ITO, New Delhi v. M/s. Indian Vaccine Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5551/DEL/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 555120114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACI0836K
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 5551/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant ITO, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. Indian Vaccine Corporation Ltd., New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 26-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 26-03-2012
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 09-12-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH C CC C : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL D.AGRAWAL D.AGRAWAL D.AGRAWAL VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.118 118 118 1188/DEL/2011 8/DEL/2011 8/DEL/2011 8/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 200 200 200 2002 22 2- -- -03 0303 03 INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -11(4) 11(4) 11(4) 11(4) NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S INDIAN VACC M/S INDIAN VACC M/S INDIAN VACC M/S INDIAN VACCINES CORPORATION INES CORPORATION INES CORPORATION INES CORPORATION LTD. LTD. LTD. LTD. B BB B- -- -413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS- -- -1 1 1 1 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO.95/DEL/2011 CROSS OBJECTION NO.95/DEL/2011 CROSS OBJECTION NO.95/DEL/2011 CROSS OBJECTION NO.95/DEL/2011 (IN ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011) (IN ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011) (IN ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011) (IN ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002- -- -03 0303 03 M/S INDIAN VACCINES M/S INDIAN VACCINES M/S INDIAN VACCINES M/S INDIAN VACCINES CORPORATION LTD. CORPORATION LTD. CORPORATION LTD. CORPORATION LTD. B BB B- -- -413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS- -- -1 1 1 1 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -11(4) 11(4) 11(4) 11(4) NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.3082/DEL/2011 & 5551/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3082/DEL/2011 & 5551/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3082/DEL/2011 & 5551/DEL/2011 ITA NOS.3082/DEL/2011 & 5551/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005- -- -06 & 2008 06 & 2008 06 & 2008 06 & 2008- -- -09 0909 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -11(4) 11(4) 11(4) 11(4) NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S INDIAN VACCINES CORPORATION M/S INDIAN VACCINES CORPORATION M/S INDIAN VACCINES CORPORATION M/S INDIAN VACCINES CORPORATION LTD. LTD. LTD. LTD. B BB B- -- -413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS 413 ANSAL CHAMBERS- -- -1 1 1 1 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. 110 066. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. PAN : AAACI0836K. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 2 REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK SINGH SR.DR. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAUTAM JAIN CA. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER BENCH PER BENCH PER BENCH PER BENCH : : : : ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011 : ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011 :- -- - THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XIII NEW DELHI DATED 14 TH JANUARY 2011 FOR THE AY 2002-03. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING AN ADDITIO N OF RS.1 90 70 000/- IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE LOAN O F THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS WAIVED BY M/S PASTEUR MERIEUX SERUMS & VACCINES IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND ALSO IGNORING THE OBSERVATIONS OF APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. T.V.SUNDERAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. 222 ITR 344 (SC). 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US IT IS STATED B Y THE LEARNED DR THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS WAIVER OF LOAN OF ` 1 90 70 000/- BY M/S PMSV. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFF ERED THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY IT ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH WAIVER AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 28(IV) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THAT AS PER SECTION 28(IV) THE VALUE OF ANY BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE ARISING FROM BUSINESS SHALL BE CHARGED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 3 DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE BENEFIT ON THE WAIVER OF SUCH LOAN HAS ARISEN FROM THE CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE SEC TION 28(IV) WAS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. 222 ITR 344 (SC) . HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY B E UPHELD. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTH ER HAND POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED SUBSEQUENTLY BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE ITAT AND ALSO THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND ALSO HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THAT AFTER RELYING UPON THOSE D ECISIONS THE CIT(A) HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DUE TO WAIVE R OF LOAN SECTION 28(IV) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. HE ALSO PO INTED OUT THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF LOGITRONICS (P) LTD. VS. CIT AND ANR. 333 ITR 386 (DEL) AND POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COUR T HAS HELD THAT IF THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING THE CAPITA L ASSET WAIVER THEREOF WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO ANY INCOME EXIGIBLE TO TAX. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO POINT OUT THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET. HE FURTHER PO INTED OUT THAT THE WAIVER OF LOAN WAS IN THE YEAR 1998 AND THEREF ORE THE TAXING OF THE SAME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS UNC ALLED FOR. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 4 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS RECOR DED THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- IT IS SEEN FROM THE AGREEMENT FOR TERMINATION OF T HE JOINT VENTURE DATED 10.9.1998 THAT THE M/S PMSV HAS IRREVOCABLY WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO CLAIM FROM IVCOL TH E LOAN AMOUNTS OF RS.190.70 LAKHS AND HAS ABSOLVED TH E IVCOL FROM ALL ARBITRATION LITIGATION AND FURTHER NEGOTIATION ON THIS POINT. 6. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WAIVER OF THE LOAN WAS BY WAY OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 10.09.1998. THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 I.E. FINANCIAL YEA R 2001-02. NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL IT COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE HOW THIS AMOUNT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXABILITY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THEREFORE WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEAR NED COUNSEL THAT THIS AMOUNT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. EVEN ON MERITS THE AMOUNT IS NOT TA XABLE AS INCOME. THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ALSO AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.V.SUNDARAM IYEN GAR & SONS LTD. (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF L OGITRONICS (P) LTD. VS. CIT AND ANR. (SUPRA) AND IN PARAGRAPH 23 AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF T.V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS U NDER:- ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 5 23. IN THE CONTEXT OF WAIVER OF LOAN AMOUNT WHAT FOLLOWS FROM THE READING OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT IS THAT THE ANSWER WOULD DEPEND UPON THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAID LOAN WAS TAKEN. IF THE LOAN WAS TAK EN FOR ACQUIRING THE CAPITAL ASSET WAIVER THEREOF WOU LD NOT AMOUNT TO ANY INCOME EXIGIBLE TO TAX. ON THE OTHER HAND IF THIS LOAN WAS FOR TRADING PURPOSE AN D WAS TREATED AS SUCH FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER SUNDARAM IYENGAR (T.V.) AN D SONS LTD. (SUPRA) THE WAIVER THEREOF MAY RESULT IN THE INCOME MORE SO WHEN IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT. 7. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT IF THE LOAN W AS TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING A CAPITAL ASSET WAIVER THEREOF WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO ANY INCOME EXIGIBLE TO TAX. IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL B EFORE US IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDE D THE FOLLOWING FINDING:- THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS CONTRIBUTED BY THE PROMOTERS WHO ALSO BROUGHT IN CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS LOANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACTORY BUILDING AS ALSO FOR ACQUIRING THE PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF VACCINE. IT IS WELL KNOWN FACT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY FUNDS OF ITS OWN AND WAS TO BE FINANCED BY THREE PROMOTERS AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND IPCL HAVE NOT WRITTEN OFF THEIR LOANS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 6 COMPANY AND ONLY THE FRENCH COMPANY NAMELY PMSV AGREED TO WAIVE OFF THE LOAN IN THE YEAR 1998 SINCE THE IVCOL WAS UNABLE TO PAY BACK THE LOAN AMOUNT. THIS LOAN WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PAY OFF T HE VENDORS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED PLANT & MACHINERY. 8. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE LOAN WAS BROUGHT IN BY THE PROMOTERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY BUILDI NG AS ALSO FOR ACQUIRING PLANT & MACHINERY FOR MANUFACTURE OF VACC INE. THUS AS PER THE FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR ACQUIRING THE CAPITAL ASSET. ON THESE FACTS THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SA ME WE HOLD THAT THE WAIVER OF THE LOAN OF ` 1 90 70 000/- BY M/S PMSV WOULD NOT BE CHARGEABLE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UND ER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXPENS ES OF RS.16 57 407/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT T HERE WERE NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DURING THE YEAR. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US IT WAS POINTE D OUT BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSID ERED BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2004-05 AND THE I TAT ON ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 7 IDENTICAL FACTS SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) INSTEAD OF ALLOWING PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT FOR AY 2004-05. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADM ITTED THAT IN AY 2004-05 THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HOWEVER STATED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN AY 2004-05 WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER ON FURTHER APPEAL THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.4401/DEL/2007 SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT THE CIT(A) DULY CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2004-05 AND THEN KEEPING IN VIEW THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT HAS ALLOWED THE PAR T OF THE EXPENDITURE. 12. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT I N THE ALLOCATION OF THE EXPENDITURE BY THE CIT(A). HE PO INTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF ` 40.15 LAKHS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF ` 14.29 LAKHS AND ONLY THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE OF ` 25.86 LAKHS WAS CLAIMED. THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL EACH AND EVERY EXPENDITURE AND THEREAFTER HAS ALLOWED ONLY ` 16.57 LAKHS AND SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 9.29 LAKHS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY APPLIED HIS MIND IN ALLOCATING THE EXPENDIT URE AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT HIS ORDER SHOULD BE SUSTAINE D. ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 8 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. W E FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN AY 2004-05. IN FACT HE HAS REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PO RTION OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AND THEREAFTER AT PAGES 17 TO 20 HE CONSIDERED EACH AND EVERY EXPENDITURE AND THEREAFTE R ALLOWED DISALLOWED OR PARTLY ALLOWED EACH ITEM OF EXPENDITU RE. WHEN THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ALLOWABILITY OF EACH EXPE NDITURE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2004-05 WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN FOR DOING THE SAME EXERCISE . IT WOULD ONLY MULTIPLY THE PROCEEDINGS. NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE WORKING OF THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. ON THE OTHER HAND IT WAS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY BECAUSE MORE THAN 50% SHARES ARE HELD BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF BIOTECHNOLOGY. EACH OF ITS EXPENDITURE IS AUDITED AND THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IN CURRED IS AS PER THE BUDGET ALLOCATED AND APPROVED BY THE MINIST RY OF BIOTECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. CONSIDERING TH E TOTALITY OF ABOVE FACTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. 14. GROUND NOS.3 TO 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL ARE ONLY ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NOS.1 & 2. THE REFORE NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NOS.3 TO 6 IS REQUI RED. 15. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2 002-03 IS DISMISSED. ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 9 C.O. NO.95/DEL/2011 : C.O. NO.95/DEL/2011 : C.O. NO.95/DEL/2011 : C.O. NO.95/DEL/2011 :- -- - 16. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE CROSS-OBJECTION. ACCORD INGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.3082/DEL/2011 & 5551/DEL/2011 : ITA NOS.3082/DEL/2011 & 5551/DEL/2011 : ITA NOS.3082/DEL/2011 & 5551/DEL/2011 : ITA NOS.3082/DEL/2011 & 5551/DEL/2011 :- -- - 17. IN THESE APPEALS THE REVENUE HAS RAISED IDENTI CAL ISSUE AS RAISED BY IT IN ITA NO.1188/DEL/2011 FOR AY 2002-03 WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US ABOVE. 18. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AGREED T HAT THE OUTCOME OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 2002-03 MAY BE APPLIED IN THESE APPEALS ALSO. 19. SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A ) WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR AY 200 2-03 WE FOLLOW OUR ORDER AND DISMISS BOTH THESE APPEALS FIL ED BY THE REVENUE. 20. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND T HE CROSS- OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MARCH 2012. SD/- SD/- ( (( (A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN A.D.JAIN) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VI VIVI VICE PRESIDENT CE PRESIDENT CE PRESIDENT CE PRESIDENT DATED : 30.03.2012 VK. ITA-1188/DEL/2011 & 3 OTHERS 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR