Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOTBENCH, RAJKOT
Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA& SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi in Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1033351158(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035559541(1) vide separate orders dated 09.06.2021 & 14.09.2021 passed for Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17.
&138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 2 - 2. These are appeals filed by the Department for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. Since common issues are involved for both the years under consideration, both the appeals are being taken up together.
The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
Assessment Year 2015-16 “(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.26,07,13,225/- made on account of Sales Tax (VAT) Exemption Benefit being subsidy for production of or bringing into existence any new assets treating the same as capital nature whereas the subsidy could only be treated as assistance given for the purpose of carrying on of the business of the assessee and therefore the same is revenue in nature.
(2) On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order of the A.O.
(3) That the order of the C.I.T.(A) may be set-aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.”
Assessment year 2016-17 “(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.19,54,26,057/- made on account of Sales Tax (VAT) Exemption Benefit being &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 3 - subsidy for production of or bringing into existence any new assets treating the same as capital nature whereas the subsidy could only be treated as assistance given for the purpose of carrying on of the business of the assessee and therefore the same is revenue in nature.
(2) On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) ought to have upheld the assessment order of the A.O.
(3) That the order of the C.I.T.(A) may be set-aside and that of the A.O. be restored to the above extent.”
We shall first take of the Department’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of vitrified tiles, electronics, electrical bikes etc. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that (i) the assessee received sales-tax (VAT) benefit of the Rs. 26,07,13,225/- but failed to offer it for taxation, treating it to be “capital receipt” as against “revenue receipt”and, (ii) while computing book profit for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act, the net profit as per profit and loss account did not include sales-tax (VAT) benefit of the Rs.26,07,13,225/-. Accordingly, the AO, Sawhney following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahni Steel and Press Works Ltd 228 ITR 253, added the aforesaid sales-tax benefit to the assessee’s total income. Further, the AO also re-computed book profits of the &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 4 - assessee company by including sales-tax (VAT) benefit of the Rs. 26,07,13, 225/- therein.
5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted both the aforesaid decisions in light of the fact that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by ITAT, Rajkot in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15, wherein the Department’s appeal on the above two issues was dismissed. While allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) made the following observations:
“4. In appeal, through its submissions the appellant has contended that the issue of treating sales tax incentive as revenue receipts as against capital receipt as also the issue of inclusion of sales tax incentive in computation of book profit are recurring issues since AY 2006-07. The appellant further contended that these issueswere covered in its favour by the order of the Hon'ble Rajkot ITAT for AY 2006-07 in its own case, which was followed by the CIT(A) in appellant's case for all subsequent AYs.The appellant has also cited the latest decision of Hon'ble Rajkot ITATfor AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 in its own case, wherein the Department's appeal on the above issues was dismissed.
The matter has been carefully considered. From a perusal of the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot in 174 & 308/Rjt/2017 in appellant's own case for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 5 - and 2014-15 it could be seen that the issues regarding sales tax benefit and computation of book profit for the purpose of section 115JBare covered in favour of appellant. The operative portion of the Hon'ble ITAT's order is reproduced below:
Similar receipts in the form of incentives have been held to be in the nature of capital receipt by the Appellate Authority viz. CIT(A) and ITAT in the assessee's own case in for Asst. Year 2006-07. Relevant para of the said order is reproduced as under:
"Thus it can clearly be seen that a finding has been recorded that the object of the subsidy was to encourage the setting up of industries in the backward area by generating employment therein. In our opinion, in answering the issue, the test as laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ponni Sugan and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 3061TR (SC) = (2008 - TIOL - 174- SC - IT) will have to be considered. The Supreme Court has held that the testof the character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assessee under a schemeas to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is wanted. The court further observed that in such cases, what to applied is the purpose test. The point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 6 - relevant. The source is immaterial. Form of subsidy is material. Court then proceeded to observe asunder:
"The main eligibility condition in the-scheme with which we are concerned in this case is that the incentive must be utilized for repayment of loans taken by the assessee to set up new units or for substantial expansion of existing units. On this aspect there is no dispute. If the, object of the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is oh revenue account On the other hand, if the object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to set unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was in Capital account."
