ICI India Ltd.,, Kolkata v. Addl. CIT, Range - 10,, Kolkata

ITA 1780/KOL/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 178023514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACI6297A
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1780/KOL/2009
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant ICI India Ltd.,, Kolkata
Respondent Addl. CIT, Range - 10,, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 25-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 04-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 04-08-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 23-10-2009
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH KOLKATA CORAM : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 ICI INDIA LIMITED ................................. ...........................APPELLANT 8B MIDDLETON STREET KOLKATA-700 071 [PAN : AAACI 6297 A] -VS.- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ............. ......RESPONDENT RANGE-10 P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA-700 069 & I.T.A. NO.: 1805/KOL./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ................. .............APPELLANT CIRCLE-10 KOLKATA P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA-700 069 -VS._ ICI INDIA LIMITED ................................. ..................................RESPONDENT 8B MIDDLETON STREET KOLKATA-700 071 [PAN : AAACI 6297 A] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI R.N. BAJORIA ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE MD. GAYASUDDIN ANSARI JCIT SR. D.R FOR THE DEPAR TMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 24 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 25 2014 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEROGE : 1. THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVE NUE RESPECTIVELY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. BOTH ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST AN ORDER DATED 21.07.2009 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-XII KOLKATA. I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 2 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR DISP OSAL. IN ADDITION TO THE FOUR GROUNDS TAKEN ORIGINALLY ASSESSEE HAS ALS O FILED TWO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS NUMBERED AS 5 & 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 5 WAS FOR CORRECTING A DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 88 64 645/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NEEDS TO BE ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS.- CIT & ANOTHER [1991] 187 ITR 688 AND NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS.- CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383. AS PER THE LD. A.R. GROUND NO. 6 ON LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234B 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT WAS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. LD. D.R. DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS ON THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. 3. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION AND ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISPOSED OF AS UNDER. 4. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAIL A DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 5. ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.5 83 2 2 360/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5 26 05 000/-. LD . CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD SUCH DISALLOWANCE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS.- DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (P) LTD. 117 ITD 169. 6. NOW BEFORE US LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE I MPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MUMBA I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS.- DCIT [20 10] 328 ITR 81 (BOM.) RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE. I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 3 7. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THIS TRI BUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE AND WHAT CAN BE DISALLOWE D UNDER SECTION 14A IS ONLY 1% OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND. ACCORDINGLY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A TO 1% OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. RESULTANTLY GROUNDS NO. 1 T O 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. VIDE ITS GROUND NO. 4 GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE WEIG HTED DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 35(1)(II) OF THE ACT FOR CON TRIBUTIONS MADE FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. 10. LD. A.R. FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT REQUIRED APPROVAL OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTION TO WHICH THE CONTRIBUTIONS WER E GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED. LD. COUNSEL ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26.11.2010 IN ITA NOS. 1620/KOL/2008 AND 1721/KOL/2008. ACCORDINGLY G ROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE FIRST ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A GRIEVANCE THAT DISALLOWANCE FOR PAYMENTS T O VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME WAS DONE TWICE. 12. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RECTIFICATION PETITION UNDER SECTION 154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CORRECTING THE ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHEREBY THE I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 4 DISALLOWANCE OF VRS EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 88 04 645/- WAS MADE TWICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD. D.R. DID NOT RAISE ANY S ERIOUS OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH SO THAT DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE IS AVOIDED. ACCORDINGLY WE REMIT THE ISSUE REGARDING DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF VRS EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 88 04 645/- BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERA TION AFRESH. IF THE CLAIM IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. A CCORDINGLY ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. SECOND ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ON LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234B 234C AND 234D. THIS BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NA TURE DOES NOT NEED ANY ADJUDICATION. 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. DE PARTMENT HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL OF WHICH GROUND N O. 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDING NO ADJUDICATION. 16. IN ITS GROUND NO. 1 GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS.1 88 64 645/ - MADE AGAINST A CLAIM FOR COST OF BUSINESS REORGANIZATION BROUGHT F ORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05. 17. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 35DDA O F THE ACT BASED ON SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE FOR EARLIER YEARS. LD. D. R. SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND LD . CIT(APPEALS) FELL IN ERROR IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 5 18. PER CONTRA LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS UNDER VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHE ME AND SUCH PAYMENTS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 35DDA WAS ALLOWED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 VIDE I TA NO. 448/KOL/2005 DATED 21.04.2005. AS PER LD. A.R. SIMILAR CLAIM WA S ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS DONE FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS VIZ. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 20 04-05 2006-07 2007-08 AND 2008-09. COPIES OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PLACED AT PAPER BOO K PAGES 1-6 32-39 49-56 63-74 83 88 AND 94-101 RESPECTIVELY IN SU PPORT. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE EARLI ER ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF VRS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 35DDA WAS ALLOWED IN THE EAR LIER YEARS. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING SUCH CLAIM. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEA LS). GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 20. VIDE ITS GROUND NO. 2 GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.2 47 00 000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREBY DELETING A DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE PREMISE THAT WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF BLOCK OF ASSETS WAS REDUCED TO ZERO. 21. ASSESSEE HAS SOLD SEVERAL OF ITS BUSINESS UNDER TAKINGS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND CLAIMED CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS THER EON. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATIO N IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR A PROPERTY CALLED WOODLANDS PR OPERTIES BUT THE VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS WHICH COMPRISED OF TH E SAID ASSET WAS NIL. SALE OF THE ASSET WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 50 OF I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 6 THE ACT AND RESULTANTLY WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS WAS REDUCED TO NIL. AS PER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WH AT COULD BE ALLOWED AGAINST CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.20 48 63 373/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.18 01 63 373/-. THOUGH THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ISSUE HAD NOT REACHED FINALITY IN EARLIER YEARS HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 47 00 000/-. 22. LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE DELETED SUCH DISALLOWANCE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. NOW BEFORE US LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE WRITTEN DOWN V ALUE WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO NIL DEPRECIATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE. 23. PER CONTRA LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE URGED THAT THE ISSUE STOOD COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE DECI SION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 1997- 98 IN ITA NO. 900/KOL/2003 AND ITA NO. 832/KOL/2004 DATED 27.07.2007. LD. COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN ITA NO. 1620/KOL/2008 AN D 1721/KOL/2008 ORDER DATED 26.11.2010) HAD DISMISSED SIMILAR GROUN D TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 24. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE CITED ORDERS. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY DECIDED BY THE COOR DINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL H AD HELD THAT SALE CONSIDERATION COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 50 AND BLOCK OF ASSETS COULD NOT BE REDUCED TO NIL. CONSIDERING THI S VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND 2004-05 W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL OF REVENUE STANDS DISMIS SED. I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 7 25. VIDE ITS GROUND NO. 3 GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT COMPOSITE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND AN D BUILDING WAS BIFURCATED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) INTO LAND AND BUILDI NG SEPARATELY FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. 26. ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT WA S OF THE OPINION THAT COMPOSITE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND AN D BUILDING COULD NOT BE BIFURCATED. HOWEVER LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON ASSESSE ES APPEAL HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF BIFURCATED THE SALE PRICE BETWE EN LAND AND BUILDING AND REDUCED THE SALE CONSIDERATION PERTAINING TO BU ILDING PORTION FROM THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF BLOCK OF ASSETS. AS PER L D. CIT(APPEALS) SALE CONSIDERATION APPORTIONED TO LAND WAS APPROPRIATELY SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS WHICH DUE TO INDEXATION RESUL TED IN A CAPITAL LOSS. AS PER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ENTIRE VALUE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 50 AND THE AMOUNT HAD TO BE BIFURCATED BETW EEN LAND AND BUILDING. 27. NOW BEFORE US LD. D.R. STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT SUCH BIFURCATION WAS NO T APPROPRIATE. PER CONTRA LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE HAD COM E UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN ITA NO. 1018/KOL/2007 AND 851/KOL/2007 AS WELL AS FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001- 02 IN ITA NO. 1460/KOL/2008 AND WAS DECIDED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. COPIES OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2012 OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE ABOVE CASES WERE PLACED ON RECORD. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 20 THER EOF :- 20. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICA L FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT NO DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED FOR EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS UNDER S ECTION 50 IS INCORRECT. NO MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONT ROVERT I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 8 THIS FINDING. IN ANY CASE AS HELD BY HONBLE MADRA S HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS.- RANKA FOOD LTD. (2 77 ITR 261) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 CAN ONLY BE APPL IED WHEN ONLY DEPRECIABLE ASSETS AND NOTHING MORE ARE TRANS FERRED. THAT ADMITTEDLY IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBJECTION WAS PRIMARILY ON THE QUANTUM OF CONSIDERA TION BEING ATTRIBUTED TO LAND AND BUILDING RATHER THAN THE PRINCIPLE THAT SALE CONSIDERATION IS TO BE BIFURCAT ED BETWEEN CONSIDERATION FOR LAND AND CONSIDERATION FOR BUILDI NG. THIS PRINCIPLE OF BIFURCATING THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS UPHELD BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS.- ESTATE OF OMPRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA (254 ITR 152) AND BY HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS .- VIMAL CHANDRA GOLCHA (201 ITR 442). AS REGARDS THE QUESTI ON OF QUANTUM OF SUCH PORTIONS OF CONSIDERATION LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HI MSELF AND IT IS TO BE DONE ON A BASIS WHICH IS A FOUND AND R EASONABLE BASIS. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE REVE NUE. 29. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DIS MISSED. 30. TO SUMMARIZE THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THAT OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH DAY OF APRIL 2014. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR SINGH ABRAHAM P. GEORGE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACC OUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA THE 25 TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 I.T.A. NO.: 1780/KOL./20 09 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 & ITA NO. 1805/KOL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-200 6 PAGE 1 TO 9 9 COPIES TO : (1) ICI INDIA LIMITED 8B MIDDLETON STREET KOLKATA-700 071 (2) DEPUTY/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-10 P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA-700 069 (3) CIT(APPEALS) (4) CIT (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.