The ACIT, Circle-2,, JAMNAGAR v. Birla VXL Ltd. Now known as Digjam Ltd.,, JAMNAGAR

ITA 249/RJT/2011 | 1993-1994
Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 24924914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACFB0644H
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number ITA 249/RJT/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Circle-2,, JAMNAGAR
Respondent Birla VXL Ltd. Now known as Digjam Ltd.,, JAMNAGAR
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 04-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 01-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 01-11-2011
Assessment Year 1993-1994
Appeal Filed On 30-05-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA (JM) AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT ( AM) I.T.A. NO.247/RJT/2011 - AY 1991-92 I.T.A. NO.248/RJT/2011 - AY 1992-93 I.T.A. NO.249/RJT/2011 - AY 1993-94 ACIT CIR.2 VS BIRLA VXL LTD JAMNAGAR AERODROME ROAD JAMNAGAR PAN : AACFB0644H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 01-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-11-2011 APPELLANT BY : SHRI SL MEENA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJAY SHAH O R D E R PER T.K. SHARMA (JM) THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 28-03-2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) JAMNAGAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-92 1992-93 AND 1993-94. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE TH REE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IS WHETHER THE SALES-TAX EXEMPTION OF RS.3 09 40 235 FOR AY 1991-92; RS.5 66 12 692 FOR AY 1992-93; AND RS. 2 83 05 017 FOR AY 1993-94 GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT OR A REVENUE RECEIPT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS GOVERNING THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS OF SALES-TAX WHICH HAS BEEN INCLUD ED IN THE SALES FIGURE FOR ITA NOS.247 248 & 249/RJT/2011 2 THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAD BEEN GRANTED EXEMPTION BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER ITS INDUSTRIAL POLICY FOR ENCOURAG ING DEVELOPMENT EXPANSION AND MODERNIZATION OF INDUSTRIES IN BACKWARD AREAS O F GUJARAT STATE TO BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE EXC LUDED FROM INCOME. THE MATTER TRAVELLED UPTO THE TRIBUNAL . THE TRIBUNAL RESTORE D THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD REPORT ED IN 88 ITD 273 (MUM). IN THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED DE NOVO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REPEATED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THE SAME AS A REVENUE RECEIPT / TRADING REC EIPT AND NOT A CAPITAL RECEIPT AS ACCORDING TO HIM THE EXEMPTIONS WERE GRANTED IN THE LATER YEAS OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT AND NOT MEANT FOR THE SETTING UP OF T HE UNITS. 4. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITA T RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD (ITA NO.793/RJ T/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFF ICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SALES-TAX EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LATER YEARS OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT AND THEREFORE NOT MEANT FOR THE SETTI NG UP OF THE UNITS. AS SUCH HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER ITS INDUSTRIAL POLICY FOR ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT EXPANSION AND MODERNIZATION ITA NOS.247 248 & 249/RJT/2011 3 OF INDUSTRIES IN BACKWARD AREAS OF GUJARAT STATE AN D THEREFORE THE EXEMPTION GRANTED IS IN THE REVENUE FIELD. HE PRAYED THAT TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTOR ED. 6. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE SALES-TAX EXEMPTION GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS CAPITAL RECEI PT NOT LIABLE TO TAX SINCE THE SAME WAS RECEIVED UNDER THE INCENTIVE SCHEME OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT WITH THE OBJECT OF ENCOURAGING THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF INDUSTRIES IN BACKWARD AREAS. THE ITAT HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITAT MUMBAI SPE CIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS RIL 88 ITD 273 (MUM). THE MAIN PLANK OF DI FFERENCE OF OPINION MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE SCH EME OF GUJARAT GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE THE FEATURES AS THAT OF THE SCHEME BRO UGHT OUT BY THE MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PONNI SUGARS & CHEMICA LS LTD 306 ITR 392 WAS ALSO NOT GIVEN DUE CREDENCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT UN DER IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS IN THE CASE OF AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD ITA NO.793/RJT /2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 23-09-2010 THE ITAT RAJKO T BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM OTHER DECISIONS THE LD.AR HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ABOVE ORDER OF ITAT AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD. ITA NOS.247 248 & 249/RJT/2011 4 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITS INDUSTRIAL UNIT WITH HUGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE KUTCH REGION WHICH WAS BADLY AFFECTED BY THE EARTHQUAKE. THE PR OJECT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PUTTING UP INDUSTRIAL UNIT IN THE EARTHQUAKE AFFECT ED AREA HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING EXEMPTION UNDER THE RELEVAN T NOTIFICATIONS FOR SCHEMES OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE WAKE OF EARTHQUAKE. THE SCHEMES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT BY GIVING THE INCENTIVES IS TO PROMOTE INVESTMENT O F CAPITAL AND THEREBY FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO GENERATE EMPLOYMENT I N THE KUTCH DISTRICT WHICH WAS AFFECTED BY EARTHQUAKE. THUS ON APPLICATION OF THE PURPOSE TEST IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INCENTIVE SCHEMES IS NOT TO ASSIST IN THE CARRYING ON OF THE ASSESSEES TRADE OR BUSINESS. THE PURPOSE I S CLEARLY FOR PROMOTING CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND THEREBY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TH E EARTHQUAKE AFFECTED DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE IS TO GENERATE EMPLOYMENT IN THE SAID D ISTRICT. WE FIND THAT UNDER IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS THE ITAT RAJKOT BENCH IN T HE CASE OF AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD ITA NO.793/RJT/2010 ORDER DATED 23-09-2010 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 17. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAHNE Y STEEL AND PONNY SUGAR HAS LAID DOWN THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE CH ARACTER OF THE SUBSIDY WHETHER REVENUE OR CAPITAL IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT WILL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY HAVING REGARD TO THE PURPO SE OR WHICH SUBSIDY IS GIVEN. THUS THE SAID DECISION THOUGH R ELIED BY THE REVENUE ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . ITA NOS.247 248 & 249/RJT/2011 5 18. THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS IN PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMISSIB LE MEANING THEREBY THAT THE CLAIM THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE CAPITA L IN NATURE IS A CORRECT CLAIM. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS PROCEEDED TO R EJECT THE CLAIM WHICH IS OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE ON THE TECHNICAL GROU ND. ON PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE US WE FIND TH AT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT TAKEN THIS PARTICULAR GROUND. EV EN OTHERWISE AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN KOSHTIS C ASE (276 ITR 165 (GUJ) THE A.O. EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO COMPUTE TOTAL INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ANY RECEIPT WHICH IS CAPITAL IN NATURE C ANNOT FORM PART OF THE ASSESSED INCOME. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS BY REASON OF LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR GUIDANCE NOT EXCLUDED CAPITAL RECEIPT FROM THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE DONE SO. THE FACTS BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPRME COURT IN GOETZE (IN DIA) LTD (284 ITR 323) WERE IN RESPECT OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION. I N THE CASE BEFORE US THE ISSUE IS NOT FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. WE ALS O FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE FACTS AS REGARDS RECEIPT OF INCENT IVES OF SALES TAX AND EXCISE DUTY WERE CLEARLY SPELT OUT IN PARA 6 OF THE SCHEDULE S FORMING PART OF THE AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS WHICH I S REPRODUCED ON PAGE 7 & 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE NOTE CONTAINS TH E RELEVANT FACTS. THUS IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE FACTS WERE NOT AVAILABL E ON RECORD. THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE NATURE OF THE INCEN TIVES EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLAIM. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT MAK ING OF CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT THROUGH A RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT FATAL ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 19. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING ON THE FIRST DAY ONE OF US HAD POINTED OUT TO THE LD.A.R. THAT THE ITAT AHMEDABAD CAMPING AT BARODA HAS DECIDED ISSUE AS REGARD NATURE OF INCENT IVES. THE LD.A.R. OBTAINED THE DECISION THROUGH PROFESSIONAL CONTACTS AND DEALT WITH IT IN THE COURSE OF SECOND HEARING. THE DECISION DTD 24- 3-2010 IS IN THE CASE OF M/S ZINCOLLIED (INDIA) (I TRA NO.999 2467 & 3426 OF 2008). THE LD.A.R. DISTINGUISHED THE FAC TS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AHMEDABAD BENCH AND THE FACTS IN THE CAS E BEFORE US. THE RELEVANT SCHEME IN THE AFORESAID CASE WAS SCHEM E NOTIFIED BY GOVERNMENT OF GOA DAMAN & DIU DTD. 23-4-1987. WHI LE HOLDING THAT THE SALES TAX INCENTIVE UNDER THE AFORESAID SC HEME IS REVENUE RECEIPT THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THE SCHEME EXEMPTS SMALL SCALE MEDIUM SCALE OR LARGE S CALE UNITS FOR 15 YEARS 10 YEARS & 5 YEARS RESPECTIVELY. THE BEN CH HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SCHEME NO WHERE REFERS TO THE DEVELO PMENT OF ANY SPECIFIC AREA NOR IT RELATES TO ANY CAPITAL COST. 20. THE LD.A.R. BASED ON THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE S OF THE SCHEME INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE ITAT AHMEDABAD SUBMITTED ITA NOS.247 248 & 249/RJT/2011 6 THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THIS BENCH AND MO RE PARTICULARS THE SCHEME INVOLVED ARE DIFFERENT. THE SCHEMES SPEC IFICALLY REFERS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF KUTCH REGION AND THE QUANTUM OF INCENTIVE IS BASED ON THE COST OF PLANT & MACHINERY I.E. INVE STMENT OF CAPITAL. THE SCHEME ALSO REFERS TO GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT IN KUTCH REGION AS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES. HE ALSO POINTED O UT THAT IN THE SCHEME OF GOA DAMAN & DIU THE SMALL SCALE UNIT (OB VIOUSLY WITH LOWER CAPITAL INVESTMENT) AVAILS BENEFIT FOR 15 YEA RS AND MEDIUM SCALE UNIT (OBVIOUSLY WITH HIGHER CAPITAL INVESTMEN T AS COMPARED TO SMALL SCALE UNIT AND LOWER INVESTMENT AS COMPARED T O LARGE SCALE UNIT) AVAILS BENEFIT ONLY FOR 5 YEARS. IN OTHER WO RDS THE INCENTIVE IS NOT ONLY DE HORSE THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT BUT IS IN INVERSE PROPORTION. 21. WE FIND THAT THE PROPOSITIONS MADE BY THE LD.A. R. ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE SC HEME OF INCENTIVE AND BY THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US. EV EN THE DECISION OF SAHNEY STEEL CITED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US EFFE CTIVELY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE WERE ALSO INFORMED BY THE LD.A.R. SHRI MAHESH S ARDA BY SUBMITTING COPY OF THE DECISION DTD 15-4-2009 OF HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY BY WHICH THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HA S AFFIRMED THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. OUR SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 4 OF THE ORDER. SO FAR AS QUESTION (B) IS CONCERNED THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH J (SPECIAL BENCH) DECI SION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF IN DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. = (2003 TIOL 14 ITAT MUM SB) WE MAY GAINFULLY REPRODUCE THE FOL LOWING PORTION: THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA IN 1979 AND FORMULATED BY ITS RESOLUTION DTD. 5-1-1980 HAS BEEN ANALYSED IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDE R IN RIL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1985-86 WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO IN EXTENSOR. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE SCH EME THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRUST OF THE SCHEME IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BECOME ENTITLED F OR THE SALES TAX INCENTIVE EVEN BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRODUCTION WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE OBJECT OF THE IN CENTIVE IS TO FUND A PART OF THE COST OF THE SETTING UP OF THE FA CTORY IN THE NOTIFIED BACKWARD AREA. THE TRIBUNAL HAS AT MORE T HAN ONE PLACE STATED THAT THE THRUST OF THE MAHARASHTRA SC HEME WAS THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BACKWARD DISTRICT S AS WELL ITA NOS.247 248 & 249/RJT/2011 7 AS GENERATION OF EMPLOYMENT THUS ESTABLISHING A DIR ECT NEXUS WITH THE INVESTMENT IN THE FIXED CAPITAL ASSE TS. IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL U NIT TO CLAIM ELIGIBILITY FOR THE INCENTIVE AROSE EVEN WHILE THE INDUSTRY WAS IN PROCESS OF BEING SET UP. ACCORDING TO THE TRIBU NAL THE SCHEME WAS ORIENTED TOWARDS AND WAS SUBSERVIENT TO THE INVESTMENT IN FIXED CAPITAL ASSETS. THE SALES TAX INCENTIVE WAS ENVISAGED ONLY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CASH DISBURSEMENT AND BY ITS VERY NATURE WAS TO BE AVAIL ABLE ONLY AFTER PRODUCTION COMMENCED. THUS IN EFFECT IT WA S HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SUBSIDY IN THE FORM OF SALES TAX INCENTIVE WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSISTI NG IT IN CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THE OBJECT O F THE SUBSIDY WAS TO ENCOURAGE THE SETTING UP OF INDUSTRI ES IN THE BACKWARD AREA. THUS IT CAN CLEARLY BE SEEN THAT A FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SUBSIDY WAS TO ENCOURAGE TH E SETTING UP OF INDUSTRIES IN THE BACKWARD AREA BY GENERATING EMPLOYMENT THEREIN. IN OUR OPINION IN ANSWERING T HE ISSUE THE TEST AS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. PONNI SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD (20 08) 306 ITR (SC) = (2008) TIOL 174 SC IT) WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TEST OF THE CHARACTER OF THE RECEIPT OF A SUBSIDY IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER A SCHEME HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH R ESPECT TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SUBSIDY IS GRANTED. TH E COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN SUCH CASES WHAT TO BE APP LIED IS THE PURPOSE TEST. THE POINT OF TIME AT WHICH THE SUBSID Y IS PAID IS NOT RELEVANT. THE SOURCE IS IMMATERIAL. FORM OF SU BSIDY IS MATERIAL. COURT THEN PROCEEDED TO OBSERVE AS UNDER : THE MAIN ELIGIBILITY CONDITION IN THE SCHEME WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE INCENTIVE MU ST BE UTILIZED FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE TO SET UP NEW UNITS O FOR SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF EXISTIN G UNITS. ON THIS ASPECT THERE IS NO DISPUTE. IF THE OBJECT OF THE SUBSIDY SCHEME WAS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO RUN TH E BUSINESS MORE PROFITABLY THEN THE RECEIPT IS ON REV ENUE ACCOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE OBJECT OF THE A SSISTANCE UNDER THE SUBSIDY SCHEME WAS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO SET UNIT OR TO EXPAND THE EXISTING UNIT THEN THE RE CEIPT OF THE SUBSIDY WAS IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THEREFORE LET US APPLY THE PURPOSE TEST BASED ON T HE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH. THE OBJECT OF THE ITA NOS.247 248 & 249/RJT/2011 8 SUBSIDY WAS TO SET UP A NEW UNIT IN A BACKWARD AREA TO GENERATE EMPLOYMENT. IN OUR OPINION THE SUBSIDY I S CLEARLY ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER QU ESTION (D) AS FRAMED WOULD ALSO NOT ARISE. 22. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AND IN VIEW OF THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US WE UPHOLD THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) BY WHICH THE RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AJANTA MANUFACTURING LTD (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE RECEIPT IN QUESTION IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04-11-2011. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAJKOT DT : 04 TH NOVEMBER 2011 PK/- COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. THE CIT(A) JAMNAGAR 4. THE CIT JAMNAGAR 5. THE DR I.T.A.T. RAJKOT (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT