TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on entertainment in excess of ₹ 10,000/- alone fell within the ambit of section 37(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The learned CIT (Appeals) accordingly ought to have directed inclusion of only such individual instances of expenses on entertainment, as were in excess of ₹ 10,000/- for the purposes of computing disallowance u/s 37(2). 4. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee did not press the above Ground, and, therefore, the said Ground stands dismissed. 5. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is as follows: Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that at least 60% of the total expenditure on entertainment related to employees participating in the extension of hospitality and instead confirming exclusion of only 15% thereof while computing disallowance u/s 37(2). 6. At the time of hearing, it was a common ground between the parties that similar issue had come up for consideration before our coordinate Bench in the assessee s own case for the assessment year 1994-95 and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.1.2009 in ITA No 855/PN/2000 has confirmed the orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er erred in confirming rejection of the appellant s claim for deduction for the full amount of ₹ 1,84,28,945/- claimed by the appellant, being process know-how fees. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have held that the amount in question was `not covered by the provisions of section 35AB of the Income-tax Act 1961 and, being of revenue nature, the whole of it was allowable under sec.37. 12. The facts, in brief, are that as per the computation of the income, the assessee claimed deduction of ₹ 1,84,28,945/- being fees towards process know-how, though in the books of account, such cost was treated as deferred revenue expenditure and amortized in equal installments over a period of six years. As per the assessee, the entire expenditure of ₹ 1,84,28,945 was revenue in nature since it had only obtained use of process know-how and the expenditure was therefore not governed by the provisions of section 35AB of the Act, but was allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by following their stand in the earlier assessment years, held that the assessee company was entitled for 1/6th deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... language it cannot be said that if the amount is held to be payment of royalty, it follows automatically that the expenditure would be revenue in nature. There is corresponding section for royalty a section 35AB in respect of amortization of the consideration paid for acquiring technical know-how. The learned counsel has also not stated his case as to how the amount would be admissible in full if it is held to be payment of royalty. Thus, we are of the view that looking to past history, the payment was in the nature of the payment of technical know-how fees. We have already referred to the case laws in respect of treatment to be given to such payments after insertion of section 35AB in the IT Act, namely, that all High Court decisions till now have held that the amount has to be treated only u/s. 35AB. Thus, we are of the view that in respect of payment pertaining to this year, the assessee is entitled to deduction of 1/6fn of the amount only. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 7.4 Since the respected Co-ordinate Bench has held that the payment pertaining to the year under consideration is entitled for deduction only to the .extent of the 1/6th of the amount as prescrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). According to the assessee, process know how fees paid under agreements entered into in earlier years may continue to be governed by section 35AB as held by the Tribunal in assessment years 1993-94 and AY 1994-95. 15. However, the learned Departmental Representative has opposed the above plea of the assessee by pointing out that no different facts have been noticed by the lower authorities in this year and, therefore, following the precedent in the assessee s own case, the matter does not require any re-examination, even for the new process know-how agreements. 16. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Before adjudicating on the dispute raised by the assessee, a brief reference to the background is necessary. In the impugned assessment year, the Assessing Officer noticed that in the computation of income annexed to the return of income, the assessee had claimed a deduction of ₹ 1,84,28,945/- on account of fees paid towards process know-how. However, in the books of account such expenditure incurred on imported technical know-how (including process know-how) was treated as a deferred revenue expenditure and amortized in equated instalments over a period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dispute this position, but it is submitted that the said precedent is applicable to such payments which have been made in terms of process know-how agreements examined and considered in the course of the proceedings for the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. It is sought to be made out that in so far as the expenditure incurred in terms of the agreements entered during the year under consideration, the claim be revisited in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaraj Engines Ltd. (supra). 18. In this context, we have carefully examined the rival stands. In the case before the Hon ble Supreme court, the assessee Swaraj Engines Ltd. had entered into an agreement of transfer of technology know-how and trade mark in terms of which royalty was payable by it as a percentage of net selling price of the licensed products. The said expenditure was claimed as a revenue expenditure by the assessee. A question also arose as to whether such expenditure was liable to be considered in terms of section 35AB of the Act or not? As per the Hon ble Supreme court before deciding the applicability of section 35AB of the Act, it was to be decided whether the expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim for deduction and it shall have to be decided, having regard to its terms and conditions whether the same are different than the earlier agreements and as to whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature, and depending on the answer to the said question, the applicability of section 35AB of the Act shall be decided. In nutshell in so far as process know-how fee paid in terms of the agreement entered into earlier years, the deduction thereon shall be governed by the provisions of section 35AB, as held by the Tribunal in assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 (supra). In so far as the fees paid under the process know-how agreements entered during the year under consideration is concerned, in order to test the efficacy of section 35AB on such claim, it would be imperative to examine as to whether the expenditure is revenue or capital in nature and depending on that answer, the Assessing Officer shall decide the applicability of section 35AB of the Act. On this limited aspect, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated afresh, of-course after allowing assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) ought not to have held that the liability in question was of a contingent nature which did not accrue at the time when the appellant made a provision for it. The learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in confirming the view taken by the Assessing Officer that the liability on account of warranty obligation accrued only when a claim is made by the customer and accepted by the appellant. 22. The assessee had made a provision of an amount of ₹ 1,20,73,791/- towards warranty obligations in respect of products/projects sold/executed by it, which formed part of ₹ 2,61,82,607/- debited in the Profit Loss Account towards FOC expenses. Both the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), following their orders for assessment years 1993- 94 and 1994-95, decided the issue against the assessee holding the said provision to be contingent in nature. 23. It is now submitted by the assessee that since in Para 8 of the assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96 the Assessing Officer himself has recorded a finding on write back of earlier year s provision by stating that However, the addition made in assessment year 1994-95 which p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view in the assessee's favour and there is no change as far as the facts of that year and also the facts in the following years thereafter, then in such a situation a consistency has to be maintained in deciding this appeal as well. Moreover, learned A.R. has made a statement at Bar that revenue department has all along accepted the accounting method of this assessee and the matter never traveled further in appeal. Further, as is clear fro the para reproduced hereinabove, the reservation of learned CIT(A) has also been dealt with by the '-respect co-ordinate bench in respect of the marginal difference a ,Expressed by the learned CIT(A) and authentically observed that\it may be that there was marginal difference in respect of the estimate and actuals. But the accounting method followed by th'e assessee ensures that such excess or shortfall be made good in subsequent year. It was thus, concluded that there was no loss for the department either in disallowing the amount this year or taxing the excess next year. As far as this issue of allowability of deduction is concerned, the same. has been settled by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs, Sony India (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1,32,751/-, received in terms of an out of Court settlement in respect of lease premises occupied by an ex-employee of the company was in the nature of Mesne Profits and hence a capital receipt, has been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the assessment year 1994-95 (supra). Similar claim has been made by the assessee for the year under appeal. Following the precedent in the assessee s own case, this Ground is decided against the assessee and is accordingly dismissed. 28. Ground No. 9 reads as follows: The learned CIT (Appeals) further erred in confirming rejection of the appellant s claim for deduction of an amount of ₹ 25,55,407/- representing additional payment made to the Income-tax Department on account of tax allegedly short deducted at source from payment of salaries etc. to its employees. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have held that the amount in question was either allowable as a business expenditure under sec.37 of the Act or alternately as a business loss under sec.28 of the Act. 29. The relevant facts in relation to this are that the Income tax Department had carried out a survey and recovered ₹ 25,55,407/- from the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd have gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute in the proposition that if the expenditure is really incidental to the carrying on of assessee's business and has been laid out by the assessee in his capacity as a trader, it is allowable. In each case, it will depend on the nature of the business and the nature of the deduction. In the present case, it was the statutory duty of the assessee to deduct tax at source from the employees from the salary or wages or remuneration or any other benefits paid to the employees and that statutory obligation of the assessee was not complied with by the assessee and as such, the assessee was ultimately required to pay the amount deductible at source along with the interest thereupon. In the case of Indian Aluminium Co Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the payment made under a statutory obligation because the assessee was in default could not constitute expenditure laid out for the purpose of the assessee's business within the meaning of sec. 10 (2) (xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, corresponding to sec. 37 (1) of the Income-tax-Acv, 1961. In the case before us, the amount of tax paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f expenses on public issue of equity share, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming a) rejection of the contention of the appellant that the entire expenditure of ₹ 4,44,46,017/- was allowable as a business expenditure under sec.37(1) of the Act. b) rejection of the appellant s alternate claim that at least ₹ 23,45,301/- be allowed as a revenue expenditure. c) rejection of the appellant s other alternate claim that a sum of ₹ 21,55,462/-should be allowed as an expenditure under sec.35 of the Act. d) e) that only expenditure of ₹ 1,92,33,047/- and ₹ 56,83,300/-will qualify for deduction under sec.35D, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the remaining expenditure out of ₹ 4,44,46,017/-, if it was not allowable under the provisions of any other section of the Act, was allowable u/s 35D of the Act. f) that the ceiling of 2.5% of capital employed as provided for in sec.35D was to be calculated with reference to the share application money relatable to the utilization of funds considered by him to be eligible for deduction under sec.35D, rejecting the contention of the appellant that the said ceili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even capital expenditure is allowable in the year of incurrence, proportionate expenditure is allowable under section 35 of the Act. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sandoz (I) Ltd. 206 ITR 385 (Bom), where the expenditure incurred on approach road to research laboratory was held entitled to deduction under section 35 of the Act. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Ram Charat Ram (P) Ltd 157 ITR 199(Del) where rent paid for R D building was held allowable under section 35 of the Act. 35. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has opposed the plea of the assessee by pointing out that the expenditure on public issue cannot be construed as an expenditure on scientific research so as to qualify for deduction under section 35 of the Act. 36. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The short controversy before us is whether the expenditure on public issue of equity shares, which has been held to be a capital expenditure, can it be said to be incurred on scientific research so as to be eligible for dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessary adjunct to research laboratory and, therefore, the expenditure incurred on the construction thereof had to be treated at par with the expenditure on construction of research laboratories themselves. Clearly, the functionality test applied by the Hon ble Bombay High Court demonstrated the efficacy of the expenditure on construction of approach road as being treated at par with the expenditure on construction of research laboratories so as to qualify for deduction under section 35 of the Act. In the present case, the expenditure incurred on raising of public issue of shares is in no way adjunct to the construction of the research and development centre of the assessee. Therefore, the parity of reasoning enunciated by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sandoz India Ltd. (supra) does not help the case of the assessee. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Ram Charat Ram (supra) relied upon by the assessee also does not help in the present case, as it is on different facts. In the case before the Hon ble Delhi High Court, the issue pertained to the rent paid by the assessee on behalf of an institution carrying on research and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned industrial undertakings so as to be eligible for deduction under sec.80-I. i) Chiller / Heat Pump ₹ 1.52 lacs ii) Combimax / Fluidised Bed Boiler ₹ 20.79 lacs b. in confirming denial of deduction under sec.80-I in respect or profits derived from industrial undertaking styled Water Mission . 43. It was a common point between the parties that the issues involved in Ground 12(a)(i) of fluctuation in exchange rate (Rs. 1.52 lacs) and in Ground No. 12(a)(ii) relating to interest under IDBI Scheme ₹ 91 lakhs had been subject-matter of consideration by the Tribunal in assessment year 1994-95 (supra) and the Tribunal has restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer to follow the directions given therein. Following the same, we hold so and restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issues afresh in the light of precedent referred to above. 44. In so far as the issue relating to Warehousing charges recovered of ₹ 1,85,000/- contained in Ground No 12(a)(ii) is concerned, the same is decided against the assessee by following the findings in the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16,67,18,940 ii)Sales-tax collected 12,85,72,320 iii)Insurance claim 10,34,195 iv)Bad debts recovered 18,83,822 v)Amount written back 44,59,146 vi)Claim from Custom 10,08,137 vii)Claims Refund Excise 3,18,029 viii)Sales Tax Refund 12,77,939 ix)Order Cancellation 2,50,000 x)Fluctuation in Rate of Exchange 8,41,888 xi)Credit balance app. 60,82,491 xii)Sale of scrap 1,38,95,629 xiii)Export Receipts u/s 80(O) 66,16,279 The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have accepted the contention of the appellant that none of the aforesaid items had the character of turnover in the context of section 80-HHC. c) Exclusion of 90% of the following items for the purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llation is compensation received from customer for cancellation of an order and cannot represent value of goods sold or services rendered. We find merit in the plea set-up by the assessee, and accordingly assessee succeeds. 54. As for the issue at sub-ground (x) of fluctuation in rate of exchange of ₹ 8,41,888/-, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee that Exchange fluctuation in so far as exports are concerned is already included in value of export turnover since in terms of section 80HHC the same is to be taken at FOB value of exports. In our view, only component of fluctuation which is on sales is liable to be included in total turnover and not the balance, if any. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act accordingly. 55. In so far as the issues involved in Ground No. 14(c) are concerned, the same relate to exclusions from the profits of the business as per Explanation (baa) for the purposes of section 80HHC of the Act. The plea set-up by the assessee is that the aforesaid items of income are not excludible in terms of Explanation (baa), inasmuch as the same are not independent incomes, but are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t CIT SR- 3/ITA 98/99-2000 dated 22/3/2000, in the assessee s case for AY 1994-95 when in fact the CIT(A) had specifically upheld the AO s action in bringing to tax the amount received on account of court settlement of leased premises by one of the employees of the Company 64. We have gone through the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this aspect. It is noticed that while deciding issue of mesne profits the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had inadvertently directed that the ground is allowed, when in fact he had decided the issue against the assessee following the order for earlier year. In view of this admitted position, we allow this Ground of the Revenue. 65. Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is as follows: On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred on scientific research in the form of civil work in progress was eligible for deduction u/s 35 although the construction was in progress and was yet to put up for Research and Development purposes. 66 The facts, in brief, relating to this issue are that assessee company was in the process of setting up of a R D Centre, con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sulted in bringing into existence any asset, since the same was still under work-inprogress. On this aspect, the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Rane Brake Linings Ltd. (supra) has held that section 35(1)(iv) refers to capital expenditure and does not further require that the asset brought into existence by incurring such expenditure should be complete in all respects. According to the Hon ble High Court, even an expenditure incurred on on-going construction of a building designed for housing research wing was deductible under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Applying the aforesaid reasoning to the facts of the present case, it is not denied that work-in-progress in question is towards research and development activity and, therefore, merely because the asset was not complete in all respects, the impugned expenditure cannot be denied deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Therefore, on the aforesaid basis, we find no error in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition. Thus, appeal of the Revenue on this aspect is dismissed, subject to our observations in Ground No. 3 of the appeal of the Revenue in subsequent paragraphs. 69. Groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has been challenged by the Revenue by way of aforesaid Ground. 75. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in directing the re-computation of indirect cost of trading goods. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer, while giving effect to the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), has accepted the computation of indirect cost attributable to trading exports excluding the costs that had no nexus with such trading exports. The learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that in the assessment year 1994-95, the Tribunal had also set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer and in doing so, a reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Exports v. CIT 295 ITR 454(SC). Dwelling further on this aspect, it was pointed out that the issue before the Hon ble Supreme Court was confined to costs which were not to be attributed to export trade, because such costs were claimed to be attributable to export incentives. While in the case of the assessee the issue e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant that atleast 60% of the total expenditure on entertainment related to employees participating in the extension of hospitality and instead confirming exclusion of only 15% thereof while computing disallowance u/s 37(2). 79. Similar Ground raised by the assessee in the assessment year 1995-96 has been dismissed and following the reasoning given therein, we dismiss this Ground of appeal. 80. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee reads as follows: The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming rejection of the appellant's claim for deduction of proportionate premium on leasehold land amortised and charged to the Profit Loss Account of the year in question. 81. Similar Ground raised by the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96 has been decided by us against the assessee in view of the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Mukund Limited (106 ITD 231)(Bom) and following the same, we dismiss this Ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 83. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as follows: The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming rejection of the appellant's claim for deduction for the full amount of ₹ 48,74,315/- cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4/- made by the appellant in respect of warranty obligations. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the method of accounting consistently followed by the appellant and accepted by the Department in the past, the learned CIT(A) ought not to have held that the liability in question was of a contingent nature which did not accrue at the time when the appellant made a provision for it. The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the view taken by the Assessing Officer that the liability on account of warranty obligation accrued only when a claim is made by the customer and accepted by the appellant. 88. Similar Ground was subject-matter of consideration before us for the assessment year 1995-96 wherein by following the precedent in the assessee s own case, the Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to the precedent. On similar parity of reasoning, assessee succeeds on this Ground. 89. Ground No. 6 reads as under: The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's action of bringing to tax a sum of ₹ 1,50,375/- treating the same as a casual and non recurring receipt. Similar Ground was subject-m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not reflect any accrued liability and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court is not attracted. Following discussion by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is worthy of notice: (i) In that case that company had allowed encashment of leave, anytime, subject to fulfillment of eligibility condition. In the instant case, the entitlement of leave encashment arises to an employee only at the time of termination of his employment either on his retirement or otherwise. (ii) Secondly in that case, the amount of leave encashment provided on the 31st March of the relevant accounting year is actually paid to the concerned employee(s) in the next following year either as leave encashment or as leave salary out of separate reserve fund created for this purpose. In the appellant s case admittedly no such separate reserve fund is actually created by setting apart the amount till date. (iii) Thirdly it is NOT contested in that case as to what was the datum point at which the liability by way of leave encashment arose in that case, because the payment was made in the next following year. In the instant case there is NO such actual payment in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount claimed as deduction was kept out of the business of the appellant. On the contrary as observed earlier, it seems that the appellant company has utilized this amount in its business. Thus the appellant s case is distinguishable for above mentioned five reasons. 94. Before us, the assessee has not brought out any material to negate the reasoning made out by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, therefore, we are inclined to affirm the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). As per the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), having regard to the features in the case of the assessee, the impugned provision is not backed by a debt existing on the date of finalization of accounts and, therefore, the same was not allowable as an accrued liability. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer has been affirmed. In the absence of any specific reasoning advanced to negate the findings of the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals), we are unable to accept the aforesaid Ground of the assessee and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 95. Ground No. 8 raised by the assessee reads as follows: In the matter of appellant's claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the matter of deduction under sec.80-HHC, the CIT(A) erred in confirming i. Reduction from profits derived from export of manufactured goods, the loss sufered from export of trading goods The learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the contention of the appellant that such loss from export of trading goods had to be ignored for the purpose of sec.80-HHC and deduction thereunder ought to have been allowed only with reference to the profits derived from export of manufactured goods. ii. Treatment of certain items of income as forming part of total turnover Rs. a) Excise duty collected 26,98,08,773/- b) Sales-tax collected 18,77,01,033/- c) Insurance claim 1,65,615/- d) Bad debts recovered 2, 86, 297/- e) Amount written back 56,60,864/- f) Claim Refund - Custom 2,44, 896/- 9) Sales Tax Refund 21, 04, 597/- h) Fluctuation in Rate of Exchang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 40,580 TOTAL ₹ 1,00,99,957 106. The various issues involved in sub-Ground (iii), have been considered in the appeal for the assessment year 1995-96 and following the same, the said Ground is accordingly disposed off. iv) In any event the learned CIT(A) ought to have directed that the Profits of the Business should be increased by 10% of all income assessed under the head Other Sources inasmuch as to that extent, expenditure must be deemed to have been incurred for earning such income, resulting in a pro tanto reduction in expenditure attributable to Profits Gains of Business . v That ₹ 1,82,39,000/- and ₹ 6,49,851/- were not eligible for inclusion in profits of business' for the purposes of section 80- HHC 107. Both the sub-Grounds (iv) and (v) were not pressed and, therefore, they stand dismissed. 108. In the result, assessee s appeal in ITA No 482/PN/01 is partly allowed. 109. We shall now take up Revenue s appeal in ITA No 508/PN/01 for the assessment year 1996-97. 110. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is as follows: On the facts and circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
