Skip to content


The Income-tax Officer Vs. Sheetal Khurana Food (P) Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Decided On
Judge
AppellantThe Income-tax Officer
RespondentSheetal Khurana Food (P) Ltd.
Excerpt:
1. these are department's appeals for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. the facts remaining similar, they are, for facility, being taken from i.t.a. no. 468(asr)/2006.2. the department contends that the learned cit(a) has erred in directing the a.o. to treat the income of the assessee as business income rather than income from house property, ignoring the decision of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of "shambhu investments (p) ltd. v. cit 3. the facts are that for the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had filed a return of income on 16-10-2003 declaring a net taxable income of rs. 1,84,380/-. the source of income was rent of building, received from m/s. citi financial consumer finance india ltd. ("cfcfil", for short), at rs. 8,64,000/-. the a.o. issued a questionnaire to.....
Judgment:
1. These are department's appeals for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The facts remaining similar, they are, for facility, being taken from I.T.A. No. 468(ASR)/2006.

2. The department contends that the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to treat the income of the assessee as business income rather than income from house property, ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shambhu Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT 3. The facts are that for the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee had filed a return of income on 16-10-2003 declaring a net taxable income of Rs. 1,84,380/-. The source of income was rent of building, received from M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. ("CFCFIL", for short), at Rs. 8,64,000/-. The A.O. issued a questionnaire to the assessee, asking it to explain as to why it should not be brought under Sections 22 to 25 of the Income tax Act, and as to why the income received from CFCFIL be considered as income from house property, since the very nature of the receipt was rental income and the case appeared to be covered against the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shambhu Investments (P) Ltd. v.CIT" 263 ITR 143(SC). A show cause notice was also issued. In response, the assessee sought to distinguish "Shambhu Investments (P) Ltd." (supra). It was submitted that in that case, there was one lease in respect of the building and another in respect of furniture; that in the assessee's case, the assessee had provided only the building on lease and no furniture or other amenities were provided; that in that case, from the agreement, it had appeared that the intention of the parties was clear, whereby the landlord had allowed the occupant to enjoy the table space on payment the comprehensive monthly rent, whereas in the assessee's case, the assessee had not provided any table space with comprehensive monthly rent; that in "Shambhu Investments" (supra), the building and furniture were accepted as inseparable, whereas in the assessee's case, only the lease of building was given and no furniture was provided; that therefore, it had been held in that case that the prime object of the assessee under the agreement was to let out the portion of the property to various occupants by giving them additional right of using the furniture and fixtures and other common facilities, for which, rent was being paid month by month, in addition to the security advance covering the entire cost of the immoveable property, whereas in the assessee's case, no security advance covering the entire cost of immovable property was recovered from the occupants; that in the assessee's case, no relationship of landlord and tenant existed, since the assessee was holding the property on lease rent basis only and the lease to CFCFIL was virtually a ' subletting of the property; that the assessee was not the owner of the property and it was holding the same on lease rent basis from Shri Bipindeep Singh, whereas in "Shambhu Investments P. Ltd.", the company was the owner of the property; that the assessee had provided an unfurnished accommodation to the occupant, whereas in Shambu Investments P. Ltd., the company had provided furnished accommodation to different occupants; that whereas in that case, the company had recovered the entire cost of construction from the different occupants, as interest free security, the assessee had not recovered any cost of construction from the occupant; that in that case, the company had let out the premises for a permanent period, whereas the assessee had let out the property only temporary, for a short period; that the assessee could not claim statutory deduction of household property, since it was not the owner of the property, while in "Shambhu Investments P. Ltd.", such was not the case; and that it could not be said that the assessee was not exploiting the property for its commercial business activity, which was its prime motto, whereas letting out the property was a consequential one. The assessee, in favour of its case, relied on numerous case laws, as discussed in the assessment order.

4. The A.O., however, disagreeing with the assessee, observed that in "Shambhu Investments" (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had only upheld that even if the assessee used the property commercially by entering into more than one lease, the intention of making the lease had to be looked into; that in the case of the present assessee, it was clear that the intention of the assessee was to give the property on a long lease, as the lease agreement was for more than nine years, though the initial period of lease was of three years; that the ratio of "Shambhu Investments" (supra) was squarely applicable to the case of the assessee and the income of the assessee was taxable as income from house property and not as income from business, as claimed; that it was incorrect to say that the assessee was not the owner of the property; that in the agreement with the CFCFIL, it had been categorically stated that the assessee was the absolute owner in possession of the premises; that the fact of assessee's ownership of property was further supported by the fact that the assessee had also claimed depreciation and expenses on repairs of the building; that the assessee was entitled to receive income from the property in its own right and, therefore, Section 22 of the Income tax Act was attracted; that in the case of the assessee, the agreement with Shri Bipindeep Singh Khrana, Director of the Company, provided for dismantling of the structure without any compensation from Shri Khurana; that it was not necessary for levy of tax under Section 22 of the Act, that the building and land thereon must belong to one and the same person; that thus, the lessor-owner of the building was to be taxed in respect of the annual value of such building, as the owner thereof, under Section 22 of the Act; that the fact that the assessee had given only the unfurnished building to CFCFIL, went against the assessee and rather made the case stronger for the department that the assessee's rental receipt was taxable as income from house property; that as per para 7 of the agreement with CFCFIL, CFCFIL could not, without the prior consent of the assessee, construct any wooden or concrete partition, structure for installation of any electric equipment required for the smooth functioning of the lease, including but not limited to air conditioners; that the fact that the assessee had not recovered any cost of construction from the occupant did not help the case of the assessee, since in "Shambhu Investments P.Ltd." (supra), where the assessee gave a furnished accommodation on lease, it had been held that the receipt was to be treated as income from house property; that in the case of the assessee, undisputedly, the entire building had been constructed by the assessee; that the assessee being the owner of the property and the lease being not for a temporary period, the fact that the assessee had not recovered the entire cost of construction from the occupant, was of no relief to the assessee; that there was no recovery of the entire cost of the premises by the landlord and admittedly, Shri Bipindeep Singh Khurana had been showing the rental receipt from the assessee company, as his income from house property; that the assessee was wrong in contending that it had temporarily let out the building for a short period; that the initial duration of lease was for three years, which had been extended for a further period of three years, as per letter of the tenant, dated 22-12-2005, with 20% enhancement; that even the initial agreement was for nine years; that further, the assessee had wrongly contended that it was in the line of hoteling; that during the entire relevant period, there had been no other business activity of the assessee, but for the lease under consideration; that all the receipts of the company were on account of rent only; that the main objects of the company did not include hotel/restaurant business; that the assessee was, in fact, the owner of the property, but it had wrongly contended that it could not claim statutory deduction of house property, as it was not the owner of the property and was holding it only on a lease rent basis; that it could not be said that the assessee was exploiting the property for its commercial business activity, which activity was its prime object, whereas letting out of the property was a secondary object; that moreover, the assessee had itself reflected the receipt of the rent as income from house property; and that as such, the said income was required to be taxed as income from house property.

5. On appeal, the assessee contended before the learned CIT(A) that it was a Private Limited Company, incorporated in 1999; that its main object was of running the business of hotel and restaurant; that to carry out such object, the assessee entered into a five years' lease agreement on 1-4-2000 with Dr. Bipindeep Singh Khurana, its director, for the lease of building @ Rs. 1,50,000/- per year; that the assessee has constructed a hotel and restaurant on the said leased land; that thereafter, the assessee applied for a licence of pub for running its business; that a copy of the application for such licence before the AETC, Ludhiana had been duly submitted to the A.O.; that the grant of licence of pub was delayed due to one reason or another, resulting in an increase in the burden of expenditure; that the assessee temporarily let out one floor of the hotel premises, for commercial purposes, so as to reduce the losses and expenses; that the assessee entered into an agreement with CFCFIL, for a period of three years; that the A.O.treated the commercial business income of the assessee as house property income by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shambhu Investments P. Ltd." (supra); that the assessee had distinguished the said decision before the A.O.; that however, the A.O. had not accepted the assessee's explanation; and that the assessee was relying on numerous case laws [which the assessee proceeded to put forth before the learned CIT(A), as discussed in the impugned order].

6. In the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) observed that the A.O,.

had wrongly observed in the assessment order that the main objects of the assessee company did not include hotel/restaurant business, whereas while reproducing the main objects of the assessee company, the A.O.had himself reproduced the objects showing that the business of the hotel/restaurant was one of the main objects of the assessee company; that it was only the plot of land which was given to the assessee company on lease for five years at Rs. 1,50,000/- per year; that the assessee could raise a super structure on the building; that, however, such super structure was to be removed by the assessee company on its own, on the determination of the lease with Dr. Bipindeep Singh Khurana, Director of the Company; that this had to be read in conjunction with the lease of the upper floor of the super structure by the assessee to CFCFIL, as per which, the upper floor, and not the ground floor, was to be used for commercial purposes only by CFCFIL, on a lease rent of Rs. 8,64,000/-; that there was considerable force in the submission of the assessee that these facts were indicative of the commercial exploitation of the property at the hands of the assessee with a view to earn profits from the business asset and that these actions were not those of a mere house property owner, who would never agree to remove the super structure at the expiry of a short lease period; that the decision in "Shambu Investments P. Ltd." (supra) was distinguishable and its distinguishing features could not be ignored or brushed aside; that in "CIT v. Anand Rubber & Plastics (P) Ltd." 178 ITR 301 (Pb. & Har.) it was held that where the assessee was using the entire premises for running its factory and due to heavy losses, production was reduced and to minimise losses, the assessee leased out the rear portion of the promises, such leasing was temporary and as a commercial asset and that income from letting out of such portion of the building was, therefore, assessable as business income; that in "CIT v. Golden Engineering Works" 148 CTR (P&H) 336, it was held that where the premises were let out for a commercial purpose, with the motive to reduce the burden of expenditure and to reduce the loss, the rental income was assessable as business income; that in "Golden Engg.

Works" (supra), the period of lease was 90 years and still, it had been held that the letting out-was not permanent and the income was assessable as a business income; that whereas, in the case of the assessee, the lease was only for three years renewable upto a maximum of nine years; that the pub license from the Excise & Taxation Commissioner was a valid and relevant evidence in support of the assessee's stand; that since the very inception of the company, it was to run a pub and hotel on the plot of the land and that since the pub license did not materialise, in order to reduce its expenditure and loss, the assessee had no choice but to let out the upper floor of the building on lease, for a limited period only; that the actions of the assessee certainly part took of those of a business man exploiting his property/asset, as explained and to reduce the losses due to non completion of the hotel/restaurant project; that it is the motive, intention and actual activity of the assessee in dealing with the property, which is relevant; that the action of the assessee in applying for a pub license threw clear light on its motive of running of hotel/restaurant and serving drinks; that the assessee's action in further leasing out only the upper floor, and not the whole property, for a short limited period and in further agreeing to the lease condition of removing the entire building on the expiry of the lease period, were actions of a business man exploiting his property/assets, cutting his loss/expenses; that the tax treatment for the relevant year, i.e., assessment year 2003-04 in its books of account, supported the stand of the assessee; that by virtue of the assessee's application for Bar (Pub) Licence was a very relevant fact, which had not been discussed by the A.O. in the assessment order, but which directly supported the stand of the assessee; that no house owner would take on lease a plot of land, construct a building thereat and agrees to remove it at the conclusion of the relatively short lease period of nine years; that it was also not necessary for the assessee to have a number of activities and sources of income to prove that it was commercially exploiting at one of its assets; and that in view of these circumstances, the action of the A.O. in assessing the income as income from house property, could not be upheld. As such, the learned CIT(A) directed the A.O. to treat the income of the assessee as business income rather than income from house property.

8. Challenging the impugned order, the learned D.R. has argued before us that the learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to treat the income of the assessee as business income, whereas such income in fact falls under the head of "Income from House Property"; that the learned CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shambhu Investments" (supra); that the learned CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on "Anand Rubber & Plastics (P) Ltd." (supra) and "Golden Engg. Works" (supra), whereas the facts of neither of these cases are similar to the facts of the present case; that the learned CIT(A) has erred in observing that the pub licence application made by the assessee to the Excise & Taxation Commissioner is valid evidence in support of the assessee's contention that its motive since the very inception of the company was of running a pub and hotel on the property in question; that the factum of such licence having been applied for was never stated by the assessee before the A.O.; that thus, the A.O. never went into this aspect of the matter; that the learned CIT(A) did not provide the A.O. with any opportunity to rebut this contention of the assessee; that even the copy of such application for Bar (Pub) licence was never brought on the record of the A.O.during the assessment proceedings, as stated in the statement of facts filed before this Bench; that the factum of the assessee simply having applied for a Bar (Pub) licence, if any, is not sufficient; that the assessee has not given any reason for the non-issuance of the pub licence by the concerned department; that the assessee has failed to show as to how losses had been incurred by it; that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the initial agreement of the assessee with its Director was for five years and that the agreement with CFCFIL was for nine years, which was not at all possible; that moreover, the assessee had claimed depreciation on the building, depicting that it treated itself as the owner thereof; and that the learned CIT(A) has further erred in relying on the facts that the assessee had leased out only the upper floor of the building for a short limited period, that the assessee had agreed to the restrictive lease condition of removing its entire building on the expiry of the lease period, and the tax treatment given by the assessee for the year under consideration in its books of account. The learned D.R. has thus requested that the appeal of the department be allowed, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the A.O. be revived.

9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee, supporting the impugned order, has stated that the A.O. had erred in treating the business income of the assessee as its income from house property; that the learned CIT(A) correctly rectified this error by virtue of the impugned order; that there is no parity of the facts of the present case with those of "Shambhu Investments" (supra); that the facts of the case father are in pari materia with "Anand Rubber & Plastics (P) Ltd." (supra) and "Golden Engg. Works" (supra); that the running of business of hotel and restaurant was one of the main objects of the assessee company; that the assessee, in accordance with such main object, applied for a pub licence; that a copy of the application for the said licence was duly submitted before the A.O.; that the grant of licence of pub was delayed for one reason or another, resulting in increase in the burden of the expenditure of the assessee; that to reduce the burden of losses and expenditure, the assessee temporarily let out the upper floor of the premises for commercial purposes, to CFCFIL for a period of three years; that "Shambhu Investments" (supra) was entirely different on facts and was wrongly applied against the assessee by the A.O.; that the other case laws, which the assessee was citing, were in its favour; that the assessee was not the owner of the property and was holding it on lease rent basis from its director, Dr. Bipindeep Singh Khurana; that the assessee had provided an unfurnished accommodation to the occupant; that the assessee had not recovered any cost of construction from the occupant; that the assessee could not claim statutory deduction of household property, since it was not owner of the property and was holding it only on a lease rent basis; and that as such, the income earned was not income from house property, but was business income of the assessee and that the order of the learned CIT(A) is entitled to be maintained, whereas appeal filed by the department is liable to be dismissed.

10. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record.

The question here is as to whether the income earned by the assessee has been rightly directed by the learned CIT(A) to be assessed as business income of the assessee and not its income from house property.

The undisputed facts are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, incorporated in 1999, with Dr. Bipindeep Singh Khurana, as one of its directors. The main objects of the company are as follows: 1. To manufacture, process, import export, buy, sell and otherwise deal in milk, butter cream, ghee, cheese, condensed milk, malted milk, milk powder, skimmed milk, powder milk, ice cream, milk foods, baby foods, confectionery items, sea foods, agriculture products of all kinds including soya milk protein foods spray dried milk, protein foods and other preparations of soya, cereals and lentils including flour and dal, soya snak foods, nutrias, soya sweets, soya weaning food flavoured with fruits and vegetables and soya beverages and other products and preparations of every kind, nature and descriptions.

2. To sell, import, export, improve, prepare, manufacture and market and generally to carry on the manufacturing and trading in jams, jelleys, pickles, cider, spices, chutney, marmalades, vinegars, ketchups, juices, squashes, syrups, powders (edible) drinks, beverages, gelatives, essences' ice creams, milk preparation, meat, sausages, porkpies, prawn, potted meats, table delicacies and other eatables.

3. To carry on the business as manufactures, sellers, purchases, importers, exporters, stockiest, distributors, traders, dealers, wholesalers and retailers in all kinds of food snacks fruit juices, breads, biscuits, syrups, cordial, jam, jellies, 4. To carry on the business of hotels, restaurant and canteens and to serve food, fast food, drinks, soft drinks of all types and to operate recreation centre of all types.

11. On 1-4-2000, the assessee company entered into a lease deed-cum-agreement with Dr. Bipindeep Singh Khurana, Director, for taking on lease land measuring about 438 Sq. yards, located at Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. The property was taken on lease for an initial period of five years. The terms and conditions of the lease agreement included the condition that the assessee was permitted to raise construction on the plot, with the condition that the assessee would remove the said structure at its own cost and would not be entitled to any compensation on this account. On 21-9-2001, the assessee company entered into a lease deed with CFCFIL, giving the building constructed on the aforesaid plot to CFCFIL, for an initial period of three years, as per the following terms and conditions: i) The lease agreement is for initial period of three years commencing from 21-12-2001 and shall be extended for another terms of three years on 20% enhancement of the existing rent. As per agreement, the lease shall stand terminated on expiry of nine years and the assessee company will be given back the vacant premises and terrace thereon.

ii) Premises will be for commercial use only and if any charges/ duties/taxes/penalties etc. imposed by any authority will be borne by the tenant in this case i.e. Associates India Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (presently known as City Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.) The Corporation Tax @ 12% approximate will be borne by the tenant company.

12. On query by the A.O. as to why the rent received by the assessee from the aforesaid premises should not be treated as income from house property of the assessee, in accordance with "Shambhu Investments" (supra), the assessee contended that its case was entirely different from "Shambhu Investments" (supra), on facts. The assessee also contended that the assessee had given only the building on lease; that no security of advance covering the entire cost of construction had been received; that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the assessee and CFCFIL, since the assessee was holding the property not as owner, but only on lease rent basis; that no house property statutory deduction on the rent could be claimed by the assessee, the assessee not being the owner of the property; that the lease to CFCFIL was only a temporary arrangement; and that numerous case laws, as cited by the assessee, supported its case. The A.O., however, for the reasons recorded in the assessment order, as discussed herinabove, disagreeing with the assessee, brought to tax the income as income from house property. The learned CIT(A) reversed the order of the A.O. mainly for the reasons that the assessee had applied for PUB licence, in keeping with its main object of running hotel and restaurant and that since the said licence was not granted, the assessee let out the upper floor of the premises on lease for a limited period only, in order to reduce its expenditure and losses; that the assessee had agreed to the restrictive lease condition of removing its entire building on the expiry of the lease period, which was indicative of the intention of a business-man to exploit its property/asset. In doing so, the learned CIT(A) placed reliance on "Anand Rubber & Plastics (P) Ltd." (supra) and "Golden Engg. Works" (supra).

13. We, however, do not find ourselves persuaded to agree with the order of the learned CIT(A). Undoubtedly, as held repeatedly by various Courts, including "Shambhu Investments" (supra), it is the intention of the assessee in letting out the property, which is determinative of the nature of the income. This, obviously, depends on the facts of each case. In the present case, first of all, the assessee never contended before the A.O. that it had applied for a Bar (pub) licence. There is no discussion in this regard in the assessment order. The learned CIT(A) has also taken objection to such fact. However, in the assessment order, in the narration of the contentions of the assessee too, it does not come out that the assessee ever made out any such case before the A.O. Before us, on our asking, the learned Counsel for the assessee could not deny that no such argument was raised before the A.O. Further, the stand of the assessee that it was not the owner of the property, has also been proved to be incorrect. Before the A.O., the assessee denied such ownership. However, it was found that in the agreement with CFCFIL, the assessee had stated that it was the absolute owner in possession of the property in question. Further, the assessee had also claimed depreciation and expenses on account of repairs of the building. As such, the assessee was undisputedly the owner of the premises leased out, so far as regards income tax purposes and was to be taxed in respect of the annual value of such building, under Section 22 of the Act.

14. The assessee having given an unfurnished accommodation on lease also does not help the case of the assessee. The assessee has tried to raise this as a point of distinction with "Shambhu Investments" (supra). As discussed hereinabove, what is to be seen is the intention of the assessee in letting out the premises. Here, though running of a hotel/restaurant was one of its main objects, such main object was never shown to have been carried out during the year under consideration.

15. The assessee also sought to distinguish "Shambhu Investments" (supra), for the reason that it had not recovered the cost of construction from the occupant and that the letting out of the premises was only a temporary arrangement. In this regard, the A.O. rightly observed that this makes no different and that even Dr. Bipindeep Singh Khurana had not recovered the entire cost of construction from the assessee and he had been showing the income from the rental receipts from the assessee as income from house property. Regarding the argument of temporary arrangement, the initial duration of the agreement was of three years, which was extended for a further period of three years, with 20% enhancement. This was the arrangement of the assessee with Dr.

Bipindeep Singh Khurana. On the other hand, the lease by the assessee to CFCFIL was for nine years, which goes directly against the lease entered into by Dr. Bipindeep Singh Khurana with the assessee. The assessee obviously could not lease out the premises for a period longer than that for which it was itself leased out the premises.

16. Apropos the assessee's contention that it was in the line of hoteling, the A.O. made a specific observations as under: ...Secondly, the assessee contended during assessment proceedings that it is in the line of hoteling but there is no other business of the assessee, rather there is no other activity of the assessee at all during the relevant period. Profit and loss account of the assessee company for the financial year 2001-02 (rent receipts of Rs. 6,06,000/-) and 2002-03 (rent receipts of Rs. 8,64,000/-) reveal that al the receipts of the company are on account of rent only.

Admittedly the first year of the company was assessment year 2002-03 and this is evident from the agreement also, as discussed above. So how come the question of company having main business of hoteling? Moreover the main objects to be pursued by the company on its incorporation have already been re-produced above and establish that the main objects of the company does not include hotel/restaurant business. So the contention of the assessee that it has given on rent the building as temporary arrangement is not only misleading but also untrue as per the conduct of the business of the company so far.

17. From the above, it is evident that the assessee did not carry on the business of running of hotel/restaurant during the year. Though, as rightly observed by the learned CIT(A), the A.O. went wrong in observing that the main object of the assessee company did not include hotel/restaurant business, the fact remains that even though this was one of the main objects of the assessee-company, it did not carry on any such business.

18. Then, the case laws relied on by the learned CIT(A) to decide in favour of the assessee, are different on facts. In "Anand Rubber & Plastics P. Ltd." (supra), it was, inter alia, held that the assessee had leased out a portion of its premises to minimise its losses. No such fact, as discussed hereinabove, was brought before the A.O. by the present assessee.

19. In "Golden Engg. works" (supra), it was held that the finding recorded by the Dy. CIT(A), which was upheld by the Tribunal, was to the effect that the old premises were let out for commercial purposes and to reduce the burden of expenditure and the losses; that this was a finding of fact; and that, therefore, no referable question of law arose from the order of the Tribunal. Here again, it is to be reiterated that the present assessee nowhere made out any case before the A.O. as to how it had suffered any losses. Therefore, this case is also not applicable.

20. "Shambhu Investments" (supra), the learned CIT(A) has failed to consider, is squarely applicable to the present case. Therein, it was upheld that it was the intention in making the lease, that was important. In the present case, no intention was ever evinced by the assessee before the A.O. regarding either the commercial exploitation of the asset, i.e., the building, or about the intention of not exploiting it as a house property. Rather, the assessee itself reflected the receipt of rent as income from the house property. Even the factum of the assessee having claimed depreciation and expenses regarding repair of the building "Showed that it was the owner of the premises for the purposes of the Income tax Act.

21. In view of the above, finding force in the grievance raised by the department, the same is hereby accepted. The appeal of the department is thus entitled to be accepted. Ordered accordingly.

As stated in opening para of this order, the facts of I.T.A. Nos.

468(ASR)/2006 and I.T.A. No. l30(ASR)/2007 are similar. As such, our above observations shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to I.T.A. No.l30(ASR)/2007 also.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //