if there is delay on the part of the CBDT in issuing notification, it would not warrant assessee being denied benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. Hon’ble High Court finally held as under: “Once approval is given by the Commerce Ministry to the petitioner in terms of sub-rule [2] of Rule l8C, the Board is duty bound to notify the industrial parks for benefits under Section 80-IA without any further investigation as to whether the petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions envisaged in the scheme. Since the power of grant of approval has been conferred upon the Commerce Ministry, in the absence of any express provision in the Rules, it should be presumed that the authority, which has given approval, has the power of revocation and examination of compliance of the conditions upon which the approval has been accorded. Therefore, it is the duty of the Commerce Ministry to decide whether an industrial undertaking is complying with the conditions envisaged in the scheme and if the undertaking fails to comply with those conditions, it is the Commerce Ministry alone, which has the right to withdraw the benefit granted under sub-rule [2J of Rule 18C of the Rules. As soon as the approval under sub- rule [2] of Rule 18C is given, it is obligatory on the part of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to notify industrial parks in terms of sub-rule [4] of Rule 18C."
In similar circumstances Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Silver Land Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Empowered Committee (2012) 343 ITR 0439 (Bom) has held that the Empowered Committee was not justified in rejecting the application for notification of approved units u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act under the Industrial Park Scheme of 2002 only on the ground that development of Industrial Part was completed beyond 31.03.2006. Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:
9 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
“21. We find merit in the contention of the Petitioners that if the position which has been adopted by the Empowered Committee were to be accepted, that would result in virtually Dmt 34 wp744-11 defeating the salutary public purpose which underlies Section 80-IA (4) (iii). Notice would have to be taken of the fact that infrastructural projects require a considerable amount of investment and a time lag is involved in the completion of the project. The view of the Empowered Committee is that Para 9 of the Scheme would apply to a delay in a project beyond one year but that the delayed date of completion should not in any event fall beyond 31 March 2006. If this were to be accepted as the correct interpretation, that will denude the benefit ofSection 80-IA to project where approvals were granted a few months before 31 March 2006 and the completion date spills over beyond that date. There is no indication either in the statute or in the scheme that Parliament or its delegate intended to deprive the assessee of the benefit ofSection 80IA(4)(iii). Para 9 of the Scheme would would in fact indicate an intent not to deprive the benefit of Section 80IA (4) (iii) save and except that if the commencement of the project is delayed beyond one year a fresh approval would have to be obtained to get the benefits under the Act.
Dmt 35 wp744-11 The Court cannot also ignore the fact that the intent of the legislature and its executive is not to discontinue the benefits available in law. The Union Government has further liberalised the scheme in 2008 by requiring that the undertaking shall begin to develop the industrial park by a stipulated date. In this case, approvals had been granted on 24 July 2006 which was several months after 31 March 2006 when the Scheme of 2002 was to expire.
During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied on the fact that though the Petitioners had initially stated in their application that they would have eight units in the industrial park, this figure was sought to be reduced to three. Learned Counsel submitted that Para 9(2) of the Scheme speaks that the tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in the application are located in the industrial park. In response to this, the attention of the Court was drawn by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to the Dmt 36 wp744-11 fact that the Petitioners had in their original application stated that there would be eight units; that the proposed area of the industrial park would be 8261-56 sq. mt.; and that the proposed allocable area of would be 6529.42 sq. mt. By their further application dated 26 October 2006 the Petitioners sought to alter the number of units from eight to three.
However, there was no change proposed either in the area as declared earlier or in the allocable area. Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioners fulfilled in substance the object and substance underlying the Scheme and the Department was notified on 25 July 2007 that three units located in the park as on 14 March 2007 were occupied by Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Polaris Software Lab. Ltd., and Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Subsequently, the Petitioners notified the Department that an additional unit had been occupied by Citigroup Global Services Ltd.
The application filed by the Petitioners for a modification of the number of approved units was not allowed Dmt 37 wp744-11 purely on the ground that the development of the industrial park was completed beyond 31 March 2006. For the reasons already indicated by us in the earlier part of this judgment, we have come to the conclusion that the Respondents were not justified in rejecting the application purely on the ground that the development of the park was not complete by 31 March 2006. In holding thus, the Empowered Committee disabled itself from exercising the power and jurisdiction which it had under Para 9(1) of the Scheme.”
10 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, cited supra. Hence, this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 13. The second common issue in these two appeals of assessee in ITA Nos. 665 and 666/Kol/2013 for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 is as regards to disallowance of interest on interest free advances and further in AY 2008-09 there is enhancement of disallowance of interest. For this, assessee has raised following ground nos. 4 and 5 in AY 2008-09: “AY 2008-09” 4. For that in view of the facts and circumstances the enhancement proceedings initiated by CIT(A) and the enhancement of the assessment order by the CIT(A) on account of interest payment is wholly bad, illegal, unjustified and uncalled for and in view of the facts and in the circumstances such enhancement made is wholly bad, illegal and void both on points of law as well as facts and hence liable to be quashed/cancelled and in view of the facts and in the circumstances it may kindly be held accordingly. 5. For that in view of the facts and circumstances the CIT(A) is wholly unjustified in disallowing interest payment of Rs.3,68,48,359/- and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the whole of the interest expenditure having been incurred by your petitioner for the business and for the purposes of business and as commercial expediency and being wholly of revenue in nature, the same may kindly be held as allowable.” and following ground no. 4 in AY 2009-10: “4. For that in view of the facts and circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified in disallowing Rs.7,42,03,845/- being 50% of the interest paid on estimate and on suspicions and surmises and the CIT(A) is wholly unjustified to confirm the disallowance to the extent of Rs.2,18,70,815/- and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the whole of interest expenditure having been incurred for the business and for the purposes of business and towards commercial expediency and being whole of revenue nature, the whole of such interest paid is allowable during the year and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the disallowance of Rs.2,18,70,815/- by the CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.” Similarly revenue has also raised a ground against deletion of disallowance restricted at 50% in AY 2009-10, which reads as under: “vi) Despite affording several opportunities by the JCIT, Range-56, Kolkata as the assessee did not comply, the claim of interest was added back to the total income of the assessee. But Ld. CIT(A)- XXXVI, Kolkata, had erred in considering disallowance of interest @ 12.03% of the total claim without asking for any remand report in this regard.”
Since the issue is common in both the years, hence, we will decide this issue by this consolidated order. 14. Briefly stated facts are that the department has not challenged interest disallowance on the sum of Rs.117.0 cr. – Rs.51.0 cr. i.e. Rs.66.0 cr. in AY 2008-09 and the interest disallowance if any, has to be restricted to Rs.51.0 cr. out of which a sum of Rs.16.0 cr. has
11 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 already been refunded back in AY 2009-10 and as such, effective advance under challenge by revenue is only to the extent of Rs.35.0 cr. The AO in AY 2009-10 has allowed Rs.7.42 cr. out of Rs.14.84 cr. on estimate basis and treating the same as allowable u/s. 24(b) of the Act, since rental receipt was treated as assessable as income from house property. But CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.2.18 cr. (being interest on Rs.35 cr. ). The CIT(A) in AY 2008-09 noted that the assessee advanced a sum of Rs.51 cr. out of loan amount received to its sister concerns and group companies without charging any interest. However, the assessee paid interest on bank loan but no property was purchased against advance shown for purchase of property and transaction was reversed later on. He also observed that similar amount was transferred in the form of share application money to escape from disallowance of interest. Hence, the interest was disallowed by CIT(A) u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act at Rs.3,68,48,359/-, being enhancement u/s. 251(1) of the Act being capital borrowed was not used for the purpose of business. Aggrieved against the action of CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before Tribunal in both the years 15. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee had made such advances for acquisition of real estate properties or loan to associate concerns or invested in share application money in associate concerns which are in the same line of business as that of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that once the assessee is in real estate business and the amount advanced to the parties who are sister concerns of the assessee are also in the real estate business, sum advanced are only in the course of the business of the assessee. According to him, such advances have been made out of commercial expediency. The second limb of the argument made by ld. Counsel was that AO has not proved nexus of interest bearing funds invested in interest free advances/loans given but it is only presumption of the CIT for enhancement u/s. 251 of the Act and also AO made disallowance on mere estimate basis without bringing any material on record of nexus. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed complete cash flow statement which reads as under:
As on 29.9.2008 (Rs. In Crore) Particulars Amount Amount Loans and advances 117.21 Less: Current Liabilities & Provisions 50.08 (Non interest bearing) Partner’s Capital 01.50 Partner’s current account (Net of 22.5 74.08 Revaluation) 43.13
12 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
Less: Loan 7.43 35.66
In view of the above cash flow statement, Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the disallowance if any, could have been made in respect of interest corresponding to the sum of Rs. 35.66 cr., for which CIT(A) has restricted this disallowance. Further, the CIT(A) in para 5.2 page 17 allowed the expenses of Rs.64,29,817/- and audit fee of Rs.5618/- treating the income from Industrial Park as business income as against the action of the AO in not allowing such expenses by treating the same as income from house property. In view of such facts, Ld. CIT, DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The above facts are undisputed in respect to cash flow statement filed by the assessee as well as availability of funds. We find that neither the AO nor CIT(A) is able to establish the nexus between interest borrowed funds and interest free funds that interest bearing borrowed funds are utilized for advancing the same as interest free funds to sister concerns who are in the real estate business in which the assessee is. Ld. Counsel for the assessee heavily relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2008 dated 05.11.2015, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the aspect of commercial expediency as well as nexus of the funds and finally held as under: “We are of the opinion that such an approach is clearly faulty in law and cannot be countenanced. Insofar as loans to the sister concern / subsidiary C.A. No. 514/2008 5 http://www.itatonline.org company are concerned, law in this behalf is recapitulated by this Court in the case of 'S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Another' [2007 (288) ITR 1 (SC)]. After taking note of and discussing on the scope of commercial expediency, the Court summed up the legal position in the following manner: - “26. The expression “commercial expediency” is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. 27. No doubt, as held in Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979 (118) ITR 200 (SC)], if the borrowed amount was donated for some sentimental or personal reasons and not on the ground of commercial expediency, the interest thereon could not have been allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In Madhav Prasad's case [1979 (118) ITR 200 (SC)], the borrowed amount was donated to a college with a view to commemorate the memory of the assessee's deceased husband after whom the college was to be named, it was held by this court that the interest on the borrowed fund in such a case could not be allowed, as it could not be said that it was for commercial expediency. 28. Thus, the ratio of Madhav Prasad Jatia's case [1979 (118) ITR 200 (SC)] is that the borrowed fund advanced to a third party should be for commercial expediency if it is sought to be allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
13 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
In the present case, neither the High Court nor the Tribunal nor other authorities have examined whether the amount advanced to the sister concern was by way of commercial expediency. 30. It has been repeatedly held by this court that the expression “for the purpose of business” is wider in scope than the expression “for the purpose of earning profits” vide CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964 53 ITR 140 (SC), CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [1971 82 ITR 166 (SC)], etc.” In the process, the Court also agreed that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in 'CIT v. Dalmia Cement (B.) Ltd.' [2002 (254) ITR 377] wherein the High Court had held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. It further held that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit and that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the facts of this case as already noted above, it is manifest that the advance to M/s. Hero Fibres Limited became imperative as a business expediency in view of the undertaking given to the financial institutions by the assessee to the effect that it would provide additional margin to M/s. Hero Fibres Limited to meet the working capital for meeting any cash loses. It would also be significant to mention at this stage that, subsequently, the assessee company had off-loaded its share holding in the said M/s. Hero Fibres Limited to various companies of Oswal Group and at that time, the assessee company not only refunded back the entire loan given to M/s. Hero Fibres Limited by the assessee but this was refunded with interest. In the year in which the aforesaid interest was received, same was shown as income and offered for tax. Insofar as the loans to Directors are concerned, it could not be disputed by the Revenue that the assessee had a credit balance in the Bank account when the said advance of Rs. 34 lakhs was given. Remarkably, as observed by the CIT (Appeal) in his order, the company had reserve/surplus to the tune of almost 15 crores and, therefore, the assessee company could in any case, utilise those funds for giving advance to its Directors.”
In view of the above facts of this case and the case law of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., supra, we are of the view that the Assessee has advanced for acquisition of real estate properties, loans to sister concerns and share application money in associate concerns, which were in same business as that of the assessee i.e. real estate business and hence, the said sum advanced are only in the nature of business of the assessee and are out of commercial expediency. Further, there is no nexus established between interest bearing funds borrowed and interest free funds advanced to sister concerns, no disallowance can be attributed to the assessee on account of interest bearing borrowed funds. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of assessee and against revenue in both the years. 18. The next common issue in these appeals of revenue in ITA Nos. 581 and 813/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of depreciation made by AO. For this, revenue has raised following ground in AY 2008-09:
14 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 “Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata had allowed additional ground of appeal whereby depreciation of rs.12,31,96,184/-, which was not claimed in the computation. In this regard, Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata had asked for Remand Report, but before sending the Remand Report he had passed the Appeal Order.”
Similar is the ground raised by revenue in AY 2008-09. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the years hence we take up the facts from AY 2008-09 and decide the issue. 19. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has not claimed depreciation in the computation of income but raised additional ground in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 387 (SC) and in view of this decision CIT(A) admitted the additional ground and adjudicated the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) after taking into consideration the aspect of the assessee remanded the matter to the AO for his remand report vide letter dated 31.12.2012. The AO has not responded to CIT(A) and accordingly, CIT(A) directed the AO to allow depreciation on assets used in the business but after verification of facts and figures claimed now vis-à-vis the relevant rate of depreciation as applicable. We find that the assessee’s issue is covered as per explanation 5 to sec. 32 of the Act which makes it very clear that the allowance of depreciation is mandatory and has to be considered whether or not the assessee makes a claim in this respect or not. Even otherwise, the CIT(A) after admitting additional issue has remitted the matter back to the file of the AO for verification of facts and figure and applicable rates for claim of depreciation and also verification on assets used in the business only. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. This issue in both the years, of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 20. The next issue in revenue’s appeal in ITA No.581/Kol/2013 for AY 2008-09 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO on account of difference in the statement of accounts declared by assessee. For this, revenue has raised following ground: “Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata had AO had deleted the addition of Rs.56,66,732/- made on account of difference in the income declared by the assessee and in this regard no Remand Record was called for.”
We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the AO has made addition on account of difference on the disclosure made by
15 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 assessee as per the actual receipt and as per the rent received as per TDS certificate of the following parties: a) Symphony Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 14,20,000/- b) Xalted Information System Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 5,91,292/- c) Carrier Net Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 18,62,059/- d) Arivana Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 17,93,381/- Rs. 56,66,732/-
Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us explained the party wise position which was explained before CIT(A) filing the details of gross lease rentals received from various parties amounting to Rs.26,60,96,005/- and also enclosed the details of TDS amounting to Rs.3,15,44,547/- deducted by the parties on these lease rentals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us filed complete details in respect of Symphony Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and stated that the cafeteria rent was only receivable from middle of March, 2008 and since rent was received only on 09.07.2008, it was duly accounted for in the next FY and offered for taxation. Accordingly, this amount of Rs.14,20,000/- was already taxed in the immediate next year in view of subsequent fresh lease deed dated 09.06.2008. Similarly, in the case of Xalted Information System, as sum of Rs.5,91,292/- was the difference and this was explained that the copy of ledger account of this party for the entire year, the rent has been included earlier year. Accordingly, it was clear that the petitioner has received a total of Rs.57,43,973/- and this rent of Rs.5,91,292/- was received only in next year. Similar is the explanation in the case of M/s. Carrier Net Technologies Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.18,62,059/-. It was explained to the AO that the assessee was entitled to receive rent w.e.f. 19.03.2007 @ Rs.11,76,100/-, which amounts to Rs.1,40,95,533/- for whole of the year but the AO computed the rent in view of the TDS Certificate at Rs.1,58,57,591/-. Hence, difference. Similar is the position in respect to Arivana Networks India Pvt. Ltd. being the difference of Rs. 17,93,381/-. It was explained that a sum of Rs.1,63,02,907/- was shown in the TDS certificate included service tax @ 12.36% on actual rent of Rs.1,45,09,600/- and this difference was on account of service tax at Rs.17,93,387/-. Hence the entire difference of Rs.56,66,732/- was explained. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee. Now before us Ld. CIT, DR fairly conceded the position. Accordingly, we feel that factually the assessee has not received excess rent of Rs.56,66,732/- added by the AO. We find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in the given facts and circumstances of the case and we confirm the same. This issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
16 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 22. The next issue in this appeal of revenue in ITA No. 813/Kol/2013 for AY 2009-10 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO by treating the receipt from the occupants of Industrial Parks and income from house property instead of the same as assessable as income from business. For this, revenue has raised following ground: “i) considering the nature of income derived by the assessee, which is discussed in detail in the assessment order and on the basis of different case laws, income derived by the assessee was treated as H.P. Income. Whereas Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata, had allowed the income to treat as income from business.”
We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated facts are that in AY 2008-09 the AO treated the such rental receipt while framing assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act as income from business and CIT(A) issued notice u/s. 251 of the Act for enhancement with a proposal to treat such rental income as income from house property instead of income declared by assessee as income from business but CIT(A) after due consideration of entire facts dropped such proposal and revenue had not challenged the same. But now in AY 2009-10, the AO treated receipts from the occupants of Industrial Park as income from house property although the same is assessable as income from business as claimed by the assessee. The facts are that the assessee is in the business of developing and operating Industrial Park and was deriving income from such Industrial Park which was approved by Ministry of Commerce & Industry u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act. The assessee claimed the income in its return of income as business income from developing and operating of Industrial Park. The assessee also claimed that it was not letting out bare structure but was providing whole lot of services/amenities for software and allied industries as eligible for use of such Industrial Park. In such circumstances, the assessee claimed the rental receipts from the occupants of the Industrial park as business income and CIT(A) allowed the claim in favour of the assessee by observing as under: “In this regard it may be noted that there are a lot of similarities in both the purpose as well as the activities concerning the running of a hotel and that of industrial estate/business centre. Indeed both industrial estate and hotels constitute building or group of buildings providing accommodation for commercial use thereof. In the management of both hotels and industrial estate/business centre the predominant activity is commercial exploitation of the property. So applying the above principles laid down by the court the irresistible conclusion would be that the 'income derived by the assessee from the industrial estate/business centre is to be assessed as business income. In the instant case, the primary object of the assessee is to earn income by commercial exploitation of the property. For that purpose, every activity of the assessee has been directed towards developing the properties as industrial estate/business centers and so many workers (as is evident
17 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
from the list enclosed) are employed for providing various services and amenities to the users. Thus, the facts that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the income earned by Sambhu Investment (P.) Ltd. -Vs- CIT [2003] 263 ITR 143 is assessable as property income has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the present case as because in that case the facts showed that the main intention was to earn rental income and that is why the entire cost of the property was recovered from the tenants by way of interest-free advance. In view of the foregoing, after carefully analyzing the facts of the instant case and following the consensus of judicial opinion on the issue, it is submitted that, the mere fact that the income is attached to immovable property, cannot be the sole criterion for assessment of such income as income from house property. It is necessary to dig further to find out what is the primary object of the assessee while exploiting the property. If it is found, that the main intention is for simply letting out of property or any portion thereof, the resultant income must be assessed as income from house property. If, on the other hand, the main intention is found to be the exploitation of the immovable property by way of commercial activities, then the resultant income must be held as business income. Attention is drawn to the following facts which emerge in the present case of assessee: • The assessee originally treated land as investment and later on converted as business asset/ stock in trade and started utilizing it commercially as business centre/Industrial Park. • For this purpose, a host of facilities and amenities are provided by the assessee in an organized manner on a continuous basis. Several workers are also engaged for providing such services to the users. • Undoubtedly, all these activities are directed for a set purpose with a view to earn profit. • The property has been developed as Industrial Park under the approval of Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion which specially refers developing, operating and manufacturing of Industrial Park and that recognizes activities undertaking in the development of infrastructure facilities or built up space with common area allotted to Software concerns as an Industrial Park and also record such activity as business activity. • Appellant claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) which is available for business income only. Thus, in view of above, it is submitted that services rendered by the assessee were the result of its activities carried on continuously in an organized manner with a set purpose and with a view to earn profit. Hence, all these activities are in the nature of commercial activities. Accordingly, the income derived by the assessee from industrial Park/business centers is to be assessed as business income and' not as income from house property, as per findings of A.O. in assessment order.”
We find that the facts are undisputed as above that the assessee was not letting out bare structure but was providing whole lot of services/amenities for software and allied industries as eligible for use of such Industrial Park. In such circumstances, the assessee claimed the rental receipts from the occupants of the Industrial park as business income. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673 (SC) wherein it is held as under:
18 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10
“4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid issue. Before we narrate the legal principle that needs to be applied to give the answer to the aforesaid question, we would like to recapitulate some seminal features of the present case. 5. The memorandum of association of the appellant-company which is placed on record mentions main objects as well as incidental or ancillary objects in clause III (A) and (B) respectively. The main object of the appellant company is to acquire and hold the properties known as "Chennai House" and "Firhavin Estate" both in Chennai and to let out those properties as well as make advances upon the security of lands and buildings or other properties or any interest therein. What we emphasise is that holding the aforesaid properties and earning income by letting out those properties is the main objective of the company. It may further be recorded that in the return that was filed, the entire income which accrued and was assessed in the said return was from letting out of these properties. It is so recorded and accepted by the Assessing Officer himself in his order. 6. It transpires that the return of a total income of Rs. 2,44,030 was filed for the assessment year in question that is the assessment year 1983-84 and the entire income was through letting out of the aforesaid two properties, namely, "Chennai House" and "Firhavin Estate". Thus, there is no other income of the assessee except the income from letting out of these two properties. We have to decide the issue keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects. 7. With this background, we first refer to the judgment of this court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd.'s case which has been relied upon by the High Court. That was a case where the company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the main objective of the company was to develop the landed properties into markets. It so happened that some shops and stalls, which were developed by it, had been rented out and income was derived from the renting of the said shops and stalls. In those facts, the question arose for consideration was : whether the rental income that is received was to be treated as income from the house property or the income from the business. This court while holding that the income shall be treated as income from the house property, rested its decision in the context of the main objective of the company and took note of the fact that letting out of the property was not the object of the company at all. The court was, therefore, of the opinion that the character of that income which was from the house property had not altered because it was received by the company formed with the object of developing and setting up properties. 8. Before we refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd., we would be well advised to discuss the law laid down authoritatively and succinctly by this court in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC). That was also a case where the company, which was the assessee, was formed with the object, inter alia, of acquiring and disposing of the underground coal mining rights in certain coal fields and it had restricted its activities to acquiring coal mining leases over large areas, developing them as coal fields and then sub-leasing them to collieries and other companies. Thus, in the said case, the leasing out of the coal fields to the collieries and other companies was the business of the assessee. The income which was received from letting out of those mining leases was shown as business income. Department took the position that it is to be treated as income from the house property. It would be thus, clear that in similar circumstances, identical issue arose before the court. This court first discussed the scheme of the Income-tax Act and particularly six heads under which income can be categorised/classified. It was pointed out that before income, profits or gains can be brought to computation, they have to be assigned to one or the other head. These heads are in a sense exclusive of one another and income which falls within one head cannot be assigned to, or taxed under another head. Thereafter, the court pointed out that the deciding factor is not the ownership of land or leases but the nature of the activity of the assessee and the nature of the operations in relation to them. It was highlighted and stressed that the objects of the company must also be kept in view to interpret the activities. In support of the aforesaid proposition, a number of judgments of other jurisdictions, i.e., Privy Council, House of Lords in England and the US Courts were taken note of. The position in law, ultimately, is summed up in the following words (page 377 of 44 ITR) :
19 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 "As has been already pointed out in connection with the other two cases where there is a letting out of premises and collection of rents the assessment on property basis may be correct but not so, where the letting or sub-letting is part of a trading operation. The dividing line is difficult to find ; but in the case of a company with its professed objects and the manner of its activities and the nature of its dealings with its property, it is possible to say on which side the operations fall and to what head the income is to be assigned." 9. After applying the aforesaid principle to the facts, which were there before the court, it came to the conclusion that income had to be treated as income from business and not as income from house property. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid judgment in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd.'s case squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 10. No doubt in Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd.'s case, a Constitution Bench judgment of this court has clarified that merely an entry in the objects clause showing a particular object would not be the determinative factor to arrive at an conclusion whether the income is to be treated as income from business and such a question would depend upon the circumstances of each case, viz., whether a particular business is letting or not. This is so stated in the following words : "We think each case has to be looked at from a businessman's point of view to find out whether the letting was the doing of a business or the exploitation of his property by an owner. We do not fur ther think that a thing can by its very nature be a commercial asset. A commercial asset is only an asset used in a business and nothing else, and business may be carried on with practically all things. Therefore, it is not possible to say that a particular activity is business because it is concerned with an asset with which trade is commonly carried on. We find nothing in the cases referred to support the proposition that certain assets are commercial assets in their very nature." 11. We are conscious of the aforesaid dicta laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment. It is for this reason, we have, at the beginning of this judgment, stated the circumstances of the present case from which we arrive at irresistible conclusion that in this case, letting of the properties is in fact is the business of the assessee. The assessee, therefore, rightly disclosed the income under the head "Income from business". It cannot be treated as "Income from the house property". We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. No orders as to costs.” In view of the above facts and circumstances and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd., supra, this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.02.2016.
Sd/- Sd/- (Wasim Ahmed) (Mahavir Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated: 29th February, 2016
Jd. Sr. P.S
Copy of the order forwarded to:
20 ITA Nos.665, 666,581 &813 /Kol/2013 M/s Salarpuria Softzone, AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 1. Appellant – M/s Salarpuria Softzone, C/O Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700072. 2. Respondent – JCIT, Range-56, Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /True Copy, By order, Asstt. Registrar.