The ITO,TDS-1,, Ahmedabad v. The Cadila Healthcare Ltd.,, Ahmedabad

ITA 3239/AHD/2009 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 323920514 RSA 2009
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3239/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant The ITO,TDS-1,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Cadila Healthcare Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 25-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 25-07-2011
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 03-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A' BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM & SHRI A N PAHUJA AM ITA NOS.3239 & 3240/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS:-2008-09 & 2009-10) INCOME-TAX OFFICER TDS-1 AHMEDABAD V/S M/S CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. ZYDUS TOWER OPP. ISKON TEMPLE SATELLITE CROSS ROAD AHMEDABAD TAN: AHMC00020G [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] REVENUE BY :- SHRI S K MEENA DR ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI MUKESH M PATEL AR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 07-08-2009 OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-X AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-1 0 RAISE THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS:- [1] THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS OF TH E CASE IN DELETING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 201(1) & INTEREST CHARGED U/S 201(1A ) OF THE I T ACT OF RS.31 58 922/- & RS.6 72 566/- RESPECTIVELY FOR A Y 2008-09 AND RS.7 81 299/- & RS.1 66 346/- RESPECTIVELY FOR THE A Y 2009-10 BY THE AO. [2] ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. [3] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GRO UND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. [4] IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EFFECT. 2. ADVERTING FIRST TO COMMON GROUND NO.1 IN THESE T WO APPEALS FACTS IN BRIEF AS PER RELEVANT ORDERS ARE THAT A SURVEY WAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE PREMISES OF M/S CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. ON 08-07- 2008 WHEN IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID RS. 1 01 90 400/- IN 2 ITA NOS.3239 & 3240/AHD/2009 FY 2007-08 AND RS.25 20 400/- IN FY 2008-09 TO SODE XO PASS SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.[SODEXO IN SHORT] FOR P URCHASE OF SODEXO LUNCH COUPONS FOR USE BY THEIR EMPLOYEES. THE ITO-T DS-1 [AO IN SHORT] WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE PAYMENTS THE COUPONS HAVING BEEN PROVIDED TO THE EMPLOYEES BY WAY OF PERQUISITES IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]. TO A QUERY BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE REPL IED THAT SODEXO LUNCH COUPONS GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT IN TH E NATURE OF PERQUISITES AS PROVIDED U/S 17(2) OF THE ACT AND FE LL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115WB OF THE ACT DEAL ING WITH FRINGE BENEFITS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2005 THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RULE 3( 7)(III) OF THE IT RULES 1962 RELATING TO VALUATION OF PERQUISITES IN THE NATURE OF PROVISION OF FOOD VOUCHERS TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY WERE DELETED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF FRINGE BENEFITS TAX[FBT]. CONSEQUENTLY ALL ITEMS WHICH WERE BROUGH T WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE LEVY OF FBT WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEF INITION OF PERQUISITE U/S 17(2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER E XPLAINED THAT IN TERMS OF STIPULATIONS OF SECTION 115WB(2)(B) PROVI SION OF HOSPITALITY OF EVERY KIND BY THE EMPLOYER TO ANY PERSON BY WAY OF PROVISION OF FOOD OR BEVERAGES OR ANY OTHER MANNER WAS MADE LIA BLE TO FBT. HOWEVER THE FOLLOWING TWO EXCEPTIONS WERE MADE: (I) ANY EXPENDITURE ON OR PAYMENT FOR FOOD OR BEVE RAGES PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER TO HIS EMPLOYEES IN OFFICE OR FACTORY; (II) AN EXPENDITURE ON OR PAYMENT THROUGH FOOD VOU CHERS WHICH ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE AND USABLE ONLY AT EATIN G JOINTS OR OUTLETS. SINCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FELL UNDER THE AFOR ESAID EXCEPTION (II) THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF FBT WERE NOT ATTRA CTED IN RESPECT OF PROVISION OF COUPONS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. WHILE REFE RRING TO QUESTION 3 ITA NOS.3239 & 3240/AHD/2009 NO.53 OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.8/2005 DATED 29-08-2005 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SODEXO LUNCH COUPONS GIVEN TO EMPLOY EES BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY COULD NEITHER BE TAXED IN THE HAND S OF THE EMPLOYEES AS A PERQUISITE NOR IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE- COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FBT. ACCORDINGLY THE AS SESSEE PLEADED THAT NO DEMAND U/S 201(1)CAN BE RAISED NOR INTEREST U/S 201(1A) CAN BE LEVIED. HOWEVER THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THESE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT ON WHICH FB T HAD NOT BEEN PAID WAS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS PERQUISITE AND FORMED PART OF THE SALARY. MOREOVER THESE COUPONS WERE NOT MERELY USA BLE AT EATING JOINTS OR OUTLETS AND COULD BE EXCHANGED AGAINST AN Y PURCHASE IN DEPARTMENTAL STORES AND THUS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN AFORESAID EXCEPTION(II).THE REFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN TE RMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 192 OF THE ACT THE AO CONCLUDED. ACCORD INGLY DEMAND OF RS.31 58 922/- U/S 201(1) FOR FY 2007-08 AND RS.7 8 1 299/- FOR FY 2008-09 WAS RAISED BESIDES LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201 (1A) OF RS.6 72 566/- FOR FY 2007-08 AND RS.1 66 346/- FOR THE FY 2008-09. 3 ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FY 2007-08 IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: - 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ID. A.R CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O HAS HELD THA T THE SODEXHO LUNCH COUPONS FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC. 17(2) THEREFORE R EQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PERQUISITE I.E. INCLUDIBLE IN THE AMOUNT O F SALARY OF THE RECIPIENTS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. HE FURTHER CONCLUDE D THAT SINCE VALUE OF THESE COUPONS WAS PART OF SALARY THE APPELLANT WAS REQUI RED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH AMOUNT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 192 OF THE ACT 5.1 THEREFORE IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE TAXABILITY O F IMPUGNED AMOUNT AS PERQUISITE IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE SODEXHO LUNCH COUPONS ARE COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF PERQUISITE AS ENVISAGED U/S 17(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 17(2) IS REQUIRED WHICH LAYS AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF 'PERQUISITE'. CLAUSE (VI) O F SEC. 17(2) LAYS THAT THE VALUE OF OTHER FRINGE BENEFIT OF AMENITY (EXCLUDIN G FRINGE BENEFIT CHARGEABLE TO TAX) WOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF PERQUISITE. 4 ITA NOS.3239 & 3240/AHD/2009 5.2 FURTHER W.E.F. 1.4.2005 THE PROVISION OF RULE 3(7 )(III) RELATING TO VALUATION OF ANY PERQUISITE IN THE NATURE OF PROVISION OF FOOD WERE DELETED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 115WB RELATING TO FRINGE BENEFIT TAX. THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO FBT W ERE INSERTED IN THE ACT THROUGH THE FINANCE ACT 2005 AND WERE MADE EFFECT IVE FROM A.Y 2006- 07. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT ALL THE ITEMS WHICH WERE BROUGH T WITHIN THE AMBIT OF FBT WERE BROUGHT OUT FROM THE SCOPE OF PERQUISITE U/S 17(2) OF THE ACT. 5.3 THE EXCLUSION OF FOOD VOUCHERS FROM RULE 3(7)(VII) OF IT RULES AND INSERTION THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSES OF FBT CLEARLY SHOWS TH E INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION TO KEEP SUCH EXPENDITURE OF THE COMPANIES W ITHIN THE AMBIT OF FBT ONLY. HOWEVER AS PER CLAUSE 115WB(2)(B)(II) THE FBT IS NOT PAYABLE ON THE EXPENDITURE ON PAYMENT THROUGH PAID VOUCHERS WHI CH ARE NOT TRANSFERRABLE AND USABLE ONLY AT EATING JOINTS OR OUTL ETS. 4 THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE A.O'S OBSERVATIONS THAT SINCE THE SODEXHO LUNCH COUPONS HAVE MIGHT BEEN MISUSED BY THE E MPLOYEES THEY ARE NOT COVERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 115W B(2)(B)(II) ARE NOT BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF LAW. THE A.O WHIL E DECIDING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY IN STANCE OF MISUSE OF SUCH VOUCHERS BY THE RECIPIENT EMPLOYEES OF THE APPELLANT CO MPANY DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY TH E A.O IS BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT (TDS) V/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 308 ITR 82 HAS HELD THAT FOR POSSIBLE M ISUSE OF SUCH TYPE OF COUPONS THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE AS TO WARRA NT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DECISION ARE AS U NDER : 'ADMITTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS AN ACCEPTED P OSITION BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD DISTRIBUTE D SUCH MEAL COUPONS PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH ACCOR AND SUCH COUPON S WERE TO BE USED BY THE EMPLOYEES ONLY 'AT THE SPECIFIED EATING JOIN TS INCLUDING CANTEEN AT THE HAJIRA PREMISES OF' THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE SU CH COUPONS WERE NOT TRANSFERABLE AND THE VALUE OF EACH COUPON DID NOT E XCEED THE SPECIFIED MONETARY LIMIT. IN THIS CONTEXT BOTH THE COMMISSION ER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVE CONCURRENTLY FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF T HE PROVISIONS AND NO DEFAULT COULD BE ASCRIBED TO THE ASSESSEE MERELY BE CAUSE SOME EMPLOYEES MISUSED THE FACILITY PROVIDED. LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE A PPELLANT HAD CONTENDED IN THIS CONTEXT THAT FOR THE FIRST PERIOD NAMELY APRIL 2003 TO NOVEMBER 2003 THE INQUIRIES HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN ON SEPTEMBER 25 2003 AND THEREFORE EVEN IF THE FINDINGS OF THE APPE LLATE AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED BONA FIDE WERE TO BE ACCEPTE D YET FOR THE SECOND PERIOD COVERING DECEMBER 2003 TO MARCH 2004 THE ASS ESSEE BECAME LIABLE AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT THEREAFTER CLAIM A NY BONA FIDES. 5 ITA NOS.3239 & 3240/AHD/2009 THE SAID CONTENTION PROCEEDS ON A MISCONCEPTION AS TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS STIPULATED BY THE RULE IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF COUPONS' CANNOT ENVISAGE AS TO WHICH OF THE EMPLOYEES WOULD MISUSE THE COUPONS .BECAUSE THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IS CO- RELATED WITH THE TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT IN THE HA NDS OF A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE AND THERE CAN BE NO CASE OF ESTIMATION ON PERCENTAGE BASIS. THE PRIMARY LIABILITY TO OFFER THE AMOUNT FOR TAX IS TH AT OF THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED AND IT IS ONLY BY A PRESCRIBED MODE OF RE COVERY THAT THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. NEEDL ESS TO STATE THAT SUCH DEDUCTION HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY EMPLOYEE-WISE AND THE EMPLOYER CANNOT BE CALLED UPON TO PRESUME THAT A PARTICULAR PERCENT AGE OF EMPLOYEES OUT OF THE TOTAL WORKFORCE SHALL MISUSE THE FACILITY SO AS TO WARRANT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. FURTHERMORE CORRESPONDINGLY SUCH TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAS TO BE GIVEN CREDIT OF TO THE EMPLOYEE CO NCERNED-IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE SPECIFIES THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED THERE CAN BE NO CORRESPONDING CREDIT GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT T HE STAND OF THE APPELLANT REVENUE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ANY ERROR I N LAW SO AS TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE GIVING RISE TO A SUBSTANTIAL Q UESTION OF LAW QUA THE FIRST ISSUE.' 5.5 THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSI TION THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TA X AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNTS OF FREE MEAL COUPONS DISTRIBUTED BY IT TO ITS EMP LOYEES UNDER REFERENCE. IN VIEW OF THIS THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DE LETE THE DEMAND RAISED BY HIM AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH AMOUNT UNDER THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC.201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 3.1 SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN THE FY 2008-09. 4 THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST TH E AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THESE TWO YEARS. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHILE THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2008] 175 TAXMAN 367 (GUJ) AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 1 (SC). 6 ITA NOS.3239 & 3240/AHD/2009 5 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. INDISPU TABLY THE ASSESSEE DISTRIBUTED SODEXO MEAL COUPONS PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH 'SODEXO' AND SUCH COUPONS WERE TO BE USED BY THE EMPLOYEES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIED EATING JOINTS OR OU TLETS. WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO FBT BY THE F INANCE ACT 2005 WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2005 THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RULE 3(7)(III) OF THE IT RULES 1962 RELATING TO VALUATION OF ANY P ERQUISITE IN THE NATURE OF PROVISION OF FOOD PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOY ER WERE AMENDED. THE SAID RULE NOW READS AS UNDER: 3(7)(III) THE VALUE OF FREE FOOD AND NON-ALCOHO LIC BEVERAGES PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER WHO IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY FRINGE BENEFIT TAX UNDER CHAPTER XII-H OF THE ACT TO AN EMPLOYEE SHAL L BE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY SUCH EMPLOYER. THE AMOUN T SO DETERMINED SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT IF ANY PAID OR RECOVERED FROM THE EMPLOYEE FOR SUCH BENEFIT OR AME NITY: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-RULE SH ALL APPLY TO FREE FOOD AND NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PROVIDED BY SUCH E MPLOYER DURING WORKING HOURS AT OFFICE OR BUSINESS PREMISES OR THR OUGH PAID VOUCHERS WHICH ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE AND USABLE ONLY AT EATING JOINTS TO THE EXTENT THE VALUE THEREOF IN EITHER CASE DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 50 PER MEAL OR TO TEA OR SNACKS PROVIDED DURING WORKIN G HOURS OR TO FREE FOOD AND NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES DURING WORKING HOU RS PROVIDED IN A REMOTE AREA OR AN OFF-SHORE INSTALLATION. 5.1 MOREOVER AS PER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 115WB (2)(B) OF THE ACT EVEN FBT WAS NOT PAYABLE BY THE EMPLOYER ON THE EXP ENDITURE INCURRED THROUGH PAID FOOD VOUCHERS WHICH WERE NOT TRANSFERABLE AND USABLE ONLY AT EATING JOINTS OR OUTLETS. INTER ALIA SINCE THE AO DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT SODEXO LUNCH COUPONS WERE MISUSED BY THE EMPLOYEES THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2008] 175 TAXMAN 367 (GUJ) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUC T TAX AT SOURCE ON EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SODEXO LUNCH COUPONS GIV EN TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY. IN THE CITED DECISION TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED THAT AMOUNT PAID TO 'ACCOR' FOOD MEAL C OUPONS PROVIDED TO THE 7 ITA NOS.3239 & 3240/AHD/2009 EMPLOYEES WAS NOT TAXABLE PERQUISITE WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF RULE 3(7)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEDUCT THE TA X AT SOURCE ON THIS AMOUNT. HOWEVER THE AO HELD OTHERWISE. ON APPEAL THE ITAT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. ON FURTHER APPEAL HONBLE HIGH CO URT OBSERVED THAT THE PRIMARY LIABILITY TO OFFER THE AMOUNT F OR TAX IS THAT OF THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED AND IT IS ONLY BY A PRESCRIBED MODE OF RECOVERY THA T THE EMPLOYER IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. NEEDLESS TO STATE THA T SUCH DEDUCTION HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY EMPLOYEE-WISE AND THE EMPLOYER CANNOT BE CALLE D UPON TO PRESUME THAT A PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES OUT OF THE T OTAL WORKFORCE SHALL MISUSE THE FACILITY SO AS TO WARRANT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. F URTHERMORE CORRESPONDINGLY SUCH TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAS TO BE GI VEN CREDIT OF TO THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE AND U NLESS AND UNTIL THE TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE SPECIFIES THE EMPLOYEE CONCERN ED THERE CAN BE NO CORRESPONDING CREDIT GIVEN TO THE EMPLOYEE. 5.2 IN THE LIGHT OF VIEW TAKEN IN THE AFORCITED D ECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE REVENUE H AVING NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US SO AS TO ENABLE US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER NOR CITED ANY CONTRARY DECISION WE HAV E NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). T HEREFORE GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6 GROUND NOS. 2 & 4 IN THESE APPEALS ARE GENERAL I N NATURE NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFORE US ON THESE GROUNDS DOS NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION WHILE NO ADDI TIONAL GROUND HAVING BEEN RAISED BEFORE US IN TERMS OF RESIDUARY GROUND NO.3 IN THESE APPEALS THEREFORE ALL THESE GROUNDS ARE DIS MISSED. 7 IN THE RESULT THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 29 -07-2011 SD/- SD/- ( BHAVNESH SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( A N PAHUJA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29-07-2011 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 8 ITA NOS.3239 & 3240/AHD/2009 1. M/S CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. ZYDUS TOWER OPP. IS KON TEMPLE SATELLITE CROSS ROAD AHMEDABAD 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER TDS-1 AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-X AHMEDABAD 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH-A AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD