TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but as stock in trade on conversion. Thus, as a result of development agreement, there was conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as well as change in the form of asset in the sense that in place of 100% land area held as capital asset, the assessee company got 27% of the total built up area of the project alongwith proportionate undivided share in land as stock in trade, which became available to it for the purposes of dealing during the post development agreement period. We direct the AO to compute the income of the assessee form transfer of land held by the assessee company as capital asset by way of development agreement and subsequent sale of flats and bungalows received as consideration for such transfer which took the character of stock in trade on conversion in the manner and as per the method specified above, relying on the provisions of S.45(2). Change in the method of accounting followed by the assessee to recognize the income - Following our decision rendered in the case of M/s. Hill County Properties Ltd [ 2015 (5) TMI 930 - ITAT HYDERABAD] we direct the AO to adopt the date of registration of agreement or possession of units as the date of sale of un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted. The assessee company in lieu of transfer of its land thus was given certain built up area in the form of flats/bungalows which were subsequently sold to various buyers. For the flats and bungalows so sold during the year under consideration i.e. 2008-09, the assessee company received total sale proceeds of Rs. 7,90,82,027. For the purpose of taxation, these sale proceeds/receipts were bifurcated by the assessee company into proceeds received by it in the form of built up area (which it received on the sale of land) taking the cost of construction as the basis; and further proceeds received by it on the sale of such constructed area to various buyers. The first transaction was considered by the assessee company as transfer of first capital asset i.e. land, while the subsequent transaction was considered as transfer of second capital asset, i.e. built up area. Since the land was undisputedly held by the assessee company for a period of more than 36 months, it was treated as long term capital asset and profit arising from such asset was offered to tax as long term capital gain. As the built up area was held by the assessee for a period of less than 36 months, the same was treate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with a ultimate motive of earning profits on a later date. The companies were floated with an idea of land acquisition on various names and once an agreement was reached, mega project was launched all these companies went in to the control of the developer facilitating raising of the loans from the bank and other operational conveniences. Though all these transactions were carried on different entities names, ultimately all it is nothing but planned and systematically executed activity by few closely related individuals with clear motive of earning the profit. 5.4 The assessee-company systematically followed the method of accepted revenue recognition i.e., Project Completion Method and its activities can be identified with a systematic business activity by any other company. 5.6 The company M/s. Maytas Properties Pvt. Ltd. itself admitted that physical possession of the land was taken over in the year 2005-06 from various land owning companies. On verification of the present assessee-company records for the relevant period, it is clear that it has not offered any income under the Head Income from Capital Gains From this; it is evident that the assessee-company itself was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by him, the Assessing Officer proceeded to consider the issue relating to the head of income under which the relevant profit earned by the assessee company was chargeable to tax. In this regard, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri G. Venkata Swamy Naidu Co. V/s. CIT (35 ITR 594), wherein certain tests were laid down for determining whether a particular transaction is a transaction in the nature of investment or of an adventure in the nature of trade. Applying the said tests to the relevant facts as involved in the case of the assessee company, the Assessing Officer recorded his findings as under- a. The purchase and sale of the lands are not allied to is usual business of trade. In fact, there was no other business/trade for the assessee company to relate the present activity of sale of land. b. The commodity in consideration was land. In the: present case, drawing the comparison is not possible as the assessee-company is not involved in any other regular business activities. c. The assessee-company from the financial year 2002-03 to 2007-08 incurred certain expenditures such as, fencing the land road laying other developmental ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.00 262611 0 21-05-2002 K Ganeswar others 2 Bachupally RR Dist 194 2.00 105051 0 21-05-2002 K Ganeswar others 7.00 367662 0 Details of lands sold during the F.Y. 2007-08 S. No. Sy no. along with location details Survey No. Extent of land acquired Consideration paid (including reg. Fee) Buyer s part iculars 1 194 3.08 79082029 **0 Land given for development of sale affected through maytaz properties ltd g. On verification of the balance sheets of the assessee-company, it is clear that the surplus of the funds were not utilized for purchase of the lands. In fact funds were mobilized from time to time through share capital, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing but an adventure in the nature of trade. According to him, the profit arising from such transaction therefore, was nothing but an adventure in the nature of trade. According to him, the profit arising from such transaction therefore, was required to be brought to tax under the head 'income from business or profession' and not capital gain. He therefore, afforded one more opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to why the income returned by it under the head capital gains should not be brought to tax under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'. Availing the said opportunity, the following explanation was offered by the assessee vide its letter dated 20.10.2010. ...... We object to the proposition of the assessing officer tax the income that was rightly admitted under the head capital gains as income from Business/Profession . It is on records that the assessee company was an agricultural company. One of the components that enter into taxation is the, taxable event that attracts the levy. In the fact of our case the undisputed fact being that the assessee is an agricultural company, the taxable event is the sale of end from which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the transactions carried out by the assessee company was nothing but an adventure in the nature of the trade and the profit arising out of such transactions was required to be brought to tax in its hands under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' and not capital gains. Accordingly, after deducting the cost of land of Rs. 16,62,085 and allowable expenditure of Rs. 33,036 from the gross sale proceeds of Rs. 7,90,82,029, income of the assessee from the relevant transactions chargeable to tax under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession' was worked out by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 7,73,86,908 in the assessment completed under S.143(3) vide order dated 2.12.2010 for the assessment year 2008-09. 8. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3) for assessment year 2008-09, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A), disputing the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the profit arising from the transfer of land as per the development agreement and further sale of flats and bungalows received from the developer as consideration for the land as its business income instead of capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is chargeable to tax as capital gain and not as profit from an adventure in the nature of trade. It was contended on behalf of the assessee company that the entire income earned by it from the transfer of land as per the development agreement and further sale of flats and bungalows received as consideration for land was assessable in its hands under the head 'capital gains' and not as 'business income. 10. Without prejudice to its main contention and as an alternative, it was also submitted by the assessee company that the second leg of transaction i.e. sale of flats and bungalows could be considered as business income, consequent to the conversion of these assets into stock in trade in terms of S.45(2) of the Act. It was contended that the transaction on account of the original transfer of agricultural land for development and the subsequent sale of land alongwith the apartments/villas could be distinguished. It was claimed that the provisions of S.45(2) could be invoked to treat the first transaction as conversion of fixed assets into stock in trade and be subjected to capital gains, while the second transaction, which is subsequent to the conversion of capital a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany as the share/due to the 14 land owning companies that had entered into the development agreement. Please see 1st item of submissions in the table at Para 5.. (d) The above practice of computing income is strange when the appellant claims that its income is taxable under the head capital gains. The appellant speaks of a development agreement and two stages of income which it classified as long term and short term capital gains and had even offered, as an alternate plea, to consider the receipt from second leg of transaction as business income consequent to conversion of capital asset as business asset. Yet, it does not consider the provisions of section 2(47)(v) and nor does it keep in view of the decisions Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas {2003 (2) Bom CR 449, (2003) 180 CTR Bom 107)} and the order of the jurisdictional ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Dr. Maya Shenoy Vs ACIT in IT A 222/Hyd/2005. (e) Secondly, though the development agreement speaks of appellant receiving in 27% of built up area of flats and plots(villas), the appellant never indicated the number of plots (villas) or the total built up area received in sq.ft. in lieu of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e determined by AO after some disallowance of expenses 7,73,86,908/- (g) In the above table, the appellant having arrived at 7.9 crores as receipts/income did another interesting adjustment of split it between the long term and short capital gains. For this, the appellant estimated as to what would be the proportion of total cost of construction (debited in the developer books) that would match the net sales income/revenue/receipts of the Co. For the 14 land owning Cost, the net revenue (after costs) came to Rs. 97 crores (as against 101 crores in the table supra). To match this revenue, the construction cost was estimate at Rs. 62.95 crores. Both the Revenue (97.07 crores) an construction cost (Rs. 62.95 crores) were then apportioned to the 14 land owning Cost. The appellant's share came to 7.90 crores of revenue and 5.12 crores of cost of construction. This 5.12 crores was taken as long term capital gains and from this the cost of land (after indexation) was reduced to arrive at long term capital gains of Rs. 4.86 crores. From the net receipts of Rs. 7.65 crores tabled supra, this amount of Rs 4.86 crores was reduced and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price over a period of three four years which the project would take to complete and the profits also would goes up as the project nears completion. Normally, only the sale proceeds from the flats/villas that belong to the appellant's share, and which were sold during the year, would have been reflected as receipts. The profits as result of incremental value additions and other charges and levies made by the developer would not be part of these receipts. The appellant clearly was looking for a part of these profits that accrue to the developer as well. (k) Secondly, by linking the profit to the developer's profit, which in turn can computed as percentage completion method, the appellant ensures that the incomes offered to tax are spread over a period and the tax payments are thus rolled over a span of 3 or 4 years (as long as the project takes to complete) instead of paying the bulk of tax liability at one go in the initial year when the land was transferred to the developer. (l) Thirdly, the profits offered to tax also would factor the costs and the land owner companies like appellant, end up lowering their profits by underwriting the developer's costs and cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve. Secondly, the actual transaction as it was entered and executed is what that reveals the motive and intention to judge as to whether it is a business transaction or a transaction of capital gains . (q) The transaction entered into, was clearly with an idea to do a real estate venture and profit. The appellant had therefore structured a real estate venture as a development agreement and that (sic), with its sister company under the same management. The profits were linked to the profits of the developer even though it had no business to do so as per the development agreement. This is the real reason for the difference in the execution of this development agreement when compared to other development agreements. 12. On the basis of the reasons given above, the learned CIT(A) held that the intention behind the entire transaction on the part of the assessee was clearly established as that of adventure in the nature of trade and therefore, profit arising from the said transaction was chargeable to tax under the head 'profits and gains of business/profession' as rightly held by the Assessing Officer and not under the head 'capital gains' as claimed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thod of recognition of income, which also resulted in reversal of income. It was submitted that the income for assessment year 2008-09 was recognized by following percentage completion method, which was calculated on the basis of budgeted cost of construction as originally estimated by the developer at Rs. 584,72,39,037. It was submitted that the developer company however, revised its budgeted cost estimate to Rs. 816,86,27,421 for assessment year 2009-10, as a result of which percentage completion was reduced in assessment year 2009-10 as compared to assessment year 2008-09, resulting in reversal of income. 16. It was claimed by the assessee in this regard that the percentage completion for assessment year 2008-09 was tagged to the projected cost of Rs. 584,72,39,037, but owing to the increase in the budgeted cost for assessment year 2009-10, the percentage completion was reduced for assessment year 2009-10 in comparison with assessment year 2008-09. This claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. According to him, the Revenue for the land owning companies based on the agreements for sale already entered into was fixed and the same could not be in the nega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat a similar treatment was given by passing reversal entries in respect of some other customers who had filed legal suits against developer. These reversal entries passed by the developer had resulted in decrease in the revenue recognition of the land owners companies including the assessee company. In this regard, the Assessing Officer noticed that neither the developer nor the assessee company had paid back any amount to the customers in the wake of the purported cancellation and legal cases. The Special Auditor had also reported in his report that there was no need to refund any amount in the wake of cancellation of the agreements for sale, as sought by some customers by filing legal cases. It was also found by the Assessing Officer that the collection of amount from the customers was to the tune of 87% of the agreements for sale entered into by the developer company and there was no way by which the assessee company could be denied its share by the developer of these receipts. According to the Assessing Officer, there was thus no uncertainty in collection of the amounts already received from the customer and consequently, no reversal of income could justifiably be made on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t issue raised by the assessee was relating to the change of method of accounting whereby Revenue was recognized only on the basis of registration of agreements for sale or handing over the possession of the flats/bungalows, as adopted in assessment year 2009-10 in place of the execution of the agreement for sale adopted as the basis for recognizing revenue upto assessment year 2008-09. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that following the problems faced by Satyam group of companies, a number of purchasers had tendered their applications for cancellation of agreements for sale and had also filed legal suits against the assessee as well as the developer. It was submitted that as a result of these cancellations/litigations, it was prudent not to recognize the revenue merely on the basis of agreement for sale unless the said agreements were registered or at least the possession of the flats/bungalows was handed over. It was contended that the cancellation/litigation created uncertainties in the generation of revenue and accordingly, the revenue recognised earlier on the basis of agreements for sale was revered due to cancellation/legal cases following the Accounting Stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings for assessment year 2008-09 in support of its stand that the same was taxable under the head 'capital gains' and not 'profits and gains of business or profession'. Certain errors committed by the Assessing Officer while computing income for the year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2009-10, were also brought to the notice of the learned CIT(A) by the assessee company and a request made that although an application for rectification filed by the assessee for rectification of the said mistakes under S.154 was rejected by the Assessing Officer, a finding may be given on this aspect as well. 23. After considering the submissions made by the assessee and perusing the relevant material on record, the learned CIT(A) first decided the issue regarding the head of income under which the income determined by the Assessing Officer was chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. In this regard, he relied on the findings given by him on a similar issue as involved in the assessment year 2008-09 and following the same, he held that income in question was chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee as business income and not capital gain. 24. As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or A.Y. 2008-09 is therefore extracted below to illustrate the accounting methodology adopted in AY 2008-09:- ............................................................ The appellant cannot change the method to suit the current needs and especially so when it marks a fundamental departure in its very method of computation of income. (d) It is also to be stated that registration is only (sic) final culmination of a long process. Agreements are equally valid to recognize revenue on accrual basis. Further, it is not as if the entire consideration amount is being recognized. Only a part of it is being recognized by the developer by linking the revenue recognition of such receipts to percentage completion of work method. (e) The appellant had made much about the department's attachment proceedings u/s 281B and its stoppage of registrations. It is to be seen that the main developer/builder, who is also registering actual property and who is under actual fire and who is accountable to buyers and public is not using this reason to change its method recognizing revenue from AFSs. This is because of two (sic). The developer had already received substantial portion of consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Dispute Resolution Panel, he refrained from deciding the issue and left the same open in respect of (a) change in the budgeted cost estimation and (b) reduction of receipts attributable to legal cases/cancellations, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to decide the same as per the findings of the DRP in the case of developer company on its adjudication. 26. As regards the mistakes pointed out by the assessee in the computation of income as made by the Assessing Officer, the learned CIT(A) found himself in agreement with the stand of the assessee that the income determined by the Assessing Officer as a result of mistakes committed was in excess by Rs. 40,90,710. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the income of the assessee company by Rs. 40,90,710. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee before him for assessment year 2009-10 was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2009-10, both the Revenue and the assessee have preferred their appeals before the Tribunal. 27. The main common issue involved in this case as raised in grounds No. 2 and 3 of the assessee's appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee company at the time of purchase of land. He contended that they, however, decided this issue regarding the nature of lands relying on the subsequent events ignoring the intention of the assessee company as prevalent at the time of acquisition or purchase of lands, which was very clearly to acquire the said land as capital asset for carrying out agricultural operations. He contended that the allegation of the authorities below that the intention of the group as such right from the beginning was to acquire the land for the purpose of business of real estate development is baseless, as the developer company was incorporated only in the year 2005 whereas lands were purchased by the land owing companies in the year 2002. He contended that even the various events enumerated and relied upon by the Assessing Officer to hold that the entire activity was business activities have happened during the post-development agreement period and the said events, at the most, can only show that the activities carried on by the assessee company, after the execution of development agreement are in the nature of business activities. He contended that in this scenario, the assessee company can be sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. The learned counsel for the assessee also furnished a working showing how the entire income earned by the assessee company can be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee company partly as capital gains and partly as business income by applying the provisions of S.45(2) of the Act. The working furnished by the learned counsel for the assessee is as under- Calculation of Capital Gain and Business Income u/s.45(2) # Particulars Amount in Rs. Amount in Rs. The Cost of the construction of 27%of the area to the land owner 1,10,70,00,000 Less: Indexed Cost of 73%of the land 7,42,34,336x73% 5,41,91,065 Long Term Capital Gain 1,05,28,08,935 2 Consideration of sale of proportionate constructed area - Ac 37.79 out of Ac 85.93 97,07,88,393 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricultural activities and there is no dispute about the same. In order to pursue this main objects, these companies purchased agricultural lands in the year 2002 and the lands so purchased were treated by them in the books of account as capital asset upto 30 December, 2005 when the said lands were transferred to a developer company, M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. by way of development agreement. Although there was no agricultural activities actually carried on by the assessee as well as other thirteen land owning companies till the date of development agreement, expenditure was incurred by them for leveling of the land and laying roads, etc. There is, however, nothing brought on record to show that there was any intention on the part of the assessee company to carry on the business of real estate development by using the lands acquired by them as stock in trade. On the other hand, the primary evidence in the form of objects of the assessee company, entries in the books of account etc. was clearly in favour of the assessee to show that the lands were acquired and held by them up to the date of development agreement as capital assets and there is nothing to dislodge this position emergi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d held by the assessee upto to the date of development agreement as capital asset and the profits arising from the transfer thereof as a result of development agreement entered into with the developer company is chargeable to tax as capital gain and not business income. 34. Having held that the land in question was acquired and held by the assessee company as capital assets upto the date of development agreement, the next question that arises for our consideration is what is the position during the period post development agreement in the sense whether there was any change in the nature of lands owned by the assessee as a result of events occurring after the date of execution of development agreement. At this juncture, it is necessary to take judicial note of the common practice being followed in the case of transfer of land as capital asset to the developer as per the development agreement. In many such cases, the consideration for transfer of land is being paid by the developer and accepted by the land owner in the form of certain percentage of built up area. For example, 30% of the total built up area of the project is agreed as consideration to be paid by the developer to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to get better and maximum advantage and income on the property 2. Subsequent to the development agreement, the developer M/s. Maytas Properties actually acquired majority share holding in all these 14 land owning companies and made them subsidiaries. 3. M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd. pledged land owned by these 14 companies as collateral security and obtained huge loans from Axis Bank, State Bank of India, IDBI Bank, State Bank of Mauritius 4. Maytas adopted percentage completion method to recognize revenue and determined profit. 27% of this profit was passed on to the land owning companies including the appellant company, who then shared this profit in the ratio of land holdings. 5. The assessee company too systematically followed revenue recognition by project completion method and its activities can be identified with a systematic business activity by any other company. 6. The development agreement was in 2005 and the lands were also taken over by the developer in 2005. Yet, the appellant/assessee company did not offer any income under the head capital gains in its relevant period. Thus, the assessee was itself not clear about the treatment of revenue received. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or treatment shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. 37. In the present case, there was not only conversion by the assessee company of land held as capital asset till the date of development agreement into stock in trade, but there was also a change in the form of capital asset in as much as in lieu 73% of the land area, what the assessee company got on conversion was 27% of the total built up area of the project. The remaining 27% of the land area continued to be held by the assessee company, but as stock in trade on conversion. Thus, as a result of development agreement, there was conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as well as change in the form of asset in the sense that in place of 100% land area held as capital asset, the assessee company got 27% of the total built up area of the project alongwith proportionate undivided share in land as stock in trade, which became available to it for the purposes of dealing during the post development agreement period. 38. In so far as computation of capital gain on such conversion is concerned, S.45(2) specifically provides that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as date of conversion. -Conversion of 10000 sq. ft. land - 3000 sq. ft. is retained in the form of land 7000 sq. ft. is converted into 3000 sq. ft. constructed area. -Stock in trade available to transferor on conversion: 3,000 sq. ft. land area and 3,000 sq.ft. constructed area i.e. 3,000 sq. ft. built up area alongwith proportionate undivided share in land. COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND BUSINESS PROFIT Area of land transferred as per Development Agreement 7,000 Sq. ft. Consideration for transfer of 7,000 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft. (constructed area) Rate of construction, say Rs. 1,500 per sq. ft. Cost of construction of 3,000 sq. ft. (To be taken as consideration/market value of 7,000 sq. ft. land area) Rs. 45,00,000 Consideration/market value of land (45,00,000/7000 sq. ft.) Rs. 643/- per sq. ft. Fair Market value of 10,000 sq. ft. land @ 643 per sq. ft Rs. 64,30,000 Less: Indexed cost of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee's appeal for assessment year 2008-09 and ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-10 are allowed. 40. As regards the other issues raised in grounds No. 6 and 7 of the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-10 relating to the change in the method of accounting followed by the assessee to recognize the income, we are of the view that the same have become virtually redundant as a result of our decision rendered above holding that the income of the assessee company from the relevant transactions is liable to be computed as per the provisions of S.45(2). The only aspect that may be relevant for the purpose of applying the provisions of S.45(2) is the point at which the flats and bungalows representing stock in trade can be taken as sold or otherwise transferred for the purpose of recognising income. In this regard, it is observed that a similar issue has (sic) been considered by us in the case of developer company, viz. M/s. Hill County Properties Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s. Maytas Properties Ltd.) and the same has been decided vide order of even date passed in ITA No. 1644/Hyd/2014 by observing as under- 35. In so far as the second aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cellation of the agreements and refund of the amounts paid by them. The ultimate collection from these agreement holders thus became uncertain and the assessee company, in our opinion, rightly decided to postpone the revenue recognition to the extent of such uncertainty, by adopting the new method of recognition of income on the basis of registration of agreements for sale or handing over of possession of the units, as the same enabled it to assess the ultimate collection with reasonable certainty. As a matter of fact, the claim made by some of the agreement holders r cancellation of agreements for sale already executed and for refund of the advances already paid crated uncertainty relating to collectability which arose even after the of the agreements for sale, and this uncertainty was also provided for by the assessee by reversing the income already recognized on the basis of execution of the agreements for sale. The change in the method of recognition of income, as adopted by the assessee company in the year under consideration as well as the consequent reversal of income on the basis of cancellation/legal cases thus was in terms of the relevant Accounting Standard laying down p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, follow our decision rendered on the similar issues in the case of M/s. Goman Agro Farms Ltd. (supra) and decide the issues involved in the case of other thirteen companies accordingly. REVENUE'S APPEALS: 43. In its appeals for the assessment year 2009-10, the solitary common issue raised by the Revenue is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in disposing off the appeal of the assessee, when the issue raised therein relating to reversal of entries was pending before the Dispute Resolution Panel at the relevant time. According to the Revenue, the learned CIT(A) ought to have waited for the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel and should have disposed off the appeal of the assessee only after the decision of the DRP. In our opinion, this issue raised by the Revenue has become infructuous as a result of our decision rendered while disposing off the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the foregoing portion of this order. We accordingly dismiss the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10. 44. In the result, all the 26 appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all fourteen appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
