DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata, Kolkata v. M/s. The Diamond Co. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1625/KOL/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 162523514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACT9733G
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1625/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent M/s. The Diamond Co. Ltd., Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 16-08-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE . . ! '# '# '# '# /AND ' $# ! ) [BEFORE SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA AM & SRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM] #% #% #% #% / I.T.A NO. 1625/KOL/2010 $&' '() $&' '() $&' '() $&' '()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. THE DIAMON D CO. LTD. CIRCLE-12 KOLKATA. (PAN: AAACT 9733 G) (+ /APPELLANT ) (-.+ / RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO.142/KOL/2010 IN #% #% #% #% / I.T.A NO. 1625/KOL/2010 $&' '() $&' '() $&' '() $&' '()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE DIAMOND CO. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12 KOLKATA. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE REVENUE: SHRI D. R. SINDHAL FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI P. R. KOTHARI / / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH JM ( ' $# ' $# ' $# ' $# ! ! ! ! ) APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE A RE ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(A)- XII KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 950/XII/CIR-12/09-10 DAT ED 25.05.2010. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT CIRCLE-12 KOLKATA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 U/S. 143(3) INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.12.2009. 2. FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT BUSINESS INCOME ASSESSED BY AO IS TO BE ASSESSED AS CAPITAL GAINS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. FOR TH IS REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1.THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.1 37 33 138/- AS CAPITAL GAIN WITHOUT SHOWING ANY PROOF THAT THE BUSINESS WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LOANS 2 ITA 1625/K/2010 & CO .142/K/2010 THE DIAMOND CO LTD. A.Y.07-08 AND FINANCE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.31 36 825/- ON 29.10.2007. APART FROM DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.40 34 288/- ASSES SEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN NET SURPLUS OF RS.1 37 33 138/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/REDEMPTION OF S HARES/UNITS AS INVESTMENT GAIN. ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID NET SURPLUS AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO ALLOWE D THE ASSESSEES GROUND AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE NET SURPLUS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/REDEMPTION OF SHARES/UNITS AS CAPITAL GAINS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SUBMIS SIONS. AT THE OUTSET IT IS TO BE SAID THAT THE SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED AS THE MAIN GRO UND OF APPEAL IN A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 (APPEAL. NO. 645/XLL/DCIT CIR-12/07-08 DT. 27.02.09 AND APPEAL NO. 322/XLL/DCIT CIR-12/08-09 DATED 27.05.2009 RESPECT IVELY) IN THE APPELLANTS CASE WHERE IN ON SIMILAR FACTS I HAVE ELABORATELY DISCUS SED THIS ISSUE BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. ON DUE CONS IDERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS I FIND THAT THE SAME ISSUE IS INVOLVED. AS SUCH MY OBSERVATIONS (PARA 3.3) AND GROUND OF DECIS ION (PARA 3.4) MADE IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL ORDER FOR ASST. YR. 2005-06 HOLD G OOD FOR THIS APPEAL ALSO AS I AM INCLINED TO FOLLOW MY AFORESAID APPEAL ORDER SUBSEQ UENTLY UPHELD BY HONBLE ITAT ALSO. IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL ORDER FOR ASST. YR.2005-06 I HAVE HELD AS UNDER: IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION HELD BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS TO TREAT SHARES AS INVESTMENT AND NOT STOCK IN TRADE AS EVIDENT FROM THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS FREQ UENCY OF TRANSACTIONS PERIOD OF HOLDING ETC. WOULD NOT ALTER THE NATURE O F TRANSACTION FROM INVESTMENT TO TRADING WHEN THE INITIAL INTENTION OF THE APPELL ANT WAS TO HOLD THE SHARES UNDER INVESTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY RECORDED IN THE BO OKS. AS SUCH THE ASSETS (SHARES) CATEGORIZED UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT AR E TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSETS AND THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH ASSETS ARE TA XABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA BE NCH IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE TRADING ENTERPRISES LTD. (SUPRA) THE SHARE S WERE PURCHASED WITH AN INTENTION OF EARNING DIVIDEND IN ADDITION TO THE PR OSPECT OF MAKING PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH INVESTMENT SHARES AT AN OPPORTUNE MOME NT WITHOUT MAKING ANY HURRY FOR SALE IGNORING DIVIDEND. RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE ENT ERPRISES LTD. AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASES DISCUSSED I HOLD THE GAINS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES/UNITS SHALL BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS AS A GAINST BUSINESS INCOME ASSESSED BY THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY I DIRECT THE A.O T O TREAT THE GAINS AS CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME MY AFORESAID APPELLATE ORDER IN APPELLANTS OWN CAS E FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON THE ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF SURPLUS ON SALE/REDEMPTION OF SHARES/U NITS WAS UPHELD BY HONBLE TAT BY ITS ORDER 17.08.2009 IN ITA NO. 837/KOL/2009. THE O PERATIVE PART OF SAID ORDER OF TAT ON THE ISSUE RELATED TO GROUND NO. 1 HERE IS REPROD UCED BELOW: 15. CONSIDERING THE CASES CITED (SUPRA) AND THE FAC TS OF THE CASE BEFORE US WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE SHARES/UNITS AS IN VESTMENT AND NOT STOCK-IN-TRADE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE ABOVE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN 3 ITA 1625/K/2010 & CO .142/K/2010 THE DIAMOND CO LTD. A.Y.07-08 EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE DEPARTMENT IN THE SCR UTINY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 AND 2004-0.5 HAS ACCEPTED THE NET SURPLUS ON SALE/REDEMPTION OF SHAR ES/UNITS AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE WE AGREE WITH THE ID. CIT(A) THAT THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTION FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION PE RIOD OF HOLDING ETC. WOULD NOT ALTER THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION FROM INVESTMENT TO TRADING WHEN THE INITIAL INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO HOLD THE SHARES UN DER THE HEAD INVESTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. THEREFORE WE U PHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) THAT THE NET SURPLUS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE I S THE CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE/REDEMPTION OF THE ASSESSEES IN VESTMENT AND THE SAME IS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS B USINESS INCOME. HENCE WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) BY REJECTING TH E GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. FOLLOWING MY OWN DECISIONS IN APPEAL NO. 645/XLL/DC IT CIR-12/07-08 DT. 27.02.09 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND IN APPEAL NO. 322/XLL/DCIT/CIR.12/ 08-09 DATED 27.05.09 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AFFIRMED BY HONBLE ITATS ORDER IN TA NO. 837/KOL/2009 AND ITA NO. 1459{KOL) OF 2009 FOR A.YRS. 2005-06 & 2006-07 RESP ECTIVELY IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE I ALLOW THE APPELLANTS GROUND ON THIS ISSUE AND ACC ORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O TO TREAT THE NET SURPLUS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/REDEMPTION OF SHARES /UNITS AS CAPITAL GAINS. AGGRIEVED NOW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. SINCE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES GROUND O F APPEAL TREATING THE NET SURPLUS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE/REDEMPTION OF SHARES/UNITS AS CAPIT AL GAINS BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS ORDERS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE CITED SUPRA WE FIND NO INF IRMITY IN HIS ORDER AND UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION IS AS REGARDS TO APPLICATION OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE RULES) FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. FOR THIS REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSES SEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: REVENUES GROUND NO.2: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO RECALCULATE THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS WITHOUT REDUCTION OF ANY CURRENT LIABILITIES AND PROVISION THEREFROM WHI LE CALCULATING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RULE 8D. ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTION: 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADOPTION OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE INC OME TAX ACT 1961. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1: ALT. 1. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT9A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF RULE 8D(2)(II) BY T HE LD. A/O TO INTEREST PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.3 15 000/-. 4 ITA 1625/K/2010 & CO .142/K/2010 THE DIAMOND CO LTD. A.Y.07-08 ALT. 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN INCLUDING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF EVEN THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EXEMPTE D INCOME DURING THE YEAR WHILE COMPUTING AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF RULE 8D(2)(II) & (III). 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE. WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SHOWN A DIVIDEND OF RS.40 34 2 88/- AND NO PROPORTIONATE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME WAS ADDED BACK BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY RS.6 69 062/- WAS ADDED BACK APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE RULES. AGGR IEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO DISPOSING OF THIS GROUND OBSERVED AS UN DER: THE A.O MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6 69 062/- U/S. 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT APPLYING THE RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. THE APP ELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A WAS NOT CORRECT AND NOT REASONABLE. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THERE IS NO CO-RELATION BETWEEN QUANT UM OF DIVIDEND AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT T ENABLE. THE A.R FURTHER CONTENDED THAT RULE 8DL SHOULD BE APPLIED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO A VERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS ON WHICH DIVIDEND IS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. HONBLE MUMBA I ITAT SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. IN ITS ORDER DAT ED 20.10.2008 (ITA NO. 8057/MUM/03 ETC.) HAS UPHELD THE APPLICABILITY OF R ULE 8D OF THE I. T. RULES READ WITH SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL PENDING PR OCEEDINGS AS ON 24.03.2008 INCLUDING APPEALS. THE HONBLE TAT KOLKATA BENCH FOLLOWING T HE AFORESAID SPECIAL BENCH DECISION UPHELD THE METHOD PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D IN THE C ASE OF ACIT V. SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. (ITA NO. 1596/KOL/2008 DT. 9.1.09). IN VIEW OF THIS THE ADOPTION OF RULE 8D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT. SO FAR AS A .RS CONTENTION ABOUT CALCULATION OF AVERAGE TOTAL ASSETS FOR RULE 8D2(II) IS CONCERNED I HOLD THAT THE OPENING AND CLOSING VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS BE CALCULATED WITHOUT REDUCTI ON OF ANY CURRENT LIABILITIES & PROVISIONS THEREFROM. THE WORD IN RULE 8D(2)(II) AG AINST DENOMINATOR C IS THE AVERAGE OF TOTAL ASSETS AS APPEARING IN THE BALAN CE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE A.OS ACTION OF NET ASSETS IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW THEREFORE THE A.O IS DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE AVERAGE VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS AF TER EXAMINING THE A.RS CONTENTION. THE A.O IS ALSO DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CONSEQUENTIAL REL IEF REGARDING CALCULATION OF AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE UNDER RULE 8D(II) IN VIEW OF CHANGE IN THE CALCULATION OF AVERAGE TOTAL ASSETS. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BOTH REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE FIND THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (2010) 234 CTR 1 (MUM.) HAS ALREADY HELD T HAT APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES AS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE W.E.F. A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE DISALLOWA NCE IN CASE THERE IS A NEXUS FOR EXPENSES WITH EXEMPT INCOME BY LAYING DOWN THE PRINCIPLE AS UNDER: (V) THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RU LES WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED WITH EFFECT FROM MARCH 24 2008 SHALL APPLY WITH E FFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09; 5 ITA 1625/K/2010 & CO .142/K/2010 THE DIAMOND CO LTD. A.Y.07-08 (VI)EVEN PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHE N RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ENFORCE TH E PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 14A. FOR THAT PURPOSE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED I N RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE AC T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURNISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD; (VII) THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 SHALL STAND REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHALL DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ( DIRECT OR INDIRECT) IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME/INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH D OES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT REASONABLE BASIS FOR EFFECTING THE APPORTIONM ENT. WHILE MAKING THAT DETERMINATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF PRODUCING ITS ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT AND GERMANE MATERIAL HAVING A BEARING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ON THE SELF SAME FACTS IN THE CASE OF SAGRIKA GOODS & SERVICES PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER I.T.A NO. 1278/KOL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 5. HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CITED SUPRA. WE FIND THAT ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/ S. 14A THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT THIS DISALLO WANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 1% OF DIVIDEND INCOME. FOLLOWING THE SAME IN THIS AP PEAL ALSO WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FOR EARNING EXEMPT DIVIDEND IN COME SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 1% OF DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AC CORDINGLY DIRECTED TO DO SO AND WORK OUT THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS DIRECTED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF JURISDICTION TRIBUNAL (CITED SUPRA) WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DIS ALLOWANCE AT 1% OF EXEMPTED INCOME AS EXPENSES RELATED TO THIS INCOME. WE ORDER ACCORDIN GLY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS IN DICATED ABOVE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . . ! ' '' ' $# $# $# $# ! (S. V. MEHROTRA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 29/11/2011 6 ITA 1625/K/2010 & CO .142/K/2010 THE DIAMOND CO LTD. A.Y.07-08 ( 0 0 0 0) )) ) DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER 2011 '12 $&34 $5' JD.(SR.P.S.) / 6 -$$7 87(9- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . + / APPELLANT DCIT CIRCLE-12 KOLKATA 2 -.+ / RESPONDENT M/S. THE DIAMOND CO. LTD. 707 CENTR AL PLAZA 2/6 SARAT BOSE ROAD KOLKATA-700 020 3 . $/& ( )/ THE CIT(A) KOLKATA 4. $/& / CIT KOLKATA 5 . '$? -$& / DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA .7 -$/ TRUE COPY /&@/ BY ORDER #4 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .