The Jtcit R-1, Baroda v. M/S Inox India Ltd, Baroda

ITA 1830/AHD/2001 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 183020514 RSA 2001
Assessee PAN LISED1314T
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1830/AHD/2001
Duration Of Justice 15 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant The Jtcit R-1, Baroda
Respondent M/S Inox India Ltd, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 25-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 20-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 20-10-2016
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 16-08-2001
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER REVENUE BY : SHRI R.D. RATNOO SR DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI MILAN MEHTA AR / DATE OF HEARING : 20/10/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/10/2016 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ITA NO.756/AHD/2001 ITA NO.1830/AHD/2001 AND ITA NO.1063/AHD/2003 ARE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE PREFERR ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I BARODA PERTAINING TO AYS 1997-98 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.823/AHD/2003 IS THE APPEAL PR EFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 1999-2000. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVE D IN THESE APPEALS THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS C OMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. SINCE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE COMMON IN ALL THESE A PPEALS WE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE FACTS OF AY 1997-98. 3. IN THE EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGATION THE MATTER T RAVELLED UPTO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD TO CONSID ER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:- SN ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 756/AHD/2001 1997-98 JCIT (ASSTT) SPECIAL RANGE-2 BARODA INOX INDIA LTD ABS TOWER 4 TH FLOOR OLD PADRA ROAD BARODA PAN : AAAC 14416 P 2 1830/AHD/2001 1998-99 REVENUE ASSESSEE 3 823/AHD/2003 1999-00 ASSESSEE REVENUE 4 1063/AHD/2003 1999-00 REVENUE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 756 & 1830/AHD/2001 & 823 & 1063/AHD/2003 - INOX INDIA LTD AYS 1998-99 1998-99 & 1999-2000 2 (I) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN SETTING ASID E THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO TO FOR RECONS IDERATION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EN TERPRISING ENTERPRISES 293 ITR 437 WHICH HAD NO APPLICATION WHATSOEVER ? (II) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE LEASE RENT INCOME IS NOT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE SAME IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DE DUCTION U/S 80HHC AND 80IA OF THE ACT ? (III) WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN NOT APPR ECIATING THAT ONLY THE NET INCOME FROM LEASE RENT AND NOT THE GROSS RECEIP TS CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDER TAKING WHILE WORKING OUT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AND 80IA OF THE ACT? 3.1 AND THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD AS UND ER:- THOUGH THREE QUESTIONS ARE PRESENTED FOR OUR CONSI DERATION ISSUE IS ONE NAMELY THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF LEASE RENT AMOUNT FOR THE THE PURPOSE OF BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 80HHC AND 80IA OF THE ACT. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. COMING TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.4 WHI CH RELATES TO CONSIDERATION OF LEASE RENT INCOME DERIVED FROM IND USTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC AND 80IA OF THE ACT THE LD.DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER AFTER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ENTERPRISING ENTERPRISES VS. DCIT (293 ITR 437(SC) WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AFTER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNIVERSAL RADIATORS (128 ITR 531) ( MAD) AND DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CAS E OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT (2005) 95 ITD 199 (A HD.) (SB)(PARA 29). ALTERNATIVELY THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ONLY NET INTEREST SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. 7. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES RECONSI DERATION AT THE END OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ENTERPRISING ENTERPRISE (SUPRA). THEREF ORE GROUND NO.4 IS TREATED A ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 756 & 1830/AHD/2001 & 823 & 1063/AHD/2003 - INOX INDIA LTD AYS 1998-99 1998-99 & 1999-2000 3 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUN AL WHILE REMANDING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR RECONSIDERATION BY CI T(APPEALS) STATED THAT THE SAME IS DONE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF ENTERPRISING ENTERPRISES (293 ITR 437). HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE SAID DECISION HAD NO APPLICATION TO THE ISSUE ON HAND. RELIANCE O N THE SAID DECISION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REMAND BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF SUCH A DECISION WAS THEREFORE ERRONEOUS. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THAT THE TRIBUNAL EVENTUALLY HAS DONE WAS TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE CIT(APPEALS). HE HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT REFERENCE TO THE DECISION O F THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ENTERPRISING ENTERPRISES SEEMS TO BE DUE TO OVERSIGHT. HAVING THUS HEARD THE LEARNED ADVOCATES FOR THE PAR TIES AND HAVING PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN ERROR IN REMANDING THE PROCEEDINGS TO THE CIT (APPEALS). FIRSTLY THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION BY THE TRIBUNAL WH Y INSTEAD OF DECIDING THE ISSUES AT ITS LEVEL THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THAT THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE REMANDED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). SECONDLY REFERE NCE TO THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ENTERPRISING ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) WAS ALSO CLEARLY AN ERROR. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID JUDGMENT AND IT THROWS NO LIGHT ON THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE ISSUE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS REQUIRED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80HHC AND 80IA OF THE ACT TOWARDS LEASE RENT RECEIVED WAS SUSTAINABLE OR NOT AND ACCORDINGLY WHETHER THE CIT (APPEAL) HAD COMMITTED ANY ERROR OR NOT. WE DO NOT SEE HOW REMAND WAS NECESSARY SINCE IT WAS ALSO NOT THE OPINION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NECESSARY T O DECIDE THE ISSUE WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THAT THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AT THE LEVEL OF CIT (APPEALS). THAT BEING THE POSITION WE ARE INCLINED TO AND HER EBY SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ABOVE EXTENT AND RE QUEST THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON MERITS. WE CLARIFY THAT WE HAVE NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINION ON THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIONS AND THE REVENUE'S OPPOSITION TO THE SAME. REST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL R EMAINS UNALTERED. TAX APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. 4. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AT LENGTH AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF VACUUM INSUL ATED TANKS. THE PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED WERE SOLD IN THE DOMESTIC MAR KET AS WELL AS OVERSEAS MARKET. THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE F OR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S ITA NOS. 756 & 1830/AHD/2001 & 823 & 1063/AHD/2003 - INOX INDIA LTD AYS 1998-99 1998-99 & 1999-2000 4 80HHC AND 80-I OF THE ACT. THE SHORT ISSUE BEFORE U S IS TO DECIDE WHETHER LEASE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FOR THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AND WHETHER THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME CAN BE CONSIDERED AS BEING DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTR IAL UNDERTAKING. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE THE ASSESSEE IS MANUFACTURING VACUUM INSULATED TANKS WHICH ARE SOLD. DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSI DERATION THE MANUFACTURED GOODS WHICH COULD NOT BE SOLD WERE LEA SED OUT. THUS LEASING BECOMES THE INTEGRAL PART OF THE BUSINESS A CTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE GOODS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE GOODS LEASED OUT. IT IS NOT THE C ASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GOODS FROM OUTSIDE AND SUCH GOODS ARE LEASED OUT. THE LEASED OUT GOODS ARE MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY ITSELF. THEREFORE IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS QUA TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC WILL NOT BE ATTRACTIVE. FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE IT CAN BE SA FELY CONCLUDED THAT THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME CAN BE SAID TO BE DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THIS STAGE LET US SEE THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.1998 AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER:- PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 1998 SCHEDULE RUPEES 1997-98 RUPEES 1996-97 RUPEES INCOME SALES INCOME FROM OPERATIONS LEASE RENT RECEIVED OTHER INCOME DECREASE/INCREASE IN STOCK EXPENDITURE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIALS MANUFACTURING & OTHER EXPENSES LESS : CAPITALISED 13 14 TOTAL 15 16 TOTAL 82 917 295 80 825 937 163 743 232 - 219 566 658 4 103 603 10 753 596 2 862 550 (27 422 489) 209 863 918 163 743 232 210 077 661 1 197 045 10 523 827 3 003 193 14 605 897 239 407 623 112 537 162 79 352 657 191 889 819 4 331 715 ITA NOS. 756 & 1830/AHD/2001 & 823 & 1063/AHD/2003 - INOX INDIA LTD AYS 1998-99 1998-99 & 1999-2000 5 PROFIT BEFORE INTEREST & DEPRE. LESS : INTEREST PROFIT BEFORE DEPRECIATION LESS : DEPRECIATION LESS : CAPITALIZED PROFIT BEFORE TAX LESS : PROVISION FOR TAXATION PROFIT FOR THE YEAR LESS : I) EARLIER YEAR EXPENSES II) PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF ADD : BALANCE OF PROFIT BROUGHT FORWARD AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR APPROPRIATION APPROPRIATIONS: PROPOSED DIVIDEND NOTES FORMING PART OF ACCOUNT 17 5 TOTAL 18 12 474 934 -- ---- 58 747 46 120 686 16 437 990 29 682 696 12 474 934 17 207 762 1 600 000 15 607 762 58 747 15 549 015 11 334 864 26 883 879 4 338 175 433 817 5 000 000 17 111 887 26 883 879 187 558 104 51 849 59 16 868 554 34 980 965 11 512 571 97 338 11 415 233 23 565 732 3 200 000 20 365 732 9549 58 747 68 296 20 297 436 1 410 368 21 707 804 3 975 400 397 540 6 000 000 11 334 864 21 707 804 6. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT LEASE RENT RECEIVED HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME AND THE OTHER INCOME INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:- SCHEDULE -13 1997-98 1996-77 OTHER INCOME RUPEES RUPEES RUPEES 1. INTEREST FROM BANKS 459 847 703 047 FROM OTHERS 220 358 548 858 680 205 1 251 905 2. DIVIDEND 71 175 64 845 3. SCRAP SALES 1 577 669 1 686 370 4. INSURANCE / OTHER CLAIMS RECEIVED 268 789 - 5. PROFIT ON SALE OF ASSETS 264 712 - 6. MISCELLANEOUS INCOME -- 73 ---------- ------------- TOTAL 2 862 550 3 003 193 7. A PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN PROFIT AT RS.15 549 015/- WHICH IS THE SAME AS SHOWN IN ITA NOS. 756 & 1830/AHD/2001 & 823 & 1063/AHD/2003 - INOX INDIA LTD AYS 1998-99 1998-99 & 1999-2000 6 THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AS PROFIT BEFORE TAX. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDER TAKING. WE FIND THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED LEASE R ENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO TAKEN THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS & G AINS OF BUSINESS. IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS THE SAME ITEM OF RE CEIPT CANNOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY I.E. ONCE WHILE COMPUTING THE GROSS T OTAL INCOME AND SECONDLY AT THE TIME OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80-I OF THE ACT. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2995) 283 ITR 402 (GUJ.) WHEREIN INTER ALIA THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS SEIZED WITH THE FOLLOWI NG QUESTION:- 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUC TION UNDER S. 80-I OF THE IT ACT 1961 INTEREST RECEIVED FROM TRADE DEBTORS TOWARDS LATE PAYMENT OF SALES CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS THE SAME CANNOT BE STATED TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ? 8. AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 27. INSOFAR AS QUESTION NO. 2 IS CONCERNED ACCORD ING TO THE TRIBUNAL S. 80-I OF THE ACT USES THE PHRASE DERIVED FROM AND HENCE THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS TRADE DEBTORS CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING PROFITS DERIVED FROM AN INDUST RIAL UNDERTAKING. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IT IS NOT TH E CASE OF THE AO THAT THE INTEREST INCOME IS NOT ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD P ROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. IT IS ONLY WHILE COMPUTING RELIEF UNDER S. 80-I OF THE ACT THAT THE REVENUE CHANGES ITS STAND. WHEN ONE READS THE OPENI NG PORTION OF S. 80-I OF THE ACT IT IS CLEAR THAT WORDS USED ARE : 'GROSS TO TAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKING'. ONCE THIS IS THE POSITION THEN IN COMPUTING THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN AMOUN T EQUAL TO THE PRESCRIBED PERCENTAGE IS TO BE ALLOWED. THAT IN FACT THE GRO SS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED PROFITS AND GAINS FROM SUCH BUSIN ESS AND THIS IS APPARENT ON A PLAIN GLANCE AT THE COMPUTATION IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. BOTH IN RELATION TO VATVA UNIT AND MANDALI UNIT THE COMPUTA TION COMMENCES BY TAKING PROFIT AS PER STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED ALON G WITH RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE THE SAME ITEM OF RECEIPT CANNOT BE TREAT ED DIFFERENTLY : ONCE WHILE ITA NOS. 756 & 1830/AHD/2001 & 823 & 1063/AHD/2003 - INOX INDIA LTD AYS 1998-99 1998-99 & 1999-2000 7 COMPUTING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND SECONDLY AT T HE TIME OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80-I OF THE ACT. THEREFORE ON T HIS LIMITED COUNT ALONE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SUFFERS FROM A BASIC FALLACY RESULTING IN AN ERROR IN LAW AND ON FACTS. THE TRIBUNAL INSTEAD OF RECORDING FIN DINGS ON FACTS PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS LAW. THIS LITIGATION COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDE D IF THE PARTIES HAD INVITED ATTENTION TO BASIC FACTS. 9. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INTERNATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT L TD REPORTED IN (2003) 261 ITR 177 (BOM). THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT READS AS UNDER:- AS REGARDS DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM SER VICE CHARGES MAINTENANCE REVENUE AND LEASE RENT THERE WAS A DIR ECT NEXUS BETWEEN THESE RECEIPTS AND THE MAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSE SSEE. THIS WAS A FINDING OF FACT ALSO RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THERE WAS NO R EASON TO INTERFERE WITH THIS FINDING OF FACT. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEES INCOME FR OM SERVICE CHARGES MAINTENANCE REVENUE AND LEASE RENT COULD NOT BE TRE ATED AS INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WITHIN THE MEANING OF S ECTION 80-I. 10. CONSIDERING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSE SSEE QUA THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS O F THE CIT(A) FOR AY 1997- 98 1998-99 AND 1999-2000. ALL THESE APPEALS BY TH E REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS FIND INGS OF THE CIT(A) FOR AY 1999-2000 ARE SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 25/10/2016 BIJU T. PS ITA NOS. 756 & 1830/AHD/2001 & 823 & 1063/AHD/2003 - INOX INDIA LTD AYS 1998-99 1998-99 & 1999-2000 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A ) 5. $ '' / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. - / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD