Spartex Ceramics India Ltd, Narasingapuram v. JCIT(A), Guntur

ITA 143/VIZ/2009 | 1993-1994
Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14325314 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AADCS1235K
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 143/VIZ/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Spartex Ceramics India Ltd, Narasingapuram
Respondent JCIT(A), Guntur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 05-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 21-04-2011
Next Hearing Date 21-04-2011
Assessment Year 1993-1994
Appeal Filed On 28-07-2009
Judgment Text
ITA NO143 OF 2009 SPARTEX CEREMICS INDIA LTD NARSA PURAM PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.143/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1993-94 SPARTEX CERAMICS INDIA LTD. NARSINGAPURAM VS. JCIT (ASSTT). GUNTUR (APPELLANT) PAN NO: AADCS 1235 K (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI C.V.K. PRASAD ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T.H. LUCAS PETER CIT (DR) ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13-12- 2008 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) TIRUPATI AND IT RELATES T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94. 2. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22-4-2008 SET ASIDE THE FOLLOWING THREE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) WITH A DI RECTION TO RECONSIDER THEM AFRESH. A) WHETHER THE MARKET FEES COLLECTED BY THE ASSES SEE IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND 80I OF THE ACT. B) WHETHER THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE INCOME T AX DEPARTMENT IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. C) WHETHER THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80M IS ADMISSIBLE OR NOT. ALL THE THREE ISSUES WERE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSES SEE IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS BY THE LD CIT(A). HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE SECOND ROUND. ITA NO143 OF 2009 SPARTEX CEREMICS INDIA LTD NARSA PURAM PAGE 2 OF 8 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL. THE LD A.R APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS T HE GROUNDS NUMBERED AS 1 TO 5. HENCE THEY ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. OTHER THREE GROUNDS CONSIST OF THE THREE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE PRECED ING PARAGRAPH. 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE TREATMENT TO BE ACCORDED TO THE MARKETING FEE OF RS.1 38 31 851/- RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE FROM ANOTHER COMPANY NAMED M/S NEYCER CERAMICS AND REFRACTORIES LTD IN CONNECTION WITH THE TECHNICAL AND MARKETING SERVICES RENDERED TO IT. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME ARE SET OUT IN BRIEF. IT WAS STATED THA T THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S NEYCER CERAMICS AND REFRACTORIES LIMITED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REHABILITATING THE SICK COMPANY BY UTILIZING THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. IN THIS C ONNECTION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TO INCUR HEAVY EXPENDITURE INCLUDING AP POINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR RENDERING SERVICES TO M/S NEYC ER FOR UPGRADING TECHNICAL QUALITY AND MARKETABILITY OF NEYCER PRODUCTS AND TO DEVELOP EFFICIENT MARKETING ORGANIZATION FOR THE SAID COMPANY. IN THI S REGARD THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COLLETED AN AMOUNT OF 1.38 CRORE AS MARKET ING FEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HH AND 8 0I OF THE ACT ON THE SAID RECEIPT BUT WAS DENIED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4.1 THE LD A.R CONTENDED THAT THE SAID RECEIPT SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN INCOME DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. AS AN ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE ONLY 10% OF THE MARKET FEE RECEIPTS FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION DEDUCTION U/S 80HH A ND 80I OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NET PROFIT FROM THE SAID ACTIVITY WAS ESTIMATED AT 10% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSES SMENT YEAR 1992-93; IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND ALSO IN THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF THE INSTANT YEAR. ITA NO143 OF 2009 SPARTEX CEREMICS INDIA LTD NARSA PURAM PAGE 3 OF 8 4.2 ON THE CONTRARY THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT T HE IMPUGNED MARKETING FEE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RELATE TO TH E ACTIVITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SAID INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. WITH REGARD TO THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDI CATA SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS. 4.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE IMPUGNED MARKETING FEE HAS BEE N RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OFFERING TECHNICAL AND MARKETING SERVI CES TO M/S NEYCER LTD. THE ASSESSEE COULD RENDER THE SAID SERVICES ON ACCO UNT OF EXPERTISE GAINED OVER THE YEARS BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE IN OUR VIEW THE OFFERING OF SUCH KIND OF SERVICES SHALL CONSTITUTE A SEPARAT E BUSINESS ACTIVITY WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM THE ACTIVITY CARRIED BY THE INDUST RIAL UNDERTAKING. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID RECEIPT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS INCOME DER IVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. 4.4 NOW WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE ALTERNATIVE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF THE INSTANT YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD TO INCUR HEAVY EXPENDITURE TO EARN THE IMPUGNED MARKETING FEE AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM THE SAID ACTIVITY AT 10% OF THE TOT AL RECEIPT. ACCORDINGLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80 HH AND 80I OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCLUDED ONLY THE NET INCOME OF 10% SO COMPUTED. THE SAME METHODOLOGY WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN FOLLO WED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93 AND 1995-96. HOWEVER IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OF THE INSTANT YEAR THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER CHANGED THE STAND WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON AND PREFERRED TO EXCLUDE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF MARKETING FEE WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY DEDUCT ION TOWARDS THE ITA NO143 OF 2009 SPARTEX CEREMICS INDIA LTD NARSA PURAM PAGE 4 OF 8 EXPENSES. THE LD CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PRO CEEDING ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME AT 10% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DEVIATING FROM THE ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE WITHOUT GIVING ANY R EASONS. WHEN THE SAID ORDER OF LD CIT(A) WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE ITAT B Y THE REVENUE THE TRIBUNAL FOUND FAULT WITH THE LD CIT(A) IN FOLLOWIN G THE ALLEGED ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE LEGAL ASPECTS AS T O WHETHER THE MARKETING FEES SO COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO HA VE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND IN THE AL TERNATIVE WHETHER ONLY NET INCOME HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BUSINESS INC OME. ACCORDINGLY THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE. IN THE SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDING THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THERE IS NO MANDATE FROM LAW TO EX CLUDE ONLY 10% OF THE MARKETING FEE AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EXCLUDING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF MARKETING FEE FROM T HE BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AN D 80I OF THE ACT. 4.4 HOWEVER THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WH ETHER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN CONNEC TION WITH THE EARNING OF THE IMPUGNED MARKETING FEE IS JUSTIFIED AND IF SO WHAT COULD BE THE NET INCOME FROM THE SAID ACTIVITY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RENDERED TECHNICAL AND MARKET ING SERVICES TO M/S NEYCER CERAMICS AND REFRACTORIES LTD AND IN CONNECT ION WITH THE SAID SERVICES ONLY IT HAS RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED MARKETIN G FEE OF RS.1.31 CRORE. IN THAT CASE IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN EARNING THE SAID RECEIPT. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED IN THAT REGARD. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS CANNOT BE T AKEN AS INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. HENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND 80I OF THE ACT THE SAID RECE IPT CANNOT FORM PART OF BUSINESS INCOME. IN THAT CASE IT WOULD BE REASONAB LE AND JUSTIFIED ONLY TO ITA NO143 OF 2009 SPARTEX CEREMICS INDIA LTD NARSA PURAM PAGE 5 OF 8 EXCLUDE THE NET INCOME FROM THE SAID ACTIVITY AND I N THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE DETAILS IT BECOMES IMPERATIVE TO ESTIMATE THE NET INCOME THERE OF. IN OTHER YEARS THE SAID INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMAT ED AT 10% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE NET INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MAY ALSO BE ESTIMATED AT 10% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO E STIMATE THE INCOME COMPONENT OF THE MARKETING FEE AT 10% AND EXCLUDE T HE SAME FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF D EDUCTION U/S 80HH AND 80I OF THE ACT. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WHETHER THE INTEREST RECEIV ED FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE REFUND FROM THE INCOME TA X DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH THE IMPUGNED INTEREST SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD P AID ADVANCE TAX IN EXCESS. THE SAID ADVANCE TAX WAS PAID OUT OF THE F UNDS BORROWED FROM BANKS. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUG NED INTEREST RECEIPT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS RECEIPT AS THE COR RESPONDING INTEREST PAYMENT ON BORROWALS FROM THE BANK IS DEDUCTIBLE AG AINST THE BUSINESS INCOME. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDING THE LD CI T(A) ACCEPTED THE SAID CONTENTION. HOWEVER THE ITAT TOOK THE VIEW THAT T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IN PRO PER PERSPECTIVE AND ACCORDINGLY REMITTED THE SAME TO THE FILE OF LD CIT (A). IN THE SECOND ROUND THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVE D FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.1. BEFORE US THE LD A.R REITERATED THE CONTEN TIONS MADE BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER THE LD D.R CONTENDED THAT TH E NEXUS OF BORROWALS AND INTEREST RECEIPT IS NOT BORNE OUT OF RECORD. ITA NO143 OF 2009 SPARTEX CEREMICS INDIA LTD NARSA PURAM PAGE 6 OF 8 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE IMPUGNED INTERE ST IS PAID BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. S UCH REFUND NORMALLY ARISES ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PAYMENT OF TAX THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT. SUCH PAYMENT OF TAX NORMALLY CONSISTS OF TDS CLAIMS ADVANCE TAX PAYMENTS AND OTHER PAYMENTS BY WAY OF TAX. IT MAY B E TRUE THAT THE ADVANCE TAX MIGHT HAVE BEEN PAID OUT OF BORROWED FU NDS. HOWEVER NO BUSINESS MAN COULD VISUALIZE REFUND OF TAX AT THE T IME OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE REFUN D FOR THE INSTANT YEAR HAS ARISEN ONLY OUT OF ADVANCE TAX. HENCE IN OUR VIEW THERE IS NO DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BORROWALS AND THE IMPUGNED R EFUND OF TAX. IN ANY CASE THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE FOR THE INTEREST INCOME IS THE REFUND OF TAX BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. HENCE IN OUR VIEW THE INTEREST GRANTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS BUSINE SS RECEIPTS. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION U/S 80M OF THE ACT ON THE DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTIO N. HOWEVER IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE S AME. THE TAX AUTHORITIES REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM WITH THE REASON ING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM SUCH NEW CLAIMS DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ITAT SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD CIT(A) WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT ANALYSE THE ISSUE IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. IN THE SECOND ROUND THE LD CIT(A) REJ ECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITL ED TO RAISE NEW CLAIMS IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 6.1 THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 80M IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME SINCE THE ENTIRE GROSS TOTAL INCOME ITA NO143 OF 2009 SPARTEX CEREMICS INDIA LTD NARSA PURAM PAGE 7 OF 8 GOT WIPED OUT ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED U/S 80HH AND 80I OF THE ACT. HENCE THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SPECIFICALLY CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80M OF THE ACT. HOWEVER IN THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDING THERE WAS A NECESSITY TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION AS THERE WAS INCOME EVEN AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80HH AND 80I OF T HE ACT AS PER THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDI NGLY THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO THE SAID DEDUCTION AND THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR TECHNICAL REASONS. 6.2 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THA T THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT MAKING OF NEW CLAIMS IN REASSESSMENT PROCEED ING AND ACCORDINGLY STOOD BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS IS SUE. THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTI ON U/S 80M OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION AS ITS INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT NIL FIGURE AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS U/S 80HH AND 80I OF THE ACT. NOW THE QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHETHER T HE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80M IN REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDING EVEN IF IT DID NOT RAISE THE SAID CLAIM IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDING. THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUN EN GINEERING WORKS P LTD (1992)(198 ITR 297) IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHERE IN IT WAS INTER ALIA HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM RECOMPUTATION OF THE INC OME OR REDOING OF AN ASSESSMENT AND BE ALLOWED A CLAIM WHI CH HE EITHER FAILED TO MAKE OR WHICH WAS OTHERWISE REJECT ED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS SINCE ACQUIRE D FINALITY.. THE WORDS SUCH INCOME IN SECTION 147 CLEARLY REFER TO THE INCOME WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX BUT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO RECONSI DERING GENERALLY THE CONCLUDED EARLIER ASSESSMENT. CLAIMS WHICH HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE REAGITATED ON THE ASSESSM ENT BEING REOPENED FOR BRINGING TO TAX CERTAIN INCOME W HICH HAD ITA NO143 OF 2009 SPARTEX CEREMICS INDIA LTD NARSA PURAM PAGE 8 OF 8 ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THE CONTROVERSY ON REASSESSMENT IS CONFINED TO MATTERS WHICH ARE RELEV ANT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. A MAT TER NOT AGITATED IN THE CONCLUDED ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ALSO CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE AGITATED IN THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNLESS RELATEABLE TO THE ITEM SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS ESCAPED INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS NOT SHOWN TO US THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80M IS RELATABLE TO INCOME WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR WH ICH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CII(A) IN AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80M. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE:05-07-2011 COPY TO 1 M/S SPARTEX CERAMICS INDIA LTD. NARSINGAPURAM CH ITTOOR DISTT. A.P 2 THE JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSTS)SPECIAL R ANGE GUNTUR 3 4. THE CIT TIRUPATI THE CIT(A) TIRUPATI 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM