DCIT, Circle - 6 Kolkata, Kolkata v. M/s. General Magnets Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2261/KOL/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 226123514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACG9196J
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 2261/KOL/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Circle - 6 Kolkata, Kolkata
Respondent M/s. General Magnets Ltd., Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 24-12-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE /AND . . !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM & HONBLE SHR I C. D. RAO AM] # # # # / I.T.A NO. 2261/KOL/2010 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS M/S. GENERA L MAGNETS LTD. CIRCLE-6 KOLKATA. (PAN AAACG 9196 J) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+ )*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S. I. BARA FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI R. SALARPURIA !- / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH JM ( ) THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-VI KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.822/CIT(A)-VI/09-10/CIR-6/KOL DATED 25.10.2010. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT CIRCLE-6 KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) AND 115WE(3) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE H IS ORDER DATED 30.11.2009. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN REVERSING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS INCOME. FOR THIS REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO. 1: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW IN TREATING THE BUSINESS INCOME FROM RENT AS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD SEVER AL GODOWNS AT BUDGE BUDGE TRUNK ROAD RAMPUR GOBINDAPUR DIST. 24 PGS. (SOUTH) UNDER MAH ESTALA MUNICIPALITY. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE THESE GODOWNS ARE GIVEN ON RENT TO VARIOU S PARTIES WHO USES THESE GODOWNS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE AND THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING RENT AL INCOME FROM THESE GODOWNS. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING CONSI DERABLE RENTAL INCOME AND THE LET OUT GODOWNS ARE USED BY TENANTS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE THEREFORE IT IS EARNING INCOME FROM GODOWNS IS BUSINESS INCOME BEING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND NOT 2 ITA 2261K/201 0 GENERAL MAGNETS LTD. A.Y. 07-08 INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDINGS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS INCOME FROM RENT AND DEALINGS IN SHARE AND SECURITIES. THE RENTAL INCOME IS EARNED BY IT ON CERTAIN GODOWN S WHICH ARE OWNED BY IT AND WHICH HAVE BEEN LET OUT TO DIFFERENT PARTIES. T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SIMPLY LET OUT THE SPACE IN THESE GODOWNS. IT IS NO T PROVIDING ANY OTHER SERVICES ALONG WITH LETTING OUT OF THE GODOWN SPACE. THIS SH OWS THAT THE GODOWNS ARE NOT LET OUT IN AN ORGANIZED WAY. THE LETTING OUT OF GODOWNS AND PROVIDING SOME MORE SERVICES ALONGWITH THAT COULD BE TREATED AS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE CASE WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN LET OUT. THEREFORE THE RENT INCOME FROM THIS PROPERTY ( GODO WNS) WILL BE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY UNDER THE I.T . ACT. IT IS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO CONCLUDE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME WILL BE TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME BECAUSE THE LET OUT GODOWNS ARE BEING USED B Y THE TENANTS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. IF THIS ARGUMENT OF THE A.O. I S ACCEPTED THEN IN A CASE WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL LETS OUT HIS HOUSE TO A BANK FO R RUNNING A BRANCH THE RENT RECEIPT WILL BE TAXABLE AS A BUSINESS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THAT INDIVIDUAL. BUT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. UNDER THE I.T. ACT THE PURPOS E FOR WHICH A PROPERTY IS USED BY THE TENANTS CANNOT DECIDE THE NATURE OF THE RENT INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE RENT INCOM E RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 4. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNE R OF VARIOUS GODOWNS WHICH ARE RENTED OUT TO VARIOUS PARTIES AS NOTED BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THIS FACT IS UNDISPUTED. ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING RENTAL INCOME AS NOTED BY ASSES SING OFFICER WHETHER TENANTS ARE USING THESE GODOWNS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OR SOME OTHER PURPOSE THE RENTAL INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME BEING PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THIS VIEW OF OUR S IS SUPPORTED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAMBHU INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS CIT (20 03) 263 ITR 143 (SC) AND CIT VS CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT LTD. (2004) 266 ITR 685(MAD) WHEREIN HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS DELIBERATED THE ISSUE EXACTLY ON SIM ILAR FACTS AS UNDER: 1. TWO QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO US AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 1986-87. THE QUESTIONS ARE : '1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE RENT RECEIPTS DERI VED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FROM LETTING OUT OF PROPERTIES SHOULD BE ASSESSED U NDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS' THEREBY ALLOWING THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR LETTING OUT THE PROPERTIES AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B FOR DISALLOWING THE DISPUTED URBAN LAND TAX IF THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER 'BUSINESS' AND THE NON-DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE COST OF SUPPLYING DRINKING WATER FROM THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY?' 3 ITA 2261K/201 0 GENERAL MAGNETS LTD. A.Y. 07-08 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INCORPORATED COMPANY. THE MAI N OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS ACQUIRING CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF MADRAS TO LET OUT SUCH PROPERTIES TO MAKE ADVANCE ON THE SECURITY OF LAND AND BUILDING AND EARN INTEREST THEREON. THE ASSESSEE RENTED OUT A PROPERT Y OWNED BY IT AND THAT RENTAL INCOME WAS CLAIMED TO BE INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THOU GH THAT STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORI TY IN EARLIER YEARS FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE RENT AL INCOME RECEIVED IS 'INCOME FROM PROPERTY' AND IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THAT HEA D AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS'. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) AGREE D WITH THE AO. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE'S CONTEN TION AND HELD THAT THE INCOME SHOULD BE TREATED AS 'BUSINESS INCOME'. 3. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTD. V. CIT WHILE CONSIDERING THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE RENTAL REALISED BY A COMPANY FORMED WITH THE OBJECT OF SETTING UP OF MAR KETS FROM THE SHOPS OWNED BY IT SHOULD BE ASSESSED OBSERVED 'INCOME DERIVE D BY THE COMPANY FROM SHOPS AND STALLS WAS INCOME RECEIVED FROM PROPERTY AND FE LL UNDER THE SPECIFIC HEAD DESCRIBED IN SECTION 9. THE CHARACTER OF THAT INCOM E WAS NOT ALTERED BECAUSE IT WAS RECEIVED BY A COMPANY FORMED WITH THE OBJECT O F DEVELOPING AND SETTING UP MARKETS.' SECTION 9 REFERRED TO THEREIN IS SECTION 9 OF THE IT ACT 1922 WHICH CORRESPONDS TO SECTION 22 OF THE IT ACT 1961. 4. A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT CONSID ERED THE CLAIM OF AN ASSESSEE WHO HAD LET OUT A BUILDING FULLY EQUIPPED AND FURNI SHED FOR THE USE AS A HOTEL THAT THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM BY WAY OF RENTAL AS ALSO FOR THE HIRE OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURES SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINES S INCOME IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROS. V. CIT . THE CONSTITUTION BENCH NEGATIVED THA T CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRED WITH APPROVAL TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTD. V. CIT (SUPRA). 5. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THO SE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA HOUSING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT. THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS FORMED WITH THE OBJECT OF ACQUIRING CERTAIN PROPERT IES IN THE CITY OF CHENNAI AND DERIVING INCOME BY LETTING THOSE PROPERTIES OUT WO ULD NOT RENDER THAT INCOME BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AND IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THAT HEAD ONLY. THE FIRST QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN F AVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS OW NING THESE GODOWNS SINCE LONG AND THE INCOME IS BEING ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY CONSISTENTLY. EVEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IS TO EARN RENTAL INCOME AND NOT TO EXPLOIT THESE PROPERTIES COMMERCIALLY FOR THE PU RPOSE OF EARNING OF PROFITS & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AN D THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAMBHU INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA ) WE HOLD THAT THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM LETTING OF GODOWNS IS INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43 500/-. FOR THIS THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2: 4 ITA 2261K/201 0 GENERAL MAGNETS LTD. A.Y. 07-08 THAT ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD . CIT(A) KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43 500/- AS PER RULE 8D AS EXPENSES RELATED TO EXEMPTED INCOME. 7. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF L D. DR THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GODREJ BOYCEE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (BOM.) WHEREAS IT WAS ARGUE D BY THE LD. DR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.43 500/- WHICH IS N OT REASONABLE AND A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ADMITTEDLY THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.43 500/- BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14 A OF THE I. T. ACT AS PER RULE 8D OF THE I. T. RULES ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION GIVEN BY HONBLE ITAT (SB) MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. THAT RULE 8D WAS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY THOUGH IT WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. 24.03.2008. IT IS SEEN THAT THIS DECISION OF HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH ITAT MUMBAI HAS BEEN REVERSED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT BY ITS ORDER DTD. 12.08.2 010 GIVEN IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCEE MFG. CO. LTD. MUMBAI. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS ORDER OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D SHALL BE APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 ONWARDS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08. THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A MADE BY THE A.O. AS PER RULE 8D WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THIS YEAR. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DIVIDEND OF RS.1 440/- EARNED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS SO SMALL THAT NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE SAID TO BE RELATED TO THE SAME. THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S. 14A. 9. THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED BY CIT(A) ARE UNDISPUTED. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.43 500/- AS PER RULE 8D AS EXPENSES RELATED TO EXEMPTED INCOME AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.43 500 /-. THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCEE MFG . CO. LTD. VS. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (BOM.) AT PAGES 138 & 139 VIDE SUB PARAS (V) TO (VI I) ARE 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 APP LY WITH EFFECT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09; (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 A SSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN I NCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. THE 5 ITA 2261K/201 0 GENERAL MAGNETS LTD. A.Y. 07-08 ASSESSING OFFICER MUST ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURN ISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MA TERIAL ON THE RECORD; (VII) THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 SHALL STAND REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A NY EXPENDITURE (DIRECT OR INDIRECT) IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME/INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS CON TEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT REASON ABLE BASIS FOR EFFECTING THE APPORTIONMENT. WHILE MAKING THAT DETE RMINATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF PRODUCING ITS ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT AND GERMANE MAT ERIAL HAVING A BEARING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 10. IN VIEW OF FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCEE MFG. CO. LTD. (S UPRA) THAT RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND PRIOR TO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN MAKE ESTIMATE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.42 630/- ON ACCOUNT OF MISC. EXP ENSES. FOR THIS THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.3: THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D. CIT(A) KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.42 630/- OF M ISC. EXPENSES. 12. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED MISC. EXPENSES OF RS.2 13 000/- BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DISALLOWED 20% OF EXPENDITURE AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE NECESSARY DETAILS. AGGRIE VED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AND EXPENSES ARE PROPERLY VOUCHED. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT AS REGARDS TO CLAIM OF MISC. EXPENSES AND HE DELETED T HE DISALLOWANCE BEING MADE ON ESTIMATE. WE FIND THAT EVEN NOW BEFORE US THE REVENUE COULD NOT ADDUCE ANYTHING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER VOUCHERS OR THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE CLAIM OF MISC. EXPENSES. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.1 457/-. FOR THIS REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.4: 6 ITA 2261K/201 0 GENERAL MAGNETS LTD. A.Y. 07-08 THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE L D. CIT(A) KOLKATA HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.1457/- WHIC H WAS NOT RELATED TO THIS PREVIOUS YEAR. 14. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE TDS CERTIFICATE ON WHICH CREDIT IS NOT ALLOWED BY ASSESSING OFFICER RELATES TO INTEREST EARNED ON SECURITY DEPOSIT KEPT WITH CESC FOR ELECTRIC CONNECTION. IT IS A FACT THAT THE INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT EVERY YEAR IS ADJUSTED BY CESC AGAINST THEIR DUES FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL AND THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLO WED IN ALL EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE DEBITED THE NET AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES PAID AFTER TA KING CREDIT OF THE INTEREST AMOUNT. THIS TDS CERTIFICATE RELATES TO INTEREST EARNED. THIS BEING THE FACT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF TDS AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.03. 2011. SD/- SD/- . . !' (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATED 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2011 ./ $01 2 JD.(SR.P.S.) !- 3 +4 5!4&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT DCIT. CIRCLE-6 KOLKATA. 2 + )* / RESPONDENT M/S. GENERAL MAGNETS LTD. 8 N. S. ROAD KOL-1 3 . -$ ( )/ THE CIT(A) KOLKATA 4. 5. -$ / CIT KOLKATA 4<= +$ / DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA 4 +/ TRUE COPY !-$>/ BY ORDER 1 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .