SUNSHIELD CHEMICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 7(2)(3), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal, filed by the assessee company, being ITA No. 5045/Mum/2011, is directed against the order dated 29-03-2011 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Mumbai (Hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2007-08.

ITA 5045/M/10 2

memo of appeal filed with the Tribunal:-

1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the set off

in respect of the current year’s depreciation allowable against the

capital gains for the year.

2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in

confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not specifying/

carrying forward the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward

business losses of the Appellant.

3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in directing

the Assessing Officer to make addition on account of the provisions

of Section 145A of the Act.

4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in directing

the Assessing officer to invoke the provisions of Section 145A of the

Act without making any adjustment to the opening stock of the

Appellant.

ITA 5045/M/10 3

5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals ) erred in not

directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the opening stock,

purchases, sales and closing stock in accordance with the provisions

of Section 145A of the Act.”

the business of chemicals. The case of the assessee company was

selected for scrutiny for framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income

Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter called “the Act”) read with Section 143(2) of

the Act. The assessee company e-filed its return of income on

30.10.2007 declaring total income of (-) Rs. 4,46,07,722. Notice u/s

143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee company on

18.08.2008.The original return was revised by the assessee company by

filing revised return of income on 30.03.2009 revising the loss to (-)

Rs.32,92,004/-. The loss is reduced in the revised return as compared

to the original return of income filed with Revenue due to declaration of

additional income being long term capital gain of Rs.4,27,50,000/- on

sale of tenancy rights in office premises at Janki Niwas, Dadar,

Mumbai.

Officer (Hereinafter called “the AO”) observed that the assessee

ITA 5045/M/10 4

company has shown Business Loss of Rs.4,46,09,522/- which included

Depreciation u/s 32 of the Act amounting to Rs.3,20,97,526/- which

the assessee company has set off against the Long Term Capital Gains

of Rs.4,27,50,000/-. Thus, the assessee company has set off the

Business Loss and the Depreciation against the Long Term Capital

Gain earned during the assessment year.

business loss against the income under the head ‘capital gains’. As per

the AO, the Business Loss is to be computed as per Section 29 of the

Act i.e. Section 32 is to be given effect for computing business loss.

Section 32(2) of the Act restricts the allowable depreciation to the

profits and gains of business. Therefore, in the opinion of the AO, the

current year’s allowable depreciation cannot exceed the business

income. Hence as per AO, the assessee’s claim of set off depreciation

against capital gains cannot be allowed. The AO then referred to

provisions of Section 29 and 32(2) of the Act to come to the conclusion

that if there is no income under the head ‘profits and gains of business’

or where the profit under the head business is less than the

depreciation allowable u/s 32(1) of the Act, then the allowance of part

of the allowance to which effect cannot be given shall be added to the

depreciation allowance for the next previous year and shall be set off

ITA 5045/M/10 5

against the income under the head “profits and gains of business’ left

after allowing deductions u/s 30 to 43D of the Act (excluding

depreciation allowance u/s 32 of the Act) and if the income under the

head ‘profit and gains of business’ is not sufficient for the depreciation

allowance, then the same is to be treated as per the Section 32(2) of the

Act i.e. to be added to the depreciation allowable u/s 32(1) of the Act

next year.The AO then referred to the provisions of Section 71, 72 and

32 of the Act and reconciled the said Sections in a manner to come to

conclusion that the depreciation of the current year is not to be allowed

to be set off against the income under the head ‘long term capital gains’

vide assessment orders dated 18.12.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Act.

assessee company filed first appeal with the CIT(A) . The assessee

company relied upon the following case laws in support of its

contentions:

555(SC), 2. Rajapalayam Mills Limited v. CIT -115 ITR 777(SC), 3. Garden Silk Wvg Factory-189 ITR 512(SC), 4. CIT v. Virmani Inds. P. Ltd. & Ors.-216 ITR 607(SC),

ITA 5045/M/10 6

In the light of the above decisions , the assessee company argued that

the assessee company has set off the depreciation allowance for the

year under consideration computed as per provisions of Section 32(1) of

the Act against the long term capital gains for the year and such set off

is allowable as per provisions of Section 71 of the Act.The assessee

company contended that the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act are

not attracted in the appellant company’s case and the reliance of AO on

Section 32(2) of the Act is devoid of merit and hence the set off of the

depreciation against the long term capital gains for the year be allowed

to the assessee company .

dated 29-03-2010 on the grounds that under Section 32(2) of the Act

r.w.s. Section 14 of the Act , the words profits and gains are specifically

confined to ‘profits and gains of business’ only and thus , current year

depreciation which could not be set off against the ‘profits and gains of

business’ shall be carried forward to be adjusted as per provisions of

Section 32(2) of the Act r.w.s. 72(2) of the Act and Section 32(2) of the Act

also stipulates that current year depreciation can be set off only against

‘profits and gains of business’ and not other heads of income. The CIT(A)

ITA 5045/M/10 7

also held that the case laws relied upon by the asssessee company mostly

pertained to old Income Tax Act of 1922 whereby under the old Act of 1922

vide Section 6 , the word profits and gains has been attributed to various

other heads of income also viz. salary/interest on securities, income from

properties and capital gains while the new 1961 Act vide Section 14

restrict the words ‘profits and gains’ to ‘profits and gains of business or

profession’ only.

assessee company is in appeal before the Tribunal.

company has set off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,20,97,526/- against

the long term capital gains earned during the year. The AO has not allowed

set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against the long term capital gains

earned during the year by the assessee company on the grounds that

Section 32(2) of the Act restricts the allowable depreciation to the extent of

the profits and gains of business and that the current year’s depreciation

cannot exceed the profits and gains chargeable to tax for that previous

year. The ld. Counsel drew our attentions to Section 32(2) , 71(2) and 72(2)

of the Act to contend that assessee company has rightly set off the

unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,20,97,526/- against the long term capital

ITA 5045/M/10 8

gains earned by the assessee company during the year. The Ld. Counsel

relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Virmani

Industries Private Limited in (1995)216 ITR 607(SC) , judgment of Hon’ble

Bombay High Court in the case of Ambika Silk Mills Company Limited v.

CIT in (1952) ITR 58 (Bom.) and the decision in the case of Rallis India

Limited v. JCIT in ITA No. 4889/Mum/2006 to contend that the assessee

company is entitled for set-off of un-absorbed depreciation allowance

against the long term capital gain earned by the assessee company.While

on the other hand the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities

below.

record including case laws. We have observed that the assessee company

has set off unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,20,97,526/- against the long

term capital gains earned during the year which has not been allowed by

the AO and the same was confirmed by the CIT(A).

bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4898/Mum/06 in the case of Rallis India

Limited v. JCIT for the assessment year 2002-03 in favour of the taxpayer

by holding that the taxpayer is entitled to set off of unabsorbed carry

forward depreciation against the income computed under the head “long

ITA 5045/M/10 9

term capital gain” of the year under consideration and the relevant para’s

are as under:

“7. Before proceeding further, we would like to see the provisions

of Section 32(2) as existed prior to AY 1997-98, existed from AY

1997-98 to AY 2001-02 and existed from AY 2002-03 onwards,

which are as under:

Section 32(2) as it existed prior to AY 1997-98 :

“(2) Where, in the assessment of the assessee, 34[***]

full effect cannot be given to any allowance 35[under

clause (ii) of sub-section (1)] in any previous year,

owing to there being no profits or gains chargeable for

that previous year, or owing to the profits or gains

chargeable being less than the allowance, then,

subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72

and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or part

of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as

the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the

allowance for depreciation for the following previous

year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if

there is no such allowance for that previous year, be

deemed to be the allowance for that previous year,

and so on for the succeeding previous years.”

ITA 5045/M/10 10

Section 32(2) as it existed from AY 1997-98 to AY 2001-02:

“[(2) Where in the assessment of the assessee full

effect cannot be given to any allowance under

clause (ii) of sub-section (1) in any previous year owing

to there being no profits or gains chargeable for that

previous year or owing to the profits or gains being

less than the allowance, then, the allowance or the

part of allowance to which effect has not been given

(hereinafter referred to as unabsorbed depreciation

allowance), as the case may be,—

(i) shall be set off against the profits and

gains, if any, of any business or profession

carried on by him and assessable for that

assessment year ;

(ii) if the unabsorbed depreciation

allowance cannot be wholly set off under

clause (i), the amount not so set off shall be set

off from the income under any other head, if

any, assessable for that assessment year;

(iii) if the unabsorbed depreciation allowance

cannot be wholly set off under clause (i) and

ITA 5045/M/10 11

clause (ii), the amount of allowance not so set off

shall be carried forward to the following assess-

ment year and—

(a) it shall be set off against the profits

and gains, if any, of any business or

profession carried on by him and

assessable for that assessment year ;

(b) if the unabsorbed depreciation

allowance cannot be wholly so set off, the

amount of unabsorbed depreciation allow-

ance not so set off shall be carried

forward to the following assessment year

not being more than eight assessment

years immediately succeeding the

assessment year for which the aforesaid

allowance was first computed .”

Section 32(2) as it exists from AY 2002-03 till date:

“[(2) Where, in the assessment of the assessee, full

effect cannot be given to any allowance under sub-

section (1) in any previous year, owing to there being

no profits or gains chargeable for that previous year71,

ITA 5045/M/10 12

or owing to the profits or gains chargeable being less

than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of

sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3)

of section 73, the allowance or the part of the

allowance to which effect has not been given, as the

case may be, shall be added to the amount of the

allowance for depreciation for the following previous

year and deemed to be part of that allowance, or if

there is no such allowance for that previous year, be

deemed to be the allowance for that previous year,

and so on for the succeeding previous years.]”

7.1 We have also seen the decisions of the Apex court in the

case of Virmani Industries Ltd(Supra) copy of which is

placed on record and found that the wordings of sec.32(2) as

existed for AY 2002-03 are identical to the wordings to sec.

32(2) with the year before the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. AY

1956-57.

7.2 The facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Virmani Industries Ltd.(supra) were as under:

ITA 5045/M/10 13

“The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of

soap and oil during the previous year relevant to the

assessment year 1956-57. The business was stopped

in that year where after the factory was let out on

hire. Ten years later, i.e. in the previous year relevant

to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee started

the business of manufacture of steel pipes. For the

purpose of this business, a part of the old machinery

used in the manufacture of soap and oil was utilized.

In the assessment proceeding relating to the

assessment year 1965-66 , the assessee claimed that

the unabsorbed depreciation , to the extent it pertained

to the old machinery utilized in the new business,

should be brought forward and set off against the

profits of the new business. This claim was rejected

by the ITO and by the Appellate Assistant

Commissioner. This claim was rejected by the ITO and

by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The

Tribunal upheld the assessee’s claim and the High

Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal.”

ITA 5045/M/10 14

7.3 On appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has observed and has held as under:

“The words “no profits or gains chargeable for that

year” in section 32(2) of the I T Act , 1961 are not

confined to profits and gains derived from business.

They refer to the totality of the profits or gains

computed under the various heads and chargeable to

tax. It is, therefore, clear that effect must be given to

depreciation allowance first against the profits and

gains of the particular business whose income is being

computed under section 28 and if the profits of that

business are not sufficient to absorb the depreciation

allowance, the allowance to the extent to which it is

not absorbed would be set off against the profits of

any other business and if a part of the depreciation

allowance still remains unabsorbed , it would be liable

to be set off against the profits and gains chargeable

under any other head of and it is only if some part of

the depreciation allowance still remains that it can be

carried forward to the next assessment year. But

where any part of the depreciation remains

unabsorbed after being set off against the total income

ITA 5045/M/10 15

chargeable to tax, it can be carried forward to the

following year and set off against the year’s income

and so on for succeeding years. The method adopted

by the statute for achieving the result is that the

carried forward depreciation allowance is deemed to

be part of and stands on exactly the same footing as

the current depreciation for the assessment year and

is this allowable as a deduction.”

7.4 While deciding the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has followed the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in the

case of Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P) Ltd. in 59 ITR 555,

Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. in 115 ITR 777 which were rendered

by the Bench consisting of three judges. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has also observed that since the Bench

headed by three Hon’ble judges, therefore, the decisions of

earlier Bench are binding on them. At page 216 in para ‘f’ ,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that ;

“We have extracted the relevant observations from

both the judgments hereinabove , which say that the

unabsorbed depreciation allowance has not only to be

set of against other heads of income in the relevant

ITA 5045/M/10 16

previous year but where it is carried forward, it

“stands on exactly the same footing as current

depreciation.”

Court has answered the reference application in favour of

the assessee and against the department.

facts of the present case, we find that both the lower

authorities were not justified in not accepting the claim of the

assessee.The ld. CIT(A) also not justified in holding that the

decision of the Apex Court is not relevant for AY 2002-03 .

As stated above, the wordings of Section 32(2) are similar to

the wordings of sec. 32(2) existing prior to AY 1997-98.

Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the decision

of the Apex Court is squarely applicable on the facts of the

present case. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the set

off of carry forward unabsorbed depreciation against the

income computed under the head “long term capital gain” of

the year under consideration. We order accordingly.”

ITA 5045/M/10 17

Perusal of the wordings of Section 32(2) as applicable to assessment

year 2007-08 i.e. the impugned assessment year will reveal that the

wordings are similar to the wordings as applicable for assessment year

2002-03 for which the appeal in the case of Rallis India Limited(supra)

in ITA No. 4898/Mum/06 was decided by the Tribunal and facts are

identical. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of CIT v. Virmani Industries Private Limited (1995) 216 ITR

607(SC) and decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rallis India

Limited v. JCIT in ITA no. 4898/Mum/2006 , we hold that the assessee

company is entitled to set off of unabsorbed depreciation against long

term capital gain earned during the year by the assessee company.We

order accordingly.

No 3 to 5 which are mainly with respect to the CIT(A) directing the AO to

invoke the provisions of Section 145A of the Act by making additions to the

closing stock and that too without making corresponding adjustments to

the opening stock , purchase and sale of the assessee company.

duty in the valuation of the closing stock as per mandate of Section 145A

of the Act whereby the assessee company should have included excise

ITA 5045/M/10 18

duty component of purchase price of raw material while valuing the closing

stock of raw material, WIP and finished goods. The assessee company

submitted that the non inclusion of the same will have no effect on its

profits which contention was rejected by the AO. The AO held that the

plain reading of Section 145A of the Act makes it clear that after

computing profit and gains of business or profession as per the method of

accounting regularly employed by the assessee company , the profits shall

be further adjusted to include excise duty component of cost paid by the

assessee company not withstanding any right (i.e. cenvat) arising as a

consequence to such payment and hence excise component of the cost of

inputs i.e. raw material/packaging material etc has to included in closing

stock valuation irrespective of cenvat claim. In the opinion of AO , the

excise duty component of raw material is an indirect cost charged by the

manufacturer of raw material from the assessee company and is part of

the cost of raw material and hence it is to be included as part of closing

stock of finished goods and the modvat/cenvat scheme only allows a

rebate on excise duty payable on sale/clearance of goods manufactured by

assessee company calculated on the basis of excise duty rate applicable on

raw material which is actually paid by manufacturer of raw material. The

AO held that reliance of the assessee company on the guidance note

issued by the ICAI for tax audit cannot override the specific provisions of

the Act as contained in Section 145A of the Act. The AO referred to the

ITA 5045/M/10 19

‘inclusive method’ and ‘exclusive method’ as per guidance note issued by

the ICAI for tax audit in his assessment order which are contained in page

7-8 of assessment order which showed that there will not be any impact on

profits whether ‘inclusive method’ or ‘exclusive method’ but the AO held

that the guidance note issued by ICAI allowed the advance credit of cenvat

to be taken on the raw material which is not consumed and further

advance cenvat credit is taken pertaining to raw material component in

finished goods which are yet to be cleared for excise payment. Thus, in

nutshell, the AO held that this mechanism of advance credit allows the

assessee to claim benefit of set off of Cenvat in respect of entire duty paid

though the corresponding goods may still remain in closing stock as raw

material or finished goods on which no liability to pay duty has arisen.

Thus, the AO based on the average rate of duty on purchases work out

excise duty of Rs.84,64,424/- on value of closing stock of raw material,

WIP and Finished goods held by the assessee company at the year end and

corresponding addition to the returned income was made . The AO based

on the average rate of sales tax in the value of raw material , WIP and

Finished goods made an addition of Rs.17,73,391/- to the closing stock of

raw material, WIP and closing stock of the assessee company held as at

the year end by the assessee company and correspondingly addition to the

returned income was made to that extent. As per the AO , the excise duty

and sales tax is to be added to closing stock of Raw material,Work-in-

ITA 5045/M/10 20

progress and Finished goods held by the assessee company at the year end

as per Section 145A of the Act while no corresponding adjustment in the

opening stock of Raw material, Work-in-progress and Finished goods is to

made relying on the decision of Melmould Corporation v. CIT 202 ITR

789(Bom.).

filed first appeal with the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) held that the assessee

company should have prepared its profit and loss account as per

provisions of Section 145A of the Act whereby the excise duty and

VAT/sales tax are to be included in purchase, sale and closing stock while

no adjustment is required in the opening stock and resultant change , if

any is to be added to the income of the assessee company. The CIT(A) held

that the anomaly may arise due to the fact that the assessee company has

utilized PLA A/c instead of Cenvat/VAT credit available for payment of the

Duty to the Government A/c. The amount of payment made out of the PLA

A/c to the extent of the Cenvat/VAT credit was still available in the

Cenvat/VAT Register shall be added to the Cenvat/VAT set off/utilized

during the year . The VAT is payable at the time of sales and not on closing

stock of finished goods . Thus, the CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the

assessee company on this ground and held that the addition on account of

duty following the provisions of Section 145A of the Act is called for. The

ITA 5045/M/10 21

CIT(A) further held that no adjustment in the opening stock is to be made

relying on the decision of Melmould Corporation v. CIT(supra) and the

impugned assessment year being assessment year 2007-08 cannot be said

to be transitional year as the provisions of Section 145A of the Act has

come into force w.e.f. 01.04.1998 and hence the judgment of Mahavir

Aluminium Limited 297 ITR 77(Del.) is not applicable. Thus, the CIT(A)

directed the AO to verify the facts and figures and make additions as per

directions.

appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee company

reiterated submissions as made before the authorities below and

submitted before us that the assessee company is following ‘exclusive

method’ also called ‘net method’ of accounting whereby cost of purchases

are accounted for without taking into effect excise duty and VAT paid on

raw material as the assessee company is entitled for credit under value

added tax scheme of Government whereby set off is allowed of these duties

and taxes on inputs against the excise duty/VAT payable on finished

goods. The Ld. Counsel submitted that if adjustment on account of excise

duty/sales tax(VAT) is required to be made in closing stock, then

corresponding adjustment is to made to opening stock, purchases and

sales . The Ld. Counsel of the assessee company relied upon the decision

ITA 5045/M/10 22

of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. in

(2003) 261 ITR 275(SC) to support its contentions while the ld. DR relied

upon the orders of the authorities below.

including case laws relied upon by the both the parties. We have observed

that the whole controversy revolves around the method of accounting

employed by the assessee company and valuation of purchases, sales and

inventories as the assessee company is following ‘exclusive method’ also

called as ‘net method’ of accounting consistently whereby purchases are

reduced at inception by the cenvat credit available and are accounted for

in the books of accounts by the assessee company exclusive of cenvat

credit available and consequentially the assessee company has valued

stock net of cenvat without including taxes, duties , cess, fee etc as

provided u/s 145A of the Act while the authorities below have held that

the closing inventories as on year end shall include taxes, duties, fee, cess

as provided u/s 145A of the Act and no adjustment in the opening stock is

called for .

Before we proceed further it is important to understand the entire

background to understand the dispute in the present appeal in the right

perspective.

ITA 5045/M/10 23

Firstly, we refer to the provisions of Section 145A of the Act as applicable

for assessment year 2007-08 are reproduced below:

“Section - 145A, Income-tax Act, 1961 - 2006

2[Method of accounting in certain cases.

145A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section

145, the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the

purposes of determining the income chargeable under the head “Profits

and gains of business or profession” shall be—

(a) in accordance with the method of accounting regularly

employed by the assessee; and

(b) further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or

fee (by whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the

assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location and

condition as on the date of valuation.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, any tax, duty, cess or fee

(by whatever name called) under any law for the time being in force,

shall include all such payment notwithstanding any right arising as a

consequence to such payment.]”

The Section 145A of the Act was introduced by the Finance Act(No. 2)

Act,1998 w.e.f. April 1,1999 and starts with a non-obstante clause that

ITA 5045/M/10 24

notwithstanding anything contained in Section 145 of Act , the

valuation of purchase and sales of goods and inventory for the purposes

of determining the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains

of business or profession” shall be in accordance with the method of

accountancy regularly employed by the taxpayer and shall be further

adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty , cess or fee (by

whatever name called) actually paid or incurred by the taxpayer to

bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date

of valuation. The explanation to Section 145A of the Act stipulates that

for the purposes of this section, any tax , duty , cess or fee under any

law in force shall include all payment notwithstanding any right

arising as a consequence to such payment.

It is important to understand the structure of various taxes, duties ,

cess and fees which have bearing on bringing the goods to the place of

its location and conditions as on the date of valuation. There are

broadly two categories of taxes, duties , cess and fees based on

chargeability prevalent in India having bearing on bringing the goods to

the place of its location and conditions as on the date of valuation of

the goods as under:

ITA 5045/M/10 25

bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the

date of valuation of the goods are those which are to be absorbed by

the enterprise as part of the component of its costs as per prevailing

relevant laws,rules and regulations , without any benefit granted by law

of adjusting these taxes, duties , cess and fees against the final excise

duty payable on the finished goods manufactured by the enterprise. For

example , Custom duty payable on import of raw materials broadly has

three elements of duties apart from education and secondary education

cess viz. (a) Basic Custom Duty (b) Counter veiling Duty (CVD) (c)

Special Additional duties(SAD). The basic custom duty paid on import

of raw materials for manufacture of finished goods is not allowed as a

credit of taxes to be set off against the excise duty payable on the

finished goods manufactured by the enterprises under the current

value added tax regime known as cenvat credit scheme and hence is to

be absorbed as cost component by the enterprise while in the case of

the CVD & SAD component in custom duty paid by the enterprise on

import of raw materials for manufacture of finished goods, the same are

allowed as cenvat credit to be set off/ utilized for payment of excise

duty on the finished goods. Similarly, Central Sales Tax(CST) paid on

purchase of raw material from another state , no offset is allowed

against the State VAT or CST on finished goods sold by the enterprise

ITA 5045/M/10 26

as per current schemes pertaining to sales tax and hence is to be

absorbed as part of component of cost by the enterprise while State

VAT paid on purchase of raw material from supplier within the State is

allowed to be set-off against the VAT/CST payable on sale of finished

goods to avoid cascading effect of taxes.

bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the

date of valuation of the goods are known as ‘Value Added Taxes’-These

Value added taxes were introduced in India in 1986 to avoid cascading

effect of taxes with an objective to reduce transaction cost and bring

transparency in the system . The scheme allowed setting off of duties

paid on procurements of inputs against the duty payable on finished

goods manufactured by the enterprise thereby restricting the levy of tax

to value addition done by the enterprise in manufacturing the finished

goods. The scheme when launched in 1986 was called Modified Value

Added tax scheme (popularly known as MODVAT scheme) which

allowed credit/set off of duties paid on specified inputs used in

manufacture of excisable goods against the excise duty liability of the

enterprise on manufacture of goods as per provisions of Excise Laws ,

rules and regulations. The scheme was expanded and credit of duty

paid on capital goods was also brought under the ambit of the scheme

ITA 5045/M/10 27

MODVAT in the year 1994. The scheme was later renamed CENVAT

Credit scheme in the year 2000. The ‘Service Tax’ was introduced in

India from the year 1994 and Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 were

introduced in the year 2002 to allow credit on input services used in

providing taxable output services. In the year 2004, CENVAT Credit

Rules, 2002 and Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 were unified and new

CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were introduced. The new CENVAT Credit

Rules, 2004 allowed both manufacturers and service providers to take

input credit on goods and services apart from capital goods allowing

cross sectorial availment and utilization of credit. The Cenvat Credit

Rules permit adjustment of excise duties paid on inputs , CVD/SAD on

imports of raw material , excise duties on capital goods and service tax

on input services against the excise duty payable on finished goods

manufactured by the enterprise without one to one co-relation required

by the enterprise to establish before availing the cenvat credit. The

Central Government has now announced its intention to introduce

unified Goods and Service Tax , popularly known as ‘GST’ which is

likely to be rolled out shortly which is likely to further unify and merge

various indirect taxes both Central and State levies into an unified tax

to be known as ‘GST’ and allow credit of various indirect taxes across

goods and services both Central and State levies as per scheme to be

notified which will further help in cutting down transaction costs and

ITA 5045/M/10 28

bring in transparency into the system. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Eicher Motors v. UOI, 1999(106) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) has observed

that credit once validly taken by the manufacturer cannot be effaced.

The relevant extract of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is as under:-

� “5. Rule 57-F(4-A) was introduced into the Rules pursuant to the

Budget for 1995-96 providing for lapsing of credit lying unutilised

on 16-3-1995 with a manufacturer of tractors falling under

Heading No. 87.01 or motor vehicles falling under Heading Nos.

87.02 and 87.04 or chassis of such motor vehicles under Heading

No. 87.06. However, credit taken on inputs which were lying in the

factory on 16-3-1995 either as parts or contained in finished

products lying in stock on 16-3-1995 was allowed. Prior to the

1995-96 Budget, the Central excise/additional duty of customs

paid on inputs was allowed as credit for payment of excise duty on

the final products, in the manufacture of which such inputs were

used. The condition required for the same was that the credit of

duty paid on inputs could have been used for discharge of

duty/liability only in respect of those final products in the

manufacture of which such inputs were used. Thus it was claimed

that there was a nexus between the inputs and the final products.

In the 1995-96 Budget, the MODVAT Scheme was

ITA 5045/M/10 29

liberalised/simplified and the credit earned on any input

was allowed to be utilised for payment of duty on any final

product manufactured within the same factory irrespective

of whether such inputs were used in its manufacture or not.

The experience showed that credit accrued on inputs is less than

the duty liable to be paid on the final products and thus the credit

of duty earned on inputs gets fully utilised and some amount has

to be paid by the manufactured by way of cash. Prior to the 1995-

96 Budget, the excise duty on inputs used in the manufacture of

tractors and commercial vehicles varied from 15% to 25%, whereas

the final products attracted excise duty of 10% or 15% only. The

value addition was also not of such a magnitude that the excise

duty required to be paid on final products could have exceeded the

total input credit allowed. Since the excess credit could not have

been utilised for payment of the excise duty on any other product,

the unutilised credit was getting accumulated. The stand of the

assessees is that they have utilised the facility of paying excise

duty on the inputs and carried the credit towards excise duty

payable on the finished products. For the purpose of utilisation of

the credit, all vestitive (sic) facts or necessary incidents thereto

have taken place prior to 16-3-1995 or utilisation of the finished

products prior 16-3-1995. Thus the assessees became entitled

ITA 5045/M/10 30

to take the credit of the input instantaneously once the

input is received in the factory on the basis of the existing

Scheme. Now by application of Rule 57- F(4-A), the credit

attributable to inputs already used in the manufacture of the final

products and the final products which have already been cleared

from the factory alone is sought to be lapsed, that is, the amount

that is sought to be lapsed relates to the inputs already used in the

manufacture of the final products but the final products have

already been cleared from the factory before 16-3-1995. Thus the

right to the credit has become absolute at any rate when the

input is used in the manufacture of the final product. The

basic postulate that the Scheme is merely being altered and,

therefore, does not have any retrospective or retroactive effect,

submitted on behalf of the State, does not appeal to us. As

pointed out by us that when on the strength of the Rules

available, certain acts have been done by the parties

concerned, incidents following thereto must take place in

accordance with the Scheme under which the duty had been

paid on the manufactured products and if such a situation

is sought to be altered, necessarily it follows that the right,

which had accrued to a party such as the availability of a

scheme, is affected and, in particular, it loses sight of the

ITA 5045/M/10 31

fact that the provision for facility of credit is as good as tax

paid till tax is adjusted on future goods on the basis of the

several commitments which would have been made by the

assesses concerned. Therefore, the Scheme sought to be

introduced cannot be made applicable to the goods which had

already come into existence in respect of which the earlier Scheme

was applied under which the assessees had availed of the credit

facility for payment of taxes. It is on the basis of the earlier Scheme

necessarily that the taxes have to be adjusted and payment made

complete. Any manner or mode of application of the said Rule

would result in affecting the rights of the assesses. � 6. We may look at the matter from another angle. If on the

inputs, the assessee had already paid the taxes on the basis

that when the goods are utilised in the manufacture of

further products as inputs thereto then the tax on these

goods gets adjusted which are finished subsequently. Thus a

right accrued to the assessee on the date when they paid

the tax on the raw materials or the inputs and that right

would continue until the facility available thereto gets

worked out or until those goods existed. Therefore, it becomes

clear that Section 37 of the Act does not enable the authorities

concerned to make a rule which is impugned herein and, therefore,

ITA 5045/M/10 32

we may have no hesitation to hold that the Rule cannot be applied

to the goods manufactured prior to 16-3-1995 on which duty had

been paid and credit facility thereto has been availed of for the

purpose of manufacture of further goods � 7. There are several decisions referred to by the learned counsel on

either side but we do not think that those decisions have any

relevance to the point under discussion � 8. We allow the petitions filed by the assessees and declare that

the said Rule cannot be applied except in the manner indicated by

us above. No orders as to costs”

Thus in nut-shell , it can be said that the cenvatable duties and taxes

paid on procurement of inputs and services which are used in or in

relation to manufacture of finished goods are allowed to be set off

against the liability of excise duty determined on the finished goods

manufactured by the enterprise and Hon’ble Apex Court has already

held that cenvat credit once validly taken cannot be effaced. Thus , it

can be said that Cenvat credit once validly taken creates an accrued

right in favour of the enterprise to get it adjusted against the excise

duty payable on the finished goods manufactured by the enterprise ,

which is well known to the enterprise in advance ab-initio at the stage

of procuring inputs and services itself that these taxes on inputs and

services on procurement paid by the enterprise shall be set off against

ITA 5045/M/10 33

the liability for excise duty payable on finished goods manufactured by

the enterprises to avoid cascading effect of multiple taxes at multiple

stages. The Cenvat Credit Rules also permit refund of taxes and duties

on inputs and services used in case of export of goods on fulfillment of

stipulated conditions as stipulated under excise laws, rules and

regulations.

The Accounting Standard AS-2 issued by the Institute of Chartered

Accountants of India(ICAI) which is a mandatory standard stipulates

that the Cost of Inventories should comprise all costs of purchase, costs

of conversion and other costs incurred in bringing the inventories to

their present location and condition. The costs of purchase is defined

in the AS-2 which consists of the purchase price including duties and

taxes (other than those subsequently recoverable by the enterprise

from the taxing authorities), freight inwards and other expenditure

directly attributable to the acquisition. Thus AS-2 which is a mandatory

standard requires that duties and taxes paid on purchase are to form

part of cost of purchases but other than those duties and taxes

subsequently recoverable by the enterprise from the taxing

authorities meaning thereby that the cenvat credit of duties and taxes

paid on inputs which is recoverable from the revenue authorities by

way of set off against the excise duty payable on finished goods

ITA 5045/M/10 34

manufactured by the enterprise shall not form part of the cost of

purchase of the inventories in bringing the same to their present

location and condition. Thus, the ICAI stipulated enterprises to follow

‘exclusive method’ also called as ‘net method’ of accounting ( which in

the instant case , the assessee company is also following) whereby the

taxes and duties paid which are recoverable from revenue authorities

shall not be included in the cost of purchases and in valuing

inventories . On the other hand Section 145A of the Act requires

following the ‘inclusive method’ also called as ‘gross method’ of

accounting whereby it requires the valuation of purchase, sale and

inventory to be further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty,

cess or fee actually paid or incurred by the taxpayer to bring the goods

to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation

notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment of

taxes, duties, cess or fee. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v.

Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Limited in (2003) 261 ITR 275(SC) has

observed that under both the methods viz ‘gross method’ or ‘net

method’ as discussed above, the trading results shall be same by

observing as under:

“ The High Court has taken the several illustrations in the charts

placed before it by both sides and demonstrated that there are two

ITA 5045/M/10 35

possible methods of valuation of stock. The first would be the

“gross method” , in which the stock is valued at cost price inclusive

of the excise duty element . If this method is adopted , then the

unconsumed stock also must necessarily be valued in the same

manner. The other method is the “net method” , in which the raw

material purchased is valued at the actual cost,that is the actual

purchase price and , on this, Modvat credit would be available. If

this method is to be adopted, then uniformly the same method

must be adopted while valuing the unconsumed stock at the end of

the year. Whichever method one adopts, the result would be

the same.”

Similarly , ICAI has also in the guidance note on tax audit u/s 44AB of

the Income Tax Act,1961 at para 23.23 has demonstrated with practical

examples that under both the methods i.e. ‘inclusive method’ also

called as ‘gross method’ or ‘exclusive method’ also called as ‘net

method’, the gross profits in trading account shall be the same . It is

difficult to believe that the enterprise will make profits on taxes, duties ,

cess and fee payable to Government in the midst of prevailing law’s

concerning and with reference to doctrine of unjust enrichment. The

relevant extracts from the Guidance note on Tax Audit u/s 44AB of the

Income Tax Act,1961 issued by ICAI are reproduced below:

ITA 5045/M/10 36

“23.11 It may be pointed out that the "inclusive method" is not

permitted by AS-2 which is made mandatory from accounting year

beginning on or after 01.04.1999. Further, in the Guidance Note on

Accounting for CENVAT the second method (inclusive method) has

been withdrawn with effect from accounting year commencing from

1.4.1999. In view of the above, the adjustments under section

145A will have to be made in all cases where 'exclusive method' is

followed.

23.12 In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that the

Memorandum explaining the provisions of section 145A inserted by

the Finance (No.2) Bill, 1998 states as follows: “Computation of

value of inventory. The issue relating to whether the value of

closing stock of the inputs, work-in-progress and finished goods

must necessarily include the element for which MODVAT* credit is

available has been the matter of considerable litigation. In order to

ensure that the value of opening and closing stock (bold for

emphasis) reflect the correct value, it is proposed to insert a new

section to clarify that while computing the value of the inventory as

per the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee,

the same shall include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fees

paid or liability incurred for the same under any law in force. The

ITA 5045/M/10 37

proposed amendment which is clarificatory in nature shall take

effect retrospectively from the 1st day of April, 1986 and will

accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 1986-87 and

subsequent years. [Clause 45]”

*Now CENVAT. (Section 145A was initially proposed to be

applicable in relation to assessment year 1986-87 and subsequent

years. However, later on, when the Finance (No.2) Bill, 1998 was

enacted into law the provision was made applicable from 1.4.1999

i.e. assessment year 1999-2000) 23.13 It may be noted that when

the adjustments are made in the valuation of inventories, this will

affect both the opening as well as closing stock. Whatever

adjustment is made in the valuation of closing stock, the same will

be reflected in the opening stock also. Question for consideration is

whether the opening stock as on 1.4.1998 should be adjusted as

required under section 145A. It is now well settled that if any

adjustment is required to be made by a statute, effect to the same

should be given irrespective of any consequences on the

computation of income for tax purposes. Section 145A starts with

the non obstante clause "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary

contained in section 145". Therefore, to give effect to section 145A,

the opening stock as on 1.4.98 will have to be increased by any

tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred with reference to

ITA 5045/M/10 38

such stock if the same has not been added for the purpose of

valuation in the accounts. 23.14 It may be noted that while making

the adjustments stated in Para 23.8 and 23.13 above, the tax

auditor should ensure that if any deduction is claimed for any tax,

duty, cess or fee on the items covered by these two paragraphs by

way of debit in the profit and loss account, either in the earlier year

or in the year under report, adjustment for the same should be

made in such a manner that no double deduction is claimed for the

same expenditure. Similarly, adjustment should be made for any

item of income to ensure that the same item is not treated as

income twice.

…..

……

23.22 Section 145A of the Income-tax Act provides that the

valuation of purchase and sales of goods and inventory for the

purpose of computation of income from business or profession shall

be made on the basis of method of accounting regularly employed

by the assessee but this shall be subject to certain adjustments.

Therefore, it is not necessary to change the method of valuation of

purchase, sale and inventory regularly employed in the books of

account. The adjustment provided for in this section should be

made while computing the income for the purpose of preparing the

ITA 5045/M/10 39

return of income. Therefore, the recommended method for

accounting of VAT will not result in non-compliance of section 145A

of the Income-tax Act.

23.23 The adjustments envisaged by section 145A will not have

any impact on the trading account of the assessee. In other words

both under exclusive method of accounting and inclusive method of

accounting, the gross profit in the trading account will remain the

same.”

The present regime of value added taxation has progressed way ahead

now as compared to the year 1998 when Section 145A of the Act was

introduced whereby now the Cenvat Credit Scheme is allowing across

the board credit of various taxes, duties, cess, fee as per applicable

laws, rules and regulation like excise duty on inputs, CVD/SAD on

import of inputs, service tax on services utilized for manufacturing of

finished goods, excise duty on capital goods etc. paid to be set off

against liability of excise duty on finished goods manufactured by the

enterprise without any one to one co-relation which is likely to be

further revolutionized with the introduction of ‘GST’ shortly with an

intent and purpose of eliminating cascading effect of taxes levied at

multiple stages to reduce transaction cost and bring in transparency

ITA 5045/M/10 40

into the system and Apex Court has already held in the case of Eicher

Motors (supra) that cenvat credit once validly taken cannot be effaced

and creates an accrued right in favour of enterprise, it becomes

apparent that ‘exclusive method’ also called as ‘net method’ appears

certainly to be better choice in the present scenario vis-à-vis ‘inclusive

method’ also called ‘gross method’ of accounting for maintaining books

of accounts for accounting for cost of purchases which is also

stipulated by ICAI because these cenvatable duties and taxes on

procurement of goods and services paid by the enterprise are payments

made by the enterprise with an attached and accrued right in favour of

the enterprise that these cenvatable taxes so paid on raw materials,

input services once validly taken cannot be effaced and shall be paid

back to the enterprise by the Government by way of set off against the

excise duty liability on finished goods manufactured by the enterprise

and these ‘cenvat credit’ is more akin to ‘current assets’ rather than

part of the cost of purchases and inventory being taxes recoverable

from Government by way of adjustment against the excise duty payable

on finished goods manufactured by the enterprise , more-so the result

by the both the methods of accounting viz. ‘gross method’ or ‘net

method’ will be same as observed by Apex Court in the judgment of

Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.(supra) and also demonstrated by ICAI

in its guidance note as detailed above. The ICAI in view of divergence

ITA 5045/M/10 41

between AS-2 and mandatory requirements of Section 145A of the Act

has stipulated in the guidance note on tax audit at para 23.22 that

books of accounts are to be maintained by the enterprise following

‘exclusive method’ also called as ‘net method’ , while due to mandatory

requirement of Section 145A of the Act while preparing return of

income to be filed with Revenue , it is stipulated by ICAI to follow

‘inclusive method’ also called as ‘gross method but the gross profits

under both the methods will yield same profits which in any case will

not cause any prejudice to the Revenue. The provisions of Section 43B

of the Act also protect the interest of Revenue that the taxes, duties ,

fee and cess payable as at the year end by the taxpayer shall only be

allowed as deduction from the income under the Act if the same are

actually paid to the credit of Government before the due date of filing of

return of income as stipulated u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Excise laws ,

rules and regulation also requires the records to be maintained in an

prescribed manner whereby cenvat credit availed and utilized can be

clearly demarcated to establish that correct cenvat credit is availed and

utilized by the Enterprise. The Income Tax Act,1961 cannot work in

vaccum in isolation but has to progress along-with the rapid

development taking place in the economy as it is a living Act and

harmonization of various laws is the need of the hour to reduce

complexities and bring in the ease of doing business, of course ,

ITA 5045/M/10 42

without compromising / sacrificing with the basic intent and mandate

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to collect correct taxes as per provisions of

the Act. During the last few decades, things have radically and

drastically changed in the economy the way businesses are conducted

as now e-commerce and international transactions have taken primacy

in the economy which are now the key areas of challenge under the

Income Tax Laws. It is for the Parliament to frame and amend laws to

keep pace with the fast changing environment in the economy. We have

seen above that Section 145A of the Act was brought into statute in

1998 when MODVAT scheme was prevalent which allowed credit / set

off on specified inputs used in manufacture of excisable goods apart

from capital goods but now with Cenvat Scheme in operation which

allows both manufacturers and service providers to take input credits

on goods and services apart from capital goods across cross sectors

without any one to one correlation and the Apex Court already holding

in Eicher Motor(supra) that cenvat credit once validly taken cannot be

effaced and creates an accrued right in favour of the enterprise,there is

a need to align Section 145A of the Act with the present regime of

indirect taxation which Parliament alone in its wisdom can do to keep

pace with the developments taking place in economy.

ITA 5045/M/10 43

As far as the first category of taxes, fees, duties, cess having bearing on

bringing the goods to the place of its location and conditions as on the

date of valuation of the goods discussed in the preceding para’s above

are concerned which are paid on raw materials and also during WIP

stage on which no cenvat credit is allowed by the law under cenvat

scheme and are absorbed in the Profit and Loss Account by the

enterprise as one of the components and item of the cost, we are of the

considered opinion that such taxes, duties, fees, cess (by whatever

name called) having bearing on bringing the goods to the place of its

location and conditions as on the date of valuation of the goods has to

be included in the cost of purchase and valuation of the goods

irrespective of whether the enterprise is following ‘exclusive method’ or

‘inclusive method’ of accounting to satisfy the mandatory requirement

of Section 145A of the Act . Similarly , for valuation of finished goods

manufactured by the enterprises , the excise duty on finished goods

manufactured by the enterprises is to be added to value of finished

goods as the excise duty on finished goods is actually paid or incurred

by the taxpayer to bring the goods to the place of its location and

conditions as on the date of valuation irrespective of whether the

enterprise is following ‘exclusive method’ or ‘inclusive method’ of

accounting.

ITA 5045/M/10 44

As per Section 145A of the Act as it exists in the statute, the assessee

company has to mandatorily prepare its accounts as per ‘inclusive

method’ or ‘gross method’ to compute profit chargeable to tax in

accordance with Section 145A of the Act while filing return of income

with the Revenue . Thus as per Section 145A of the Act as it exists in

the statute, we hold that the assessee company has to compulsorily

value the purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purposes of

determining the income chargeable to tax under the head ‘profit and

gains of business or profession’ in accordance with the method of

accounting regularly employed and further adjusted to include taxes,

duties, cess or fee(by whatever name called) under any law for the time

being in force, actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to the place

of its location and condition as on the date of valuation notwithstanding

any right arising as a consequence to such payment.This is the

mandate of Section 145A of the Act which we hold is mandatory.

At this stage we are reminded of the decision of the Privy Council, in the

case of CIT v. Ahmedabad New Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. AIR 1930 PC 56

that while considering the effect of altering the method of valuation,

Privy Council held that whenever there is a change in the valuation at

one end (on 31-3-2007 in the instant case), then there must necessarily

be a corresponding change at the other end (on 1-4-2006 as in the

ITA 5045/M/10 45

instant case) otherwise, the true profit would not be reflected. This view

of Privy Council is further fortified and supported by the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dynavision Ltd. in (2012)

26 taxmann.com 40 (SC). The reliance of the Revenue on the decision of

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Melmould Corporation v. CIT in 202 ITR

789 (Bom) is devoid of merits as in the said case the taxpayer was

regularly following method of valuation of inventory at cost plus

overhead and then during the impugned assessment year, the taxpayer

chose to change method of valuation of closing inventory at cost

whereby overheads were not included in the valuation of inventory and

then in the context and light of change of method of valuation of

inventory by the taxpayer itself , the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held

that there is no change called for in the opening stock while changing

the method of valuation of closing stock at cost excluding overhead as

otherwise it will lead to chain reaction as in the earlier years also the

values of inventory will be changed . However, in the instant case , the

assessee company is consistently and regularly following the method of

accounting by following ‘exclusive method’ also called ‘net method’

which is one of the accepted method of accountancy whereby the taxes

paid on purchase of raw material are not included in the cost of

purchase on the premise that the assessee company is entitled for

Cenvat credit on the same to be adjusted against the excise duty

ITA 5045/M/10 46

liability on finished goods manufactured by the assessee company ,

while the basic fallacy in contention of the Revenue is that the Revenue

is contemplating adding the excise duty paid to the value of closing

inventory following the ‘inclusive method’ also called as ‘gross method’

and not to the totality of all relevant transactions during the previous

year to arrive at a correct income chargeable to tax as per the Act and

hence , in our considered view, , the ‘inclusive method’ also called as

‘gross method’ as mandated by Section 145A of the Act, is to be applied

to the totality of all relevant transactions during the previous year to

arrive at a correct income chargeable to tax as per the Act and the same

cannot be applied in a piecemeal and ad-hoc manner to a few handful

chosen and selected transactions as is done by the revenue in the

instant case which will lead to distortion of income chargeable to tax

which is not permissible under the Act.

Our above observations and discussions in preceding para’s are equally

applicable to VAT/sales tax on the raw materials, WIP and finished

goods.

In our considered view , the interest of justice will be best served , if the

matter is restored to the file of the AO to re-determine the correct

income chargeable to tax as per the Act after considering the provisions

of Section 145A of the Act in light of our observations as contained in

the preceding para’s. Needless to say that proper and adequate

ITA 5045/M/10 47

opportunity will be given to the assessee company by the AO in accordance with the principles of natural justice as enshrined in doctrine of audi alteram partem in accordance with law and the assessee company will be allowed to produce necessary evidence in support of its defense. We order accordingly. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th December, 2015. आदेश क� घोषणा खुले �यायालय म� �दनांकः 09-12-2015 को क� गई ।

Sd/- sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (RAMIT KOCHAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated 09-12-2015 [ व.�न.स./ R.K. R.K., Ex. Sr. PS R.K. R.K.

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned, Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT- Concerned, Mumbai �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai H Bench 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai

FIT FOR PUBLICATION

JM AM