Therefore, let us apply the purpose test based on the findings recorded by the Special Bench. The object of the subsidy was to set up a new unit in a backward area to generate employment. In our opinion, the subsidy is clearly on capital account. In that view of the matter, Question (D) as framed would also not arise."
On careful consideration of the fact of the case and in view ofthecase laws cited before us, we uphold the order of &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 7 - the CIT(A) bywhich the receipts have been held to be capital in nature."
…………… 17. ……………
As ITAT, Rajkot in appellant's own case, it is held that incentives received by the appellant are capital receipts. Capital receipt are not chargeable to tax even in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act.
In our considered opinion, the incentive of Sale Tax/VA T and Excise Duty, which was given as per the Government policy as enumerated above and Ld.ClT(A) has passed reasoned and detailed order. Therefore, we are not incline to interfere in the order passed by the ld.CIT(A)-3, Rajkot. Therefore, appeal of the department is dismissed.
It is evident from the above that the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant by the jurisdictional ITAT in its own casefor the AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15. Respectfully following the same, the addition of Rs 26,07,13,225 to total-Income (Grounds 2 & 3) and to book profit u/s 115JB (Ground 5) is hereby deleted.Grounds 2, 3 & 5 are allowed. Ground 1 is general in nature needing no adjudication; while ground 4 which is an alternate ground regarding reduction of the Sales Tax Subsidy &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 8 - from the cost of assets is rendered infructuous as the appellant has succeeded on the main, grounds.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.”
6. The Department is in appeal before us against the aforesaid relief granted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Before us, the Ld. DR relied upon the observations made by the AO in the assessment order. He submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Sawhney Steel and Press Works Ltd 228 ITR 253, which has been correctly applied by the AO. Further, he submitted that the ITAT, Rajkot in the assessee’s own case has relied upon the decision of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd 306 ITR 392 (SC) which has been rendered in on a different set of facts, and further the aforesaid decision has not distinguished the decision of Sawhney Steel and Press Works Ltd 228 ITR 253 rendered by the Supreme Court of India, which is directly applicable to the assessee’s set of facts. In response, the counsel for the assessee submitted that on identical facts, the ITAT, Rajkot in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15 has decided both the issues in favour of the assessee, and accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee on these issues.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We firstly observe that the ITAT, Rajkot in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2008-09 to 2014-15 has decided both the issues in &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 9 - favour of the assessee, on identical set of facts. Further, Ld. CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions of the ITAT, Rajkot rendered in the assessee’s own case. Further, we observe that substantial time has elapsed since the decision of Sawhney Steels supra, on which reliance has been placed by the AO. Over the years, various Courts and Tribunal’s have held that while deciding whether the subsidy received by the Government is on revenue or on capital account, the purpose behind giving the subsidy needs to be ascertained. The issue / controversy has now been settled in the recent case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune 88 taxmann.com 178 (SC), in which it was held that where object of respective subsidy schemes of State Governments was to encourage development of Multiple Theatre Complexes, incentives would be held to be “capital” in nature and not revenue receipts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following important observations while passing the order:
Applying the aforesaid test contained in both Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd.'s case (supra) as well as CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 87 /306 ITR 392(SC), it is viewed that the object, as stated in the statement of objects and reasons, of the amendment ordinance was that since the average occupancy in cinema theatres has fallen considerably and hardly any new theatres have been started in the recent past, the concept of a Complete Family Entertainment Centre, more popularly known as Multiplex Theatre Complex, has emerged. These &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 10 - complexes offer various entertainment facilities for the entire family as a whole. It was noticed that these complexes are highly capital intensive and their gestation period is quite long and therefore, they need Government support in the form of incentives qua entertainment duty. It was also added that government with a view to commemorate the birth centenary of late V. Shantaram decided to grant concession in entertainment duty to Multiplex Theatre Complexes to promote construction of new cinema houses in the State. The aforesaid object is clear and unequivocal. The object of the grant of the subsidy was in order that persons come forward to construct Multiplex Theatre Complexes, the