TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued even after the expiry of three years from the date they became due to the claimants/applicants. - Ground of appeal No.1 of the assessee is, therefore, disposed off in above terms and stands partly allowed. Addition on account of income from Industrial Area Activity - addition made relates to profits earned from Industrial Estate development activity, which the assessee claimed was being carried out on a no loss no profit basis, accounted for on cash basis and surplus or deficit in the receipt over expenses reflected in the Balance Sheet, while the Revenue negated this contention stating that profit was actually earned by the assessee, from the indirect cost component recovered on account of the said activity ,which was thus liable to be taxed - HELD THAT:- In the light of certificate filed by the assessee to this effect from the statutory auditors of the company, we consider it fit to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of the claim made in the certificate that the income for the impugned year had been reflected in assessment year 2014-15 and further to verify that the same had been included in the taxable income of the assessee for the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one way or the other and parties had allowed that position to be sustained by way of not challenging that order, then it would not at all be appropriate to permit that position to be challenged in subsequent year. We hold that the profits earned by the assessee from sale of shares be treated as capital gain and addition made by treating the same as income from business of the assessee be deleted. Ground therefore stands allowed. Addition u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- The Finance Act, 2003 inserted clause (34) to section 10 which deals with income which are exempt from taxation and do not form part of the total income at all, excluding the income by way of dividend from the purview of taxation. At the same time, we find section 115O was inserted in the Act making the companies distributing dividend to pay tax at a specified rate thereon. Thus taxation of dividend changed hands from the recipient to the payer of dividend by virtue of this amendment brought about in the Act. Dividend of all nature and colour whether sourced from the business activities of the assessee or otherwise is not taxable in the hands of the recipient but is to be taxed by the payer of dividend or in other words ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was common ground between both the parties that the issues involved in all the appeals was identical. All the appeals were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed off by way of this common, consolidated order. For the sake of convenience we shall be dealing with the facts in the case of ITA No.184/Chd/2010 relating to assessment year 2005-06. ITA No.184/Chd/2010: 2. Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding an addition of ₹ 3,67,81,729/- on account of unclaimed refunds which is highly unjustified uncalled for. 3. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee had shown an amount of ₹ 3,67,81,729/- as liability in the Balance Sheet which, during assessment proceedings, was explained as being refunds of application money, sent to unsuccessful applicants of plots, which was received back by the assessee corporation due to non-acceptance of the said refunds by the applicants. The assessee claimed that it was in the nature of its liability which had not ceased to exist, since the said refunds had neither b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the year and ₹ 4.59 crores in the subsequent years. Thus the assessee pointed out that the said amount was a running account and could not be treated as income of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) rejected all the contentions of the assessee and upheld the addition made by holding at para 6.2 of its order as under: 6.2 On careful consideration of the above facts and arguments, it is found that the arguments of the counsel for the appellant are devoid of any merit and are rejected. The AO has rightly held that the appellant's case is not of cession of liability u/s 41(1) of the I.T.Act and therefore the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat high Court mentioned above is not applicable. The AO has rightly held that the appellant's case is of business receipts in the ordinary course of business. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sunderam lyengar is squarely applicable. The AO has rightly held that the appellant has made an attempt to refund the amount by sending the cheques to the applicant. The unclaimed cheques thus represent the business receipts of the appellant which are clearly taxable. As regards, the arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of the addition made, was not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the said case it was surplus remaining after issuance of refunds which was treated as income of the assessee while in the case of assessee no surplus as such remained and the entire amount was refundable. 8. The Ld. counsel for the assessee, during the course of hearing before us, on a number of occasions, was asked at bar to submit the policy of the assessee corporation with regard to forfeiture of the unclaimed refunds. Nothing was filed or submitted before us and it was reiterated that its liability to refund the application money never ceased to exist. 9. The Revenue, on the other hand, has claimed that the entire unclaimed refunds were revenue receipts of the assessee irrespective of the period of time they remained unclaimed. The Revenue has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.V. Sundram Iyengar Sons Ltd. (supra) in support of its contention. The Revenue also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chipsoft Technology Pvt. Ltd. 210 Taxmann.173 in support of its contention that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor has it credited the same to the Profit Loss Account. The issue in the present case also is not whether the said liability is capital or revenue in nature. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.V. Sundram Iyenar Sons Ltd. (supra) will not apply to the facts of the present case. 11. The assessee s contention that its liability to refund does not cease to exist as it continues to reflect it as liability in the Balance Sheet and would be liable to refund the amount whenever claimed in future or adjust it against allotment of any plot of land, is also not acceptable. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Chipsoft Technology Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had an occasion to deal with identical issue wherein it held that the view that the liability does not cease as long as it is reflected in the books and mere lapse of time does not efface the liability, is an abstract and theoretical view, far removed from reality. The Hon'ble Court held that it would be illogical to hold that a debtor should be given the benefit of his showing the amount of liability even though he could not be entitled in law to say that a claim for its recovery is time bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsist. 12. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. counsel for the assessee fairly admitted to a period of three years, from the date of issuance of cheque, to be a reasonable period of limitation for the liability to subsist. We also find that even before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) the assessee had contended so, claiming that the refund would become barred by limitation after a period of three years from the date of issuance of cheque of refund. The Ld. counsel for the assessee agreed that the liability subsisting beyond this period be treated as the business income of the assessee having been earned in the ordinary course of business. The Ld. counsel for assessee further requested for excluding the following amounts from the aforestated unclaimed refunds barred by limitation : a) Refunds against which cases had been filed in Courts by the applicants seeking allotment of plots instead and which were still pending for adjudication. b) Refunds which had been subsequently adjusted by way of allotment of plots. c) Refunds which had been subsequently adjusted by way of refunds claimed. The Ld. DR agreed to the same. 13. In vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ponent, he found from the cost sheets prepared by the assessee of certain industrial areas developed, that they comprised 22% of the total collection. The Assessing Officer also found that the actual indirect expenses incurred were less. He, therefore, held that profits were earned on the indirect cost component and calculated the profit earned during the year on account of the same as under : Receipt for Indirect expenses Total Recoveries 273,39,99,927/- Relatable to indirect expenses Or for the purpose of Admn charges, interest etc. (20% of the above) 54,67,99,985/- Less Expenses already incurred in Capital Head of Industrial estates 14,91,69,810/- Less Expenses already allocated in P L as relatable to Industrial estates 4,30,42,231/- Sub total 19,22,12,041/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also raised an alternate plea that the assessee had changed its method of accounting income from this activity to mercantile method from the Financial year 2013-14, relevant to assessment year 2014-15, in order to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act, and the income from this activity, for the period since inception till 31-032014, had been computed as per this method and included in the Profit and Loss Account of that year. Ld.Counsel for the assessee therefore stated that since the income for the impugned year had already been included in A.Y 2014-15 and taxes paid thereon there was no reason to tax the same in the impugned year. 18. Ld.DR on the other hand relied on the order of the CIT(A). 19. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties. The addition made in the present case relates to profits earned from Industrial Estate development activity, which the assessee claimed was being carried out on a no loss no profit basis, accounted for on cash basis and surplus or deficit in the receipt over expenses reflected in the Balance Sheet, while the Revenue negated this contention stating that profit was actually earned by the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we agree with the Ld.Counsel that the addition on account of profits earned in the impugned year would only tantamount to taxing the same income twice. The assessee having admittedly subjected to tax profit or loss from the impugned activity calculated on mercantile basis in the assessment year 2014-15, the only issue which remains is vis- -vis the year in which the assessee is required to pay tax. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5195 of 2011/9101 of 20139100 of 2013/125 of 2013 dated 8.10.2013, while seized with identical issue, held that as long as the Revenue is not deprived of any tax, the dispute remains merely academic and, therefore, the litigation remains fruitless and there was no need for the Revenue to continue with the same. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 32 of the order are as under: 32. Thirdly, the real question concerning us is the year in which the assessee is required to pay tax. There is no dispute that in the subsequent accounting year, the assessee did make imports and did derive benefits under the advance licence and the duty entitlement pass book and paid tax th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing its financing business. First being equity proportionate and second investment banking. The Assessing Officer observed that in both the cases, the assessee released the amount of advance after adjusting the amount of interest accrued on such loan meaning thereby that the assessee retained the equity of the borrower and subsequently sold it back to the borrower or in the open market fixing minimum rate of sale to be inclusive of the interest of 20% per annum. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the basic intention of holding equity by the assessee was to earn interest on the loans advanced and, therefore, held that the transaction could not be classified as capital gain. The Assessing Officer held that it was in the ordinary course of business of the assessee and related to its primary object of financing and was, therefore, clearly business profit of the assessee. He, therefore, held the profit of ₹ 85,73,413/- to be the business profit of the assessee. 24. Before the Ld.CIT(Appeals), the assessee pleaded that it was participating in equity for the past 20 years and funds for the purpose were being supplied by the State Government by way of share capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of return on the same. Keeping in view the main intention of the appellant of financing the units by way of equity participation it is held to be business activity of the appellant. It is immaterial whether the equity is held by the appellant for a period of 3 to 5 years because generally the finance is for a long duration of time. Even in the case of clean loans the borrowing units retain them for a long period which may be even more than 5 year. Hence, the argument of the counsel that the equity is held for a period of 3 to 5 years and hence is in the shape of long term investment is devoid of any merit. The AO has rightly held that the investment in equity shares by way of equity participation is nothing but business investment of the appellant and the profit earned on sale of these shares on the basis of buy back arrangement is nothing but business income of the appellant. The case laws relied upon by the AO are squarely applicable and the case laws relied upon by the counsel do not help him as discussed by the AO in the assessment order and also for the reason that the appellant has purchased the equity shares of the units by way of equity participation with the dominant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20% p.a. with yearly rests from the date of first disbursement towards equity shares by the Corporation under this agreement, OR (ii) The average of the daily highest price of the shares quoted on any of Indian Stock Exchanges for a period of two months proceeding the date of purchase of shares held by the Corporation as provided in clause (b) above; OR (iii) Assessed value of the shares as determined by the Auditors of the Company on the basis of net worth of the Company on the date of sale of the shares. (d) The sale and purchase of the shares by the Collaborator provided under sub-clause (a) and (b), payment of price therefor and delivery of sharescrips and transfer deeds relative thereto, shall be completed within one month from the due date or date of option under sub-clause (a) as the case may be. Provided that failure of the Collaborator to pay for and purchase the shares within one month after exercising the option shall be construed as his consent to the Corporation offloading these shares in the market. (e) In the event the Collaborator fails to purchase the equity shares of the Corporation in the Company as provided in clause 24(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the other hand relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals). 27. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. We have also gone through the order of the Special Bench of the I.T.A.T. in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (supra). On perusal of the same we find that the assessee in the said case was involved in identical activity of financing industrial undertakings and identical issue was raised before the Bench whether profits earned from sale of shares would be business income or capital gains . The relevant portion of annual report of the corporation for financial year 1996-97 was relied upon to determine the nature of the activities carried out by the assessee and which are reproduced at para 82 of the order as under: The following portion of the annual report for financial year 1996-97 will indicate the nature of the activities of the assessee :- (3) Investments (a) The company's Investment, in pursuance of its objects to assist by way of equity participation for the advancement, promotion and development of industry in the state is meant to be held for long-term and as such are valued, at cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... projects. The above policy has been adopted because promotion of projects is a major activity of the corporation. Recovery, if any, made in the subsequent years on account of abandoned projects is credited to the Miscellaneous Income in the year of actual receipt. The issue was thereafter decided in favour of the assessee holding the profits earned to be in the nature of capital gains. The relevant findings at para 102 103 of the order is as under: 102. Another common issue involved in the appeals of the Revenue is relating to assessing the profit on sale of shares under the head Capital gains . The Revenue has raised the ground of appeal in this regard in ground No. 2 in assessment year 1994-95, ground No. 2 in assessment year 1995-96 and ground No. 1 in assessment year 1996-97 and ground No. 1 in assessment year 1997-98. 103. This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the order of Tribunal for assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93 (supra). The operative portion is in para 11 of the order which is hereby adopted and reproduced hereunder:- 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital investment. Dividend received by the assessee/company can under no circumstances be held to be business income. It is incidental income received by the assessee on account of holding of a capital investment. It cannot have a character different from the character of shares in the hands of the assessee. Shares were not trading assets. Since the facts in the present case are identical to that in the case of PSIDC, the issue stands squarely covered by the said decision. 29. The Revenue contended before us that the findings were mere observations i.e. obitor dictum. We find no merit in the same since on the issue of the nature of profits earned the ITAT has clearly held the same to be in the nature of cap ital gains. Further even on the issue of deduction u/s 80M the findings of the ITAT that the purchases of shares was by way of investment cannot be said to be an obiter dictum. An obitor dictum is a Latin phrase meaning by way i.e. a remark in a judgment that is said in passing . As is evident from the above, the said were the findings of the majority view based on the facts of the case which cannot be termed as incidental or passing remark or opinion. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to observe here that the issues in these grounds are similar to the issue in ground No.1 raised by the assessee in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 10 13 of our order above shall apply to this case also with equal force. Ground Nos.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed. 35. Ground Nos.3, 4 and 5 raised by the assessee read as under: 3.That the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in not accepting that the Industrial Area activity is being carried on No Profit No Loss basis under the facts circumstances of the case. 4. a) That the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in upholding the computation of income from Industrial Area Activity at ₹ 32.93 Crores under the facts circumstances of the case. b) The appellant disputes the quantum of income computed. 5. that the ld. CIT (A) is not justified in not allowing the deduction for expenditure incurred on KMP Expressway amounting to ₹ 277.70 crores under the facts circumstances of the case. 36. It is relevant to observe here that the issues in these grounds are similar to the issue in ground No.2 raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. CIT, 162 ITR 373. He further held that the provisions of section 14A would come into play and proportionate expenditure also was disallowed in case the dividend income is held to be exempt. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition so made. 41. Before us, the Ld. counsel for assessee stated that the dividend income has been exempted from the taxation by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.1.2004 by virtue of insertion of section 10(34) in the Act and, therefore, it made no difference whether dividend income was in the nature of business income or otherwise and the same could not be subjected to tax in any case. 42. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. 43. We have heard the contentions of both the parties. We find merit in the contentions of the Ld. counsel for assessee. The Finance Act, 2003 inserted clause (34) to section 10 which deals with income which are exempt from taxation and do not form part of the total income at all, excluding the income by way of dividend from the purview of taxation. At the same time, we find section 115O was inserted in the Act making the companies distributing div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer had mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee has paid ₹ 231.44 crores towards KundliManesar-Palwal Express way and the expenditure is not directly relatable to the business of the assessee since it is not incidental to carrying out the basic activities of the assessee. The assessee is developing industrial estates and financing industrial activity and is not involved in construction of express ways. The Assessing Officer observed that on the one hand the assessee had raised interest bearing loans on which interest amounting to ₹ 7,96,23,433/- had been paid and, on the other hand, non business expenditure amounting to ₹ 231.44 crores has been incurred. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed interest expenditure @ 10% on the expenditure of ₹ 231.44 crores being for non business purposes. Since, the disallowance worked out to more than the interest expenditure the Assessing Officer disallowed whole of the interest expenditure amounting to ₹ 7,96,23,433/-by relying on decision of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Abhishek industry' 286 ITR 1. 47. The Ld.CIT(A) held the investments to be for n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding the amount of Capital Gain on sale of shares amounting to ₹ 1,70,86,676/- as Business Income which is highly unjustified uncalled for. b) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts in not adjudicating the ground of appeal disputing the finding of A. A. regarding expenditure in relation to investment in shares having been charged to Profit Loss Account in the absence of any material on record which is highly unjustified, uncalled for. 56. It is relevant to observe here that the issue in this ground is similar to the issue in ground No.3 raised by the assessee in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 27-31 of the order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.3(a) raised by the assessee is allowed and ground No.3(b) is dismissed. 57. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee reads as under: 4. a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding the dividend on shares amounting to ₹ 2,48,224/- as business income which is highly unjustified uncalled for. b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incurred on KMP Expressway amounting to ₹ 21.10 crores Delhi Metro to Gurgaon amounting to ₹ 40 crores which is highly unjustified uncalled for. 64. It is relevant to observe here that the issue in this ground is similar to the issue in ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 20-21 of our order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.2(a) (b) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 65. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as under: 3. a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding the amount of Capital Gain on sale of shares amounting to ₹ 1,51,12,884/- as Business Income which is highly unjustified uncalled for. b) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts in not adjudicating the ground of appeal disputing the finding of A. A. regarding expenditure in relation to investment in shares having been charged to Profit Loss Account in the absence of any material on record which is highly unjustified, uncalled for. 66. It is relevant to observe he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 10-13 of our order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 73. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under: 2. a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding an addition of ₹ 152.55 crores on account of income from Industrial Area Activity which is highly unjustified uncalled for. b) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred under the facts circumstances of the case in not allowing expenditure incurred on KMP Expressway amounting to ₹ 76.62 crores Delhi Metro to Gurgaon amounting to ₹ 18.13 crores which is highly unjustified uncalled for. 74. It is relevant to observe here that the issue in this ground is similar to the issue in ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 20-21 of our order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.2(a) (b) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 75. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 10-13 of our order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 81. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under: 2. a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding an addition of ₹ 180.17 crores on account of income from Industrial Area Activity which is highly unjustified uncalled for. b) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred under the facts circumstances of the case in not allowing expenditure incurred on KMP Expressway amounting to ₹ 81.99 crores Delhi Metro to Gurgaon amounting to ₹ 17 crores which is highly unjustified uncalled for. 82. It is relevant to observe here that the issue in this ground is similar to the issue in ground No.2 raised by the assessee in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 20-21 of our order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.2(a) (b) raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 83. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee reads as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der above shall apply to this case also with equal force. Ground Nos.2(a) (b) raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 89. Ground No.3(a) (b) raised by the assessee reads as under: 3. a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding the amount of Capital Gain on sale of shares amounting to ₹ 1,32,38,997/- as Business Income which is highly unjustified uncalled for. b) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in not adjudicating the ground of appeal disputing the finding of A. A. regarding expenditure in relation to investment in shares having been charged to Profit Loss Account in the absence of any material on record which is highly unjustified uncalled for. 90. It is relevant to observe here that the issue in this ground is similar to the issue in ground No.3 raised by the assessee in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 27-31 of our order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.3 (a) raised by the assessee is allowed and ground No.3(b) raised by the assessee is dismissed. The appeal of the assessee is partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010 at para 43-44 of our order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.3(a) raised by the assessee is allowed and ground No.3(b) raised by the assessee is dismissed. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.791/Chd/2015(A.Y. 2013-14) 97. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding an addition of ₹ 21,17,93,427/- on account of unclaimed refunds which is highly unjustified uncalled for. 98. It is relevant to observe here that the issue in this ground is similar to the issue in ground No.1 raised by the assessee in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 and the findings given in ITA No.184/Chd/2010 at para 10-13 of our order above shall apply to this case also mutatis mutandis. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 99. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under: 2. a) That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law facts of the case in upholding an addition of ₹ 104.14 crores on account of income from Industrial Area Activity which is highly unjustified uncalled for. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
