Dcit Cir 11 1 Kolkata Kolkata v. M S Khaitan India Ltd Kolkata

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Benc H Kolkata Before Shri A T Varkey Jm Dr A L Saini Am Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Dcit Circle 11 1 Kol P 7 Chowringhee Square Kolkata 69 Vs M S Khaitan India Ltd 46 C J L Nehru Road Everest House 18 Th Floor Kolkata 700 071 Pan Gir No Aabck 2326 B Assessee Respondent Assesseeby Shrisallongyaden Addl Cit Respondent By Shri Arvind Agarwal Adv Shri San Jay Bhattacharya Fca Date Of Hearing 21 09 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20 11 2017 O R D E R Per Dr Arjun Lal Saini Am The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Per Taining To Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Are Directed Against The Or Ders Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals 4 Kolkata Whi Ch In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Ao U S 143 3 Of Th E Income Tax Act 1961 Hereinafter Referred To As The Act 2 Since These Two Appeals Relate To Same Assessee Different Assessment Years Identical Issues Are Involved Therefore These Hav E Been Clubbed And Heard Together And A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed F Or The Sake Of Convenience And Brevity 3 The Revenues Appeal In Ita No 1216 Kol 2015 Ass Essment Year 2008 09 Is Taken As The Lead Case M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 2 22 2 4 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of A Ppeal In Lead Case Ita No 1216 Kol 2015 Assessment Year 2008 09 Are As F Ollows 1 That On The Facts And In The Circumstances Of Th E Case Ld Cit A Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses Of Rs 25 51 838 U S 14 A Of The L T Act 1961 Read With Rule 8 D Of L T Rule 1962 In Respect Of Exempted Dividend Income 2 That On The Facts And The Circumstances Of The Ca Se Ld Cit A Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses Of Rs 1 03 67 798 U S 14 A Of The L T Act 1961 Read With Rule 8 D 2 Ii Of The L T Rule 1962 In Re Spect Of Exempted Agricultural Income 3 That On The Facts And The Circumstances Of The Ca Se Ld Cit A Has Erred In Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses Of Rs 20 20 841 U S 14 A Of The L T Act 1961 Read With Rule 8 D 2 Iii Of The L T Rule 1962 In Respect Of Exempted Agricultural Income 4 That The Assessee Craves For Leave To Add Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing 5 The First Issue Raised By The Revenue Relates To Disallowance Of Expenses Of Rs 25 51 838 U S 14 A Of The Income Tax Act 1 961 R W R 8 D Of I T Rules 1962 In Respect Of Exempted Dividend Income 5 1 The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That The Filed Its Return Of Income On 30 09 2008 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs 3 27 03 470 For The A Y 2008 09 The Return Of Income Was Processed U S 143 1 On 05 10 2009 The Assessees Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U S 143 2 Of The Act An D Ao Had Completed The Assessment By Making Addition U S 14 A R W R 8 D Of T He I T Act The Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Cultivation Of Sugar Cane Manufacturing Of Sugar And Trading In Fans And Other Electrical A Ppliances During The Previous Year The Assessing Officer Noted Thatduring The Assessme Nt Year Under Consideration The Assessee Earned Dividend Income Of Rs 33 62 011 Which Is Exempt From Tax U S 10 34 In The Return Of Income The Assessee Ha Doffered A Disallowance U S 14 A Amounting To Rs 7 74 043 In Respect Ofexp Enditure Incurred In Relation To Such Dividend Income The Quantum Of Exemption Was Claimed To Have Been Determined By Applying Rule 8 D Of The I T Rules M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 3 33 3 On Scrutiny Of The Computation Of Disallowance Mad E By The Assessee U S 14 A The Ao Found That The Average Value Of Investment A S Well As The Average Value Of Total Assets Has Not Been Correctly Taken Having R Egard To The Accounts Of The Assesseeand Also In View Of The Assessees Own Admi Ssion Of Incurring Expensesdisallowable U S 14 A The Correct Amount O F Such Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D Was Recomputed By Ao Asunder Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D 2 I Demat Charges Rs 536 A Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D 2 Ii The Assessee Has Admitted That The Other Interest O F Rs 1 21 52 425 Isindirectly Attributable To The Earning Of Exempt Dividend Inco Me For Which It Has Suomoto Offered Disallowance U S 14 A The Correct Quantum Of Such Disallowance Was Recomputed As Under Total Interest Debited To P L A C Rs 1 21 52 42 5 A Value Of Investment As Per B S As On 01 04 2007 R S 11 08 42 309 Value Of Investment As Per B S As On 31 03 2008 R S 16 59 50 244 Total Rs 27 67 92 553 Average Value Of Investment Rs 1 3 83 96 277 L B Value Of Assets As Per B S As On 01 04 2007 Rs 86 02 71 056 Value Of Assets As Per B S As On 31 03 2008 Rs 94 65 06 232 Total Rs 180 67 77 288 Average Value Of Total Assets Rs 90 33 88 644 C Thus Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D 2 Ii A X B C Rs 18 59 321 B Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D 2 Iii The Assessee Had Computed The Disallowance As Per R Ule 8 D 2 Iii Atrs 2 52 537 The Computation Was Not Found To B E Correct The Correct Amountof Disallowance Was Recomputed As Under 0 5 Of Average Value Of Investment 0 5 Of Rs 13 83 96 277 Rs 6 91 981 C Therefore Ao Computed The Totaldisallowance A B C At Rs Rs 25 51 838 However The Assessee Had Disallowe D Suo Moto At Rs 7 74 043 5 2 Aggrieved By The Order Of The Assessing Officer The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit A Who Has Allowed The Appe Al Of The Assessee The M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 4 44 4 Cit A Observed That The Assessee During The Asses Sment Year Under Considerationwas Engaged In The Business Ofcultivat Ion Of Sugarcane Manufacturing Of Sugar And Trading In Fans Other Electricalappliances The Assessee Maintains Separate Set Of Brooks Of Its Th Ree Business Divisions I Agricultural Division Ii Sugar Division Iii Market Division The Assessee Also Maintains Separate Accounts For Its Corporate Head Office The Cit A Noted Thatall The Separate Set Of Books Of Accounts Are Duly Audi Ted By Chartered Accountants During The Year The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income Of Rs 33 62 201 Frominvestment In Shares From The D Etails Furnished On Record The Cit A Noted That The Assessee Had Invoked Rule 8 D And Disallowed A Sum Of Rs 7 74 703 Under Section 14 A Ofthe Act The Ao H Owever Disagreed With The Calculation Of The Assessee And Computed A Further Disallowance Of Rs 25 51 838 Under Section 14 A Of The Act The As Sessee Had Objected To The Manner Of Invocation Of Rule 8 D And Thefurther Disa Llowance Made By The Ao Both On Legal As Well As Factual Grounds The Assessees Case Was That Without Specifying Reasons For His Dissatisfaction The Ao Sapplication Of Rule 8 D Was Unjustified After Perusing The Details Furnished B Y The Assessee And The Impugned Order The Cit A Noted That No Cogent Reasons Were Recorded By The Ao For Disregarding Or Rejecting The Calculation Of The As Sessee Although The Ao Has Heldthat Rule 8 D Is Applicable In The Relevant Ay 2 008 09 But He Has Not Recorded Any Satisfaction Nor Has Pointed Out Specific Infir Mity In The Claim Of The Assessee The Cit A Noted That The Assessee Had Computed Dis Allowance Of Interest Under Rule 8 D 2 Ii Withreference To Interest Whichwas N Ot Relatable To Any Specific Source Of Income Theinterest Which Was Directly At Tributable To Agriculture Sugar Division Was Excludedand Disallowance Was Computed With Reference To The Remaining Amount Of Interest The Ao Had Not Pointed Out Any Defect In The Aforesaid Calculation Nor In Theseparate Divisional Books Of Accounts Maintained By The Assessee Even In Rule 8 D 2 Iii The Assess Ee Has Computed Disallowance 0 5 Of The Investments Which Yielded Exempted Inc Ome This View Of The Assessee Was Supported By Numerous Decisions Of Hig H Courts As Well Tribunals Even In This Regard The Ao Again Failed To Discharg E His Onus Recording Reasons Or His Dissatisfaction With The Calculation Of The Ass Essee Section 14 A Clearly Lays Down That The Ao Has To Record Objective Satisfacti On In Respect Of The Disallowance Offered By The Assessee Having Regard To Its Books Of Accounts The Cit A Noted That The Assessee Had Furnished Separa Te Audited Booksof Accounts M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 5 55 5 Of Each Division Lt Was Noted That Due Explanation In Support Of Theirdisallowance Of Rs 7 74 703 Was Also Furnished By The Assessee The Ao Howeverseemed To Have Mechanically Ignored The Explanation Stating T Hat The Submissionswas Untenable In Law And Unacceptable There Is A Lack Of Recording Of Objectivesatisfaction On The Part Of The Ao Before Making Further Disallowance U S 14 A Of Theact The Jurisdictional Calcutta High Cou Rt In The Case Of Cit Vs Rei Agro Limited Ga 3022 Of 2013 Dated 16 12 2013 Ha S Affirmed The Order Of The Ltat Kolkata Stating That In Absence Of Any Proper And Objective Satisfaction Being Recorded By Theao In The Assessment Order Th E Aos Action Of Making Disallowance Under Section 14 A By Applying Rule 8 D Is Bad In Law This Proposition Is Further Supported By Thedecisions Of Itat Kolkata In The Case Of Acit Vs Champion Commercial Limited Lta No 644 Ko L 2012 And Itat Pune In The Case Of Kalyani Steels Limited Vs Addl Cit Lta No 1733 Pn 2012 Following The Binding Precedent Of The Honblecalcutta High C Ourt And The Foregoing Decisions Of The Honble Tribunal The Cit A Held Thatthe Further Disallowance Of Rs 25 51 838 Made By The Ao Under Section 14 A Of Theact Was Bad In Law And Deserves To Be Deleted And Therefore Cit A Delete D The Addition 5 3 Not Being Satisfied With The Order Of The Ld Ci T A The Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us The Ld Dr For The Revenue Has Primarily Reiterated The Stand Taken By The Assessing Officer Which We Have Already Noted In Our Earlier Para And Is Not Being Repeated For The Sake Of Brevity On The Other Hand The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Has Defended The Order Of The Ld Cti A The Ld Counsel Also Relied On The Submissions Which He Made During The Appellate Proceedings Before The Ld Cti A 5 4 We Have Given A Careful Consideration To The Ri Val Submissions We Are Of The View That The Ao Has Not Recorded Any Reasons For R Ejecting The Calculation Of The Assessee Although The Ao Has Heldthat Rule 8 D Is A Pplicable In The Relevant Assessment Year 2008 09 But He Has Not Recorded An Y Satisfaction Nor Has Pointed Out Any Specific Infirmity In The Claim Of The Assessee Theinterest Which Was Directly Attributable To Agriculture Sugar Di Vision Was Excludedand Disallowance Was Computed With Reference To The Rem Aining Amount Of Interest And We Note That Interest Pertains To Agricultural Division And Sugar Division Should Not Be Considered For Disallowance Under Rul E 8 D The Ao Has M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 6 66 6 Neitherpointed Out Any Defect In The Aforesaid Calc Ulation Of The Assessee Nor In The Separate Divisional Books Of Accounts Maintaine D By The Assessee This View Of The Assessee Is Supported By Numerousdecisions O F High Courts As Well Tribunals Even In This Regard The Ao Again Failed Todischarge His Onus Of Recording Reasons Or His Dissatisfaction With The C Alculation Of The Assessee Section 14 A Clearly Lays Down That The Ao Has To Re Cord Objective Satisfaction In Respect Of The Disallowance Offered By The Assessee Having Regard To Its Books Of Accounts We Note That The Assessee Had Furnished S Eparate Audited Booksof Accounts Of Each Division Lt Is Noted That Due Exp Lanation In Support Of Theirdisallowance Of Rs 7 74 703 Was Also Furnish Ed By The Assessee The Ao Howeverseemed To Have Mechanically Ignored The Expl Anation Stating That The Submissionswas Untenable In Law And Unacceptable T Here Is A Lack Of Recording Of Objectivesatisfaction On The Part Of The Ao Befo Re Making Further Disallowance U S 14 A Of Theact The Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court In The Case Of Cit Vs Rei Agro Limited Ga 3022 Of 2013 Dated 16 12 2013 Ha S Affirmed The Order Of The Ltat Kolkata Stating That In Absence Of Any Proper And Objective Satisfaction Being Recorded By Theao In The Assessment Order Th E Aos Action Of Making Disallowance Under Section 14 A By Applying Rule 8 D Is Bad In Law This Judgment Also Explains That The Disallowance Under Rule 8 D 2 Ii Should Be In Respect Of The Investments Which Yielded Exempt Income Respectful Ly Following The Judgment Of The Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court Kolkata We Find No Infirmity In The Order Passed By The Ld Cit A Therefore We Confirm The Order Passed By The Ld Cit A 5 7 In The Result The Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Ground No 1 Of Ita No 1216 Kol 2015 1217 Kol 2015 Is Dismissed 6 Ground No 2 And 3 Raised By The Revenue Relate To Disallowance Under Rule 8 D 2 Ii And 8 D 2 Iii In Respect Of Exempted Agr Icultural Income Of Rs 1 03 67 798 And Rs 20 20 841 Respectively 6 1 The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That During Th E Assessment Proceedings The Ao Noted In The Computation Of Total Income That T He Assessee Has Claimed Exemption U S 10 1 On Account Of Agricultural Inc Ome However No Expenditureincurred In Relation To Agricultural Inc Ome Had Been Offered As M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 7 77 7 Disallowance U S 14 A The Assessee Was Asked To Sho W Cause Why The Expenditure Incurred Inrelation To Such Agricultura L Income Should Not Be Disallowed In Computing The Totalincome In Respons E The Assessee Submitted Before The Ao That Theywere Computing The Agricultu Ral Income As Per The Audited Divisional Accounts And Had Not Claimed Grossagricu Ltural Receipts But Had Deducted The Expenditure In Relation To The Agricul Tural Income And Accordingly The Agricultural Income Had Been Taken To Be Exempt Und Er The Provisions Of Law The Assessee Submitted That He Had Computed Income With The Figure Of Net Profit As Per Audited Profit And Loss Account Whichincludes The Net Profit Before Tax Of All The Divisions As Given Below Amount I Corporate Office 9 06 975 Iil Sugar Division 5 94 93 867 Iii Agricultural Division 88 40 807 Iv Marketing Division 4 24 17 170 Total 78 24 364 As Per Audited Divisional P L A C Forming Part O F The Record The Net Profit Of The Agricultural Division Ofrs 88 40 807 Is After Ded Ucting The Total Expenses Of Rs 3 19 13 917 From The Gross Receipts Of Rs 4 09 95 906 Of The Said Division While Computing The Income From Business The Said Net Profit Fromthe Agricultural Division Has Been Deducted From The Net Profit As P Er Profit Loss A C Thus The Grossreceipts Of Rs 4 09 95 906 As Well As Expend Iture Of Rs 3 19 13 917 Of The Agricultural Division Havebeen Excluded By Us In Co Mputing Our Business Income In Other Words The Said Expenditure Ofrs 3 19 13 9 17 Was Not Claimed As A Deduction By Us In The Computation Of Business Inco Me Nor Was Ittaken As Allowed As A Deduction While Computation Of Income The Assessee Submitted That He Received Total Divid End Received Ofrs 33 62 011 And Made Disallowance U S 14 A At Rs 7 74 043 How Ever The Ao Rejected The Contention Of The Assessee And Computed The Disallo Wance As Follows Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D 2 I Direct Expenses Interest Rs 31 05 893 Direct Expenses Other Than Interest Rs 2 88 08 024 Total Rs 3 19 13 917 A Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D 2 Ii M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 8 88 8 The Total Interest Debited To The P L Account Was Of Rs 2 61 45 434 Out Ofwhich Rs 31 05 893 Has Been Considered For Disallowance Under Rule 8 D 2 I On Account Of Direct Expenditure The Disallowance On The Balance Amount Of Interestof Rs 2 30 39 541 Which Is Indirectly Att Ributable To The Earning Of Tax Exemptagriculture Income Was Computed By Ao As Unde R Interest As Discussed Above Rs 2 30 39 541 A Investment In Agriculture Division As On 01 04 2007 Rs 39 94 11 260 Investment In Agriculture Division As On 31 03 2008 Rs 40 89 25 106 Total Rs 80 83 36 366 Average Value Of Investment Rs 40 41 68 183 B Value Of Assets As Per B S As On 01 04 2007 Rs 86 02 71 056 Value Of Assets As Per B S As On 31 03 2008 Rs 94 65 06 232 Total Rs 180 67 77 288 Average Value Of Total Assets Rs 90 33 88 644 C Thus Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D 2 Ii A X B C Rs 1 03 67 793 B Disallowance As Per Rule 8 D 2 Iii 0 5 Of Average Value Of Investment 0 5 Of Rs 40 41 68 183 Rs 20 20 841 C Thustotal Disallowance Computed By Ao U S 14 A Read With Rule 8 D A B C Was At Rs 4 43 02 551 6 2 Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ao The Assessee F Iled An Appeal Before The Cit A Who Has Deleted The Addition Made By Ao The Cit A Observed That The Assessee Was Engaged In Cultivation Of Agriculture For Which It Maintains Separate Set Of Books Of Accounts The Said Books Are Duly Au Dited By M S Chaturvedi Co Chartered Accountants The Gross Receipts From Agri Culture Was Rs 4 09 95 906 The Expenses Incurred In This Division Was Rs 3 19 13 917 And Depreciation Was Rs 2 41 902 Accordingly Thenet Agricultural Inco Me Was Computed At Rs 88 40 897 By The Assessee Which Was Claimed As Exempt Under The Act The Cit A Observed That The Assessee Has Already Disal Lowed The Expenses Incurred In Relation To Earning Of Agriculturalincome That Is All Expenses Interest And Depreciation Pertaining To The Agricultural Income Were Already Disallowed By The M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 9 99 9 Assessee And Only The Net Amount Was Claimed As E Xempt Underthe Act And Thereforeagricultural Income This Way Ld Cit A H Eld That No Further Disallowance Should Be Made Therefore The Furtherdisallowance Of Rs 4 43 02 551 In Substance Amounted To Double Disallowance By Theao The Cit A Also Held That Ao Had Not Rejected The Books Of Accounts And Also Notpointedoutanyinfirmity Or Defect In The Separate Divisional Accounts Maintain Ed By The Assessee The Separate Divisional Accounts Were Duly Audited By A Firm Of Chartered Accountants All The Expenses Incurred In Relation To Earning Ofagricultural Income Had Been Debited To The Agricultural Division And H Ad Beenreduced From The Gross Agricultural Receipts Therefore Cit A Deleted Th E Disallowance Of Rs 4 43 02 551 Made By The Ao 6 3 Not Being Satisfied With The Order Of Cit A T He Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us The Ld Dr For The Revenue Has Primarily Reitera Ted The Stand Taken By The Assessing Officer Which We Have Already Noted In O Ur Earlier Para And Is Not Being Repeated For The Sake Of Brevity On The Other Hand The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Has Defended The Order Of The Ld Cit A 6 4 We Have Given A Careful Consideration To The Ri Val Submissions We Note That The Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Asse Ssee Had Not Made Any Disallowance With Respect To The Agricultural Incom E Which Stands Exempted U S 10 1 Of The Act On Being Queried By The Assessing Officer The Assessee Filed Before Assessing Officer An Explanation To The Effe Ct That Agricultural Income Was Computed As Per The Debited Divisional Account And That After Deducting Expenses The Net Agricultural Income Had Been Claimed As Exe Mpt Under The Provisions Of Law The Income Of Rs 78 24 364 Was Computed Whic H Included The Net Profit Before Tax Of All The Divisions Which Is Given Bel Ow For Ready Reference I Corporate Office Rs 9 06 975 Ii Sugar Division Loss Rs 5 94 93 867 Iii Agricultural Division Rs 88 40 807 Iv Marketing Division Rs 4 24 17 170 Rs 78 24 364 As Per Audited Divisional Profit Loss Account The Net Profit Of The Agriculturaldivision Of Rs 88 40 807 Is After Ded Ucting The Totalexpenses Of Rs 3 19 13 917 And Depreciation Of Rs 2 41 902 From The Gross Receipts Of M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 10 1010 10 Rs 4 09 95 906 Of The Said Division While Comput Ing The Income From Business The Said Net Profit From The Agricultural Division Has Been Deducted From The Net Profit As Per The Profit Loss Account Therefore The Gross Receipts Of Rs 4 09 95 906 As Well Asexpenditure Of Rs 3 19 1 3 917 Of The Agricultural Division Have Been Excluded By The Assessee In Comp Uting Business Income Ln Other Words The Said Expenditure Of Rs 3 19 13 917 And Depreciation Of Rs 2 41 902 Were Not Claimed As A Deduction By As Sessee In The Computation Of Business Income These Expenses Were Not Taken By T He Assessee As Allowed As A Deduction While Computation Of Income We Are Of The View That The Assessee Engaged In Cul Tivation Of Agriculture For Which It Maintains Separate Set Of Books Of Account S The Said Books Are Duly Audited By Chartered Accountants The Gross Receipts From Agriculture Was Rs 4 09 95 906 The Expenses Incurred In This Div Ision Was Rs 3 19 13 917 And Depreciation Was Rs 2 41 902 Accordingly Thenet Agricultural Income Was Computed At Rs 88 40 897 By The Assessee Which Wa S Claimed As Exempt Under The Act Lt Is Therefore Evidently Clear That The A Ssessee Has Already Disallowed The Expenses Incurred In Relation To Earning Of Agricul Turalincome That Is All Expenses Interest And Depreciation Pertaining To Th E Agricultural Income Were Already Disallowed By The Assessee And Only The Ne T Amount Was Claimed As Exempt Underthe Act Therefore Considering The Fac Tual Position Explained Above No Further Disallowance Is Required We Note That The Ao Has Not Rejected The Books Of Accounts He Has Also Notpointedoutanyi Nfirmity Or Defect In The Separate Divisional Accounts Maintained By The Asse Ssee The Separate Divisional Accounts Were Duly Audited By A Firm Of Chartered A Ccountants Hence Considering The Factual Position Discussed A Bove We Do Not Find Any Infirmity In The Order Passed By The Cit A Therefo Re We Confirm The Order Passed By The Cit A 6 5 In The Result The Appeals Filed By The Revenue In Ground Nos 2 3 Of Ita 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Are Dismissed Order Pronounced In The Open Court On This 20 12 2017 Sd A T Varkey Sd Dr A L Saini Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata Dated 20 12 2017 M S Khaitan India Ltd Ita No 1216 1217 Kol 2015 Assessment Years 2008 09 2009 10 Page Page Page Page 11 1111 11 Rs Sps Copy Of The Order Forwarded To True Copy By Order Senior Private Secretary Head Of Office D D O I T A T Kolkata Benches Kolkata 1 The Assessee Dcit Circle 11 1 Kol 2 The Respondent M S Khaitan India Ltd 3 The Cit A Kolkata 4 Cit 5 Dr Itat Kolkata 6 Guard File