idea being that exemption from entertainment duty for a period of three years and partial remission for a period of two years should go towards helping the industry to set up such highly capital intensive entertainment centres. This being the case, it is difficult to accept the argument of the revenue that it is only the immediate object and not the larger object which must be kept in mind in that the subsidy scheme kicks in only post construction, that is when cinema tickets are actually sold. The object of the scheme is only one -there is no larger or immediate object. That the object is carried out in a particular manner is irrelevant, as has been held in both Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.'s case (supra) and Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd.'s case (supra). [Para 22] &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 11 - In the case of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. 174 Taxman 87 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is object for which subsidy/assistance is given which determines nature of incentive subsidy.In this case, it was held that where under subsidy scheme, assessee, a sugar mill, was obliged to utilize subsidy only for repayment of term loans undertaken by it for setting up new unit/expansion of existing business, receipt of subsidy was capital in nature. In the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd.140 taxmann.com 514 (Mumbai - Trib.), where assessee-company was granted subsidy under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999 and amount of subsidy given was in nature of remission of salestax retained by company in accordance with said scheme, since object of assistance under subsidy scheme was to promote industries in State, amount of subsidy was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. In the case of Everest Industries Ltd.141 taxmann.com 176 (Mumbai - Trib.), the ITAT held that where subsidy on account of sales tax incentive was granted to assessee to encourage investment in backward areas of State of Maharashtra, it was not a revenue receipt but a capital receipt. In the case of Budge Budge Refineries Ltd139 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta), where assessee was granted subsidy under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 and amount of subsidy which was given was in nature of reimbursement of 75 per cent of sales tax/VAT actually paid by assessee, since object of assistance under subsidy scheme was to enable assessee to set up a new unit and reimbursement of 75 per cent of sales tax paid had been termed as Industrial Promotion Assistance, receipt of subsidy would be a capital receipt. In the case of Sunrise Biscuit Co. &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 12 - (P.) Ltd.140 taxmann.com 6 (Gauhati - Trib.), where assessee- company had received VAT subsidy under State industrial scheme for substantial expansion of its existing industrial unit, since object of subsidy was to accelerate industrial development and generation of employment in State, such VAT subsidy received by assessee was capital in nature. Further, the ITAT also held that VAT subsidy received by assessee being capital receipt was liable to be excluded from computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act. In the case of Krishi Rasayan Exports (P.) Ltd. 145 taxmann.com 191 (Calcutta), the Kolkata High Court held that Interest subsidy and excise refund should be treated as capital receipt for purpose of computation of book profit.
We further observe that in the instant facts, the ITAT, Rajkot in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 to 2014-15 has also analysed the Scheme under which the subsidy was granted to the assessee. On analysis of the scheme, the ITAT, Rajkot gave a specific finding that the contents of the Scheme itself shows that Excise and VAT incentive on sales/purchases were given to the assessee for promoting investment of capital for industrial development and to generate employment in the Kutch district which, was affected by a devastating earthquake. Accordingly, it is evident that in the instant facts the sales tax subsidy was given with the specific purpose of promoting industrialisation in the Kutch district which was devastated by an earthquake, and therefore, looking into the instant facts, and in light of the various judicial precedents as highlighted above, we are of the considered view that the subsidy is on “capital account” and cannot be &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 13 - taxed as “revenue receipts” in the hands of the assessee. Further, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the decision of ITAT, Rajkot in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 in ITA numbers 263 and 264/Rjt/2013, which has made the following observations:
“9. We have-heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us, The issue whether incentive received by the assessee on account of Excise Duty/VAT incentive on purchases and sales, Excise Duty refund and sales tax exemption benefit are to be treated as capital or revenue m nature, we find that similar issue has been dealt by the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y, 2007-08 in and has been decided in favour of assessee treating the impugned Excise Duty/VAT incentive & Refund as capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. In holding so Co-ordinate Bench has observed as follows:
6.1 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant and have gone through, the assessment order as well.
6.1 It is evident from the Scheme itself that the excise & VAT incentives on sales/purchases were given to the appellant for promoting investment of capital for industrial development and to generate employment in the Kutch District which was affected by devastating earthquake. Incentives were not given for carrying out the day-to-day business operations. The object of such incentives was toencouragelarge scale investment for &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 14 - industrial development in the notified area of Kutch District. The Scheme framed by the Government was limited to such industrial Units which were set up in the Kutch District before the specified date as per the scheme of incentive. The ITAT, Rajkot in the case of the appellant for A.Y. 2006-07, vide order dated 23/9/2010, has decided to treat such incentives as Capital receipts. Para Nos. 16 and 17 of the said Order are reproduced as under: -
"16. We also find from the notifications by which the schemes have been notified that the purpose of the Central Government & Government of Gujarat by giving the Incentives is to promote investment of capital and thereby industrial development and to generate employment in the Kutch District which was affected by earthquake, Thus on application of the purpose test it is quite clear that the purpose of the incentive schemes is not to assist in the carrying on of the assessee's trade or business. The purpose is clearly for promoting capital investment and thereby industry development in the earthquake affected district. The purpose is to generate employment in the said district.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Ponny Sugar has laid down the principle that the character of the subsidy whether revenue or capital in the hands of the recipient will have to be determined by having regard to the purpose for which subsidy is given. Thus, the Said decision &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 15 - though relied by the revenue, actually supports the case of the assessee."
6.2 Further, the findings given by the Hon'ble ITAT as discussed in Paras 21 and 22 of the said order are reproduced as under: -
"21. We find that the propositions made by the learned A. R. are fully supported by the facts of the case including the schemes of incentive and by the case laws cited before us. Even the decision of Sahney Steel cited by the revenue before us effectively supports the case of the assessee.
We were also informed by the learned, A.R. Shri Mahesh Sarda by submitting copy of the decision dtd. 15-4-2009 of High Court of Bombay by which, the Hon'ble High Court has affirmed the Special Bench decision in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Our specific attention was invited to para 4 of the order.
"so far as question (B) is concerned, the tribunal relied upon the ITAT Mumbai Bench ‘J' (Special Bench) decision in the case of assessee itself in Deputy Commissioner of income-tax v, Reliance industries Ltd = (2003 TIOL - 14 "AT - MUM - SB) we may gainfully reproduce the following portion:
"The Scheme framed by the Government of Maharashtra in 1979 and formulated by its resolution dtd. 5-1-1980 has been analyzed in detail by the tribunal in its order in RIL for the assessment year 1985-86 which we have a/ready referred to in extensor. On an analysis of theScheme, the tribuna1 has come to the &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 16 - conclusion that the thrust of the scheme is that the assessee would become entitled for the sales tax incentive even before tin commencement of the production, which implies that the object of the incentive is to fund a part of the cost o the setting up on the factory in the notified backward area. The tribunal has, at more than one place, stated that the thrust of the Maharasthra Scheme was the industrial development of the backward districts as well as generation of employment thus establishing a direct nexus with the investment in the fixed capital assets. It has been found that the entitlement of the industrial unit 10 'claim eligibility for the incentive arose even while the industry was in process of 'being set up. According to the Tribunal, the scheme was oriented towards and was subservient to the Investment in fixed capital assets. The sales tax incentive was envisaged only as an alternative to the cash disbursement and by its very nature was to be available only after production commenced. Thus, in effect, it was heldbythe Tribunal that the subsidy in the form of sales tax incentive was not given to the assesses for assisting it in carrying out the business operations. The objectof the subsidy was to encourage the setting up of industries in the backward area.
Thus, it can clearly be seen that a finding has been recorded that the object of the subsidy was to encourage the setting up of industries in the backward area by generating employment therein. In our opinion, in answering the issue, the test as laid down by the Supreme court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ponni Sugar & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR (SC) = TIOL - &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 17 - 174 - SC -IT) will have to be considered. The Supreme Court has held that the test of the character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assesses under a scheme has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is granted. The court further observed that in such cases, what to be applied is the purpose test. The point of time at which the subsidy is paid is not relevant. The source is immaterial. Form of subsidy is material. Court then proceeded to observe as under:-
The main eligibility condition in the scheme with which we are concerned in this case is that the Incentive must be utilized for repayment of loans taken by the assessee to set up new units or for substantial expansion of existing units. On this aspect there is no dispute. If the object of the subsidy scheme was to enable the assessee to run the business more profitably then the receipt is on revenue account. On the other hand, if the object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme was to enable 'the assessee to set unit or to expand the existing unit then the receipt of the subsidy was in capital account.'
Therefore, let us apply the purpose test based on the findings recorded by the Special Bench. The object of the subsidy was to set up a new unit in a backward area to generate employment. In our opinion, the subsidy is clearly on capital account. In that view of the matter, Question. (D) as framed would also notarise,"
&138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 18 - 22. On careful consideration of the fact of the case and in view of the case laws cited before us, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) by which the receipts have been held to be capital in nature."
6.3 It is evident from the aforesaid findings that the jurisdictions! Hon'ble Rajkot Tribunal as considered each aspect of the issues involved after analyzing the relevant judicial decisions. However, it is ascertained that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09thSeptember, 2011 in thecase of Reliance Industries Ltd, in Civil Appeal No. 7769 of 2010 has held that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appeal without considering the following question, which did arise for consideration.
(8) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that sales tax incentive is a Capital Receipt?
With the above direction, the Impugned order has been set aside by the Apex Court and the matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the questions, formulated above, in accordance with law. The decision of the Apex Court setting aside the order of the High Court of Mumbai for fresh adjudication of the issue does not alter or dilute the binding decision of the Mumbai Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Reliance Industries Lt reported at 88 ITD 273 (Mumbai)(SB). &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 19 - 6.4 Respectfully following the Hon'ble ITAT's decision, Excise Duty Refund of Rs.2,06,90,959/- and Sales Tax Exemption benefit of Rs.14,54,54,616/- are treated as "Capital Receipts" and not chargeable to tax. The addition made on this account is therefore, deleted. The first ground of appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
In the result this issue is decided against the revenue and accordingly ground no.1 raised in both the appeals for A. Y.2008- 09 and 2009-10 are dismissed.
Apropose to ground no.2 relating to calculating of book profit u/s,1153B of the Act Revenue has raised separate grounds for A. Ys 2008-09 and 2009-10 and for A. Y 2008-09 grounds raised by Revenue reads as under;
10. From the perusal of decision of co-ordinate bench we find that issue raised in ground no.1 assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are similar to those dealt in A.Y 2007-08 and "Ld.DR" was unable to distinguish the facts of these two A.Ys 2008-09 and 2009-10 with those dealt in A.Y 2007-08. We therefore in the given facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate bench find no reason .to interfere in the finding of "Ld.CIT (A)" treating theimpugned receipt on accountof ExciseDuty and sales tax incentive aschargeableto tax for A.Ys 2008-09 and 2009-10. &138/Rjt/2021 DCIT vs. M/s. Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. Asst.Years –2015-16&2016-17 - 20 -
In the result this issue is decided against the revenue and accordingly ground no.1 raised in both the appeals for A.Ys 2008- 09 and 2009-10 are dismissed.”
In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. Since identical issues are involved for both the years under consideration, the appeal of the Department is also dismissed for assessment year 2016-17.
In the combined result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/05/2023