9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to provisions of sec.45 r.w.s. 48 and, accordingly, such loss is not allowable as capital loss. At best such loss can be described as notional loss and it is settled principle that no notional loss or income can be subjected to the provisions of the I.T. Act. - Decided in favor of assessee. - 3013 (MUM.) OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2011 - D. MANMOHAN, R.S.SYAL AND T.R.SOOD, JJ. ORDER T.R. Sood, Accountant Member. This Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble President to consider the following question: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in declaring long term capital loss of Rs. 22,21,85,693/- on account of reduction in paid up equity share capital?" 2. At the commencement of the hearing, it was noticed by the Bench that the question is not very happily framed and, therefore, this was put to the parties. Both the parties agreed that the question referred by Hon'ble president implies that we have to answer the substantial issue as to whether reduction of capital would lead to claim for long term capital loss. Both the parties requested that we can proceed with the hearing without reframing the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the value of shares, nor any part of the shares have been passed to anyone else. This means, that there was no change in the rights of the assessee vis-a-vis other shareholders and, therefore, no transfer had taken place and, thus, assessee was not entitled to the claim of long term capital loss. 5. On an appeal, similar submissions were made before the Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on similar reasoning. 6. Before us, Ld. Counsel Shri Arvind Sonde, adverted our attention to pages 30 to 31 of the assessment order and also paras 17.2 to 17.5 of the appellate order to point out that the claim of long term capital loss has been rejected mainly on the ground that no transfer had taken place. Then he referred to page 60 of the paper book -which is a copy of a notice of Annual General meeting of TGL- which shows that a special resolution was proposed for reduction of share capital u/s.100 of the Companies Act, 1956 subject to the approval of the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court; It was proposed that share capital of the company has to be reduced from Rs. 179862990, divided into 17986299 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each, to Rs. 8993149, divided into 17986 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-2001 67,73,799 shares have been reduced from the opening balance of 1,34,74,799 shares. Further, 67,37,399 shares have been shown as credit. He pointed out that even ISIN No. has changed from INE 289C01025 to INE 289C01017, which basically means that new shares are different shares because different ISIN INE No. has been allotted. On a query by the Bench he filed a copy of the clarification issued by the SEBI and pointed out at para-29 wherein it has been clarified as under: "ISIN [International Securities Identification Number] is a unique identification number allotted for a security [E.g -INE 383C01018]. Equity-fully paid-up, equity partly paid up, equity with differential voting/dividend rights issued by the same issuer will have different ISIN." Thus, Learned counsel contended that old shares have been replaced with new shares which is a reduced number and this should be treated as exchange of shares which is clearly covered by the definition of 'transfer' and once the shares have been transferred it is a basic condition for attracting sec.45, then the loss incurred on the same should be treated as capital loss. 7. Ld. Counsel Shri Sonde submitted that the decisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g another decision of that court in the vas of Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [191 ITR 647], observed that the definition of transfer clearly contemplates extinguishment of rights in a capital asset distinct and independent of such extinguishment consequent upon the transfer thereof. The court further observed that the expression 'extinguishment of any right therein' can be extended to mean extinguishment of right independent of or otherwise than on account of transfer. Thus, even extinguishment of right in a capital asset would amount to transfer and in the case before us since assessee's right got extinguished proportionately, to the reduction of capital, it would amount to transfer. Reliance was placed on the following three decisions of the Tribunal wherein similar view was expressed; Following the decisions of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai [supra] CIT v. G. Narsimhan (Deed) And Ors., Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT and of CIT v. Grace Collis Ors. [supra], it was held that reduction of capital would amount to transfer and accordingly capital loss was held to be allowable. i. Zyma Laboratories Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 7 SOT 164 [Mum] ii. DCIT v. M/s Polychem Ltd. ITA No.4212/M/07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case reported at 273 ITR 1. He also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. [312 ITR 63]. In this case the assessee was holding shares of IDBI which were partly paid-up and assessee did not pay the call amount called by the company and, therefore, the shares were forfeited. This was claimed as short term capital loss which was not allowed by the AO. The Hon'ble High court however held that forfeiture of shares would amount to transfer in terms of sec.2[47] because assessee would be deemed to have acquired rights in shares when same were allotted and once such shares were forfeited then such right got extinguished, which would amount to transfer. 12. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [supra], and pointed out that in this case also what the court meant was that when consideration was not ascertainable, then the provisions for charging the capital gains would fail. However, in the case of the assessee consideration was ascertainable, in the sense that same should be taken as zero. While addressing the Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip of shares assessee is holding proportionate share in assets of the company which have not gone down and, therefore, no loss has been suffered. Mere reduction of share capital at best can lead to a notional loss. 14. The Ld. Sr. DR further invited our attention to clause [v] of sub section (2) to section 55 which defines cost of acquisition in case of shares in the event of consolidation, division or conversion of original shares; as per this clause, original cost has to be taken as cost of present acquisition. In case before us, therefore, the cost of acquisition would remain same to the assessee in terms of this provision and if the loss on reduction of share capital is allowed at this stage and in future if such shares are sold, then the assessee can again take the original cost as cost of acquisition which would mean double benefit to the assessee, which is not permissible under the law and in this regard he referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. UOI [199 ITR 43]. 15. He further submitted that whenever a company issues bonus shares no capital gain is chargeable on the same on mere receipt of such bonus shares and capital gain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble benefit. He gain emphasized that it is a simple case of transfer in terms of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai [supra], CIT v. G. Narsimhan (Deed) And Ors., and Anarkali Sarabhai v. CIT [supra] and of CIT v. Grace Collis Ors. [supra] and, therefore, loss should be allowed. 17. We have considered the rival submissions in the light of material on record as well as the decisions cited by both the parties. Initially the Ld. Counsel argued that share capital of TGL was reduced from Rs. 17,98,62,990/-divided into 17986299 equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- each to Rs. 8,99,31,495/- divided into 17986299 of Rs. 5/- each paid up. This means basically the capital was reduced by reducing the face value of Rs. 10/- paid up of each share to Rs. 5/- paid up of each share. As a second step such shares (Rs 5/- per share) were again consolidated into Rs. 10 paid up share and number of shares were reduced to 89,93,149. The Ld. Counsel had argued that basically the original shares got extinguished and, in fact, new shares have been issued by TGL. If the argument is that earlier shares have been replaced or substituted by new shares then the same wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the argument on behalf of the assessee is that the reduction of capital would amount to transfer in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai [supra], and Anarkali Sarabhai vs. CIT [supra ], CIT v. G. Narsimhan (Deed) And Ors. [supra] and of CIT v. Grace Collis Ors. [supra]. It may be necessary to outline the factual matrix and the conclusion reached in the case of CIT v. G. Narsimhan (Deed) And Ors., because that was also a case of reduction of share capital and that too in respect of equity shares. 19. In that case the court was concerned with the issue whether reduction of face value of equity share from Rs. 1000/- each to Rs. 210/- each after reduction of share capital which was duly approved by the High Court would amount to transfer. It is important to note that in this case on reduction of capital, certain assets were also given to the shareholders in the form of property, payment of cash and/or adjustment of debit balances. When the matter travelled to Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the decision of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai [supra] the apex court held that such reduction of capital would constitute transfer and any prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hip assets is extinguished and there was, therefore, in the present case, "transfer" of interest of each of the assessees in the goodwill when the assessees retired from the firm, the amount received by each assessee in respect of his share in the value of the goodwill must still be held to be outside the pale of chargeability to capital gains tax. It is not every transfer of a capital asset which attracts the charge of capital gains tax. Section 45 which is the charging section, undoubtedly, provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset shall be chargeable to income tax under the head "capital gains". But, section 48 shows that the transfer that is contemplated by section 45 is a transfer as a result of which consideration is received by the assessee or accrues to the assessee. Section 48 provides the mode of computation of capital gains by enacting that the income chargeable to tax as capital gain shall be computed by deducting from the "full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset" the following amounts, namely: (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under: "Transfers not chargeable.- It is not every transfer of a capital asset which attracts the charge of capital gains tax. Although section 45 provides the generality of the charge, it is followed by several sections exonerating the charge under stipulated circumstances. Section 48 provides the mode of computation and in doing so, it excludes expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer as also the cost of acquisition of, as well as any improvement to, the capital asset concerned. The transfer of a capital asset, in order to attract the capital gains tax, must be a transfer as a result of which consideration is received by the assessee or accrues to the assessee. Without the element of consideration, no transfer will attract capital gains tax [CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai, (1973) 91 ITR 393, 404 (Guj), not approved, on another point, in (1981) 128 ITR 294 (S.C)]" In any case, to understand the matter further we shall go through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [supra ]. In this case, the issue involved was whether transfer of personal capital assets to the firm towards contribution of capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration. It is notional value only, intended to be taken into account at the time of determining the value of the partner's share in the net partnership assets on the date of dissolution or on his retirement, a share which will depend upon a deduction of the liabilities and prior charges existing on the date of dissolution or retirement. It is not possible to predicate before hand what will be the position in terms of monetary value of a partner's share on that date. At the time when the partner transfers his personal asset to the partnership firm, there can be no reckoning of the liabilities and losses which the firm may suffer in the years to come. All that lies within the womb of the future. It is impossible to conceive of evaluating the consideration acquired by the partner when he brings his personal asset into the partnership firm when neither the date of dissolution or retirement can be envisaged nor can there be any ascertainment of liabilities and prior charges which may not have even arisen yet. In the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the consideration which a partner acquires on making over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gains under the Income Tax Act must be understood in the sense of real profits or gains, that is to say, on the basis of ordinary commercial principles on which actual profits are computed, a sense in which no commercial man would misunderstand, has been regarded as a principle of general application, and there is a catena of cases of this Court which affirms that principle. Reference may be made to Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 I.T.R. 1 (S.C), CIT v. Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka, (1962) 46 I.T.R. 86 [S.C], Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 57 I.T.R. 521 [S.C], (1973) 89 I.T.R. 266 [S.C] and Bafna Textiles v. ITO (1975) 98 I.T.R. 1 [Kar]." Thus, from the above it is clear that the court relied on the principles laid down in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty [supra] and held that unless and until the consideration was present the computation provision of sec.48 would not be workable and, therefore, such transfer could not be subjected to tax. The court further went on to hold that unless and until the profits or losses are real, same cannot be subjected to tax. 20. In the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty [supra] a partnership firm was carrying on the business of manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [supra ] is not applicable because, in the case before us, it was possible to ascertain the consideration by envisaging the same as zero. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Wvg. Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [supra ] and, in particular, referred to the observations at pages 284 and 285 of the report wherein it was observed that whole of the value of the capital asset transferred could not be brought to tax because that would amount to taxing the value of asset and not profit as contemplated in sec.45. In this case the issue involved was whether the compensation received on surrender of statutory tenancy rights is chargeable as casual income u/s.10[3] or it should be charged u/s.45. The court, after examining the issue in detail, held that amount received on such surrender is chargeable only u/s.45. The court observed that whole value of the compensation could not be charged u/s.56 because same was chargeable u/s.45 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty [supra] was applied. It was also noted that, in fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fic or zero consideration should be considered for taxation U/s 45 but we find no force in it. The situation regarding non ascertainment of any of the element of sec.48 came to light only after the pronouncement of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty [supra]. Perhaps legislature intended to exempt only gifts from subject matter of capital gains and that is why clause (iii) to sec.47 must have been put in the statute. In any case, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [supra ] is directly on the issue wherein third question referred before the Court reads as under: "3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that where in a case of compulsory acquisition by Government without compensation no capital loss will ensure?" This question was answered by the Hon'ble court vide para which reads as under: "4. So far as the third question is concerned, the same is covered by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294. The answer to the question is, therefore, self-evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sold the shares of amalgamated company and the gain arising on the same was charged by the ITO as capital gain. The assessee contended that same could not be charged because the cost of shares obtained by amalgamation could not be determined as there was no transfer involved during the amalgamation. The assessee had not furnished the details of cost of the shares of the amalgamated company. However, the ITO noted that under the scheme assessees had received 14 shares of the face value of Rs. 100/- each in the amalgamated company for one share of the face value of a share in the amalgamating company. He multiplied the number of shares of the amalgamated company that assessee had sold by their face value of Rs. 100/- each and divided by 14 to arrive at their cost. After reducing this cost from the sale price the balance was subjected to capital gains tax. The ITO rejected the contention of the assessee that sections 49(2) and 47(iii) were not attracted as the assessee had not become the owner of the shares of the amalgamated company in consideration of the transfer of their share in the amalgamated company. Before the Hon'ble apex court another decision in the case Vania Silk Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee by TGL but the same has been reduced for all the shareholders of the TGL. Though under the concept of joint stock company, the joint stock company is having independent legal entity but for all practical purposes the company is always owned by the shareholders. Therefore, sum total of 100% shareholders would own the net assets of the company. Now let us say a company started with a capital of Rs. 100/- and had assets of Rs. 100/-, then 75% shareholders would own 75% of such assets i.e. Rs. 75. If after few years, this company suffers a loss and the assets are reduced to Rs. 50, then share of the assessee in the assets of the company would be only Rs. 37.50. If the capital of the company is reduced by 50%, even then the share of the assessee would be 75% and it would remain same at Rs. 37.50. Therefore, the effective share of assessee, in the assets of the company, would remain the same immediately before and after reduction of such capital. In other words, the loss suffered by the company would belong to the company and that cannot be allowed to be set off in the hands of the assessee. This position is further supported by another example. If, in the above illustration, after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit carried forward 10000 15000 15000 Let us further assume that no dividend was paid by the profit making company. Now, it can be said that in case of loss making company the value of shares has gone down because of the loss, but the shareholder's rights would not be affected because such loss belongs to the company and is assessable in the hands of the company. If such loss making company reduces the capital, such proportionate shareholding would still remain and entitled to the same proportion of asset and assessee's interest is not effected. Same situation would prevail in case of profit making company and if such profit making company issues bonus shares they cannot be taxed in the hands of such shareholders and they can be taxed only when such shares are sold by the shareholders. Therefore, whether the company suffers loss or earns profit, the proportionate interest of the shareholder is not affected. 25. Now let us further understand the exact effect of the reduction of share capital with the following illustration: POSITION PRIOR TO REDUCTION IN CAPITAL Liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions of the Tribunal- (a) Zyma Laboratories Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 7 SOT 164 [Mum] (b) DCIT v. M/s Polychem Ltd. ITA No.4212/M/07 [Mum] and (c) Ginners Presser Ltd. v. ITO ITA NO.398/M/07 4193/M/07 But in all these cases the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty [supra] was neither cited, nor considered and, therefore, these decisions are distinguishable and in any case, not binding on the Special Bench. In fact such profit or loss arising out of issue of bonus shares or reduction of capital is only a notional profit or notional loss and this concept has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss Dhun Dadanbhoy Kapadia v. CIT [supra] and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT [supra]. In the case of Dhun Dadanbhoy Kapadia v. CIT [supra ] the facts noted by the Hon'ble apex court are as under: The appellant was holding 710 ordinary shares of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company"), which she had inherited some tine prior to 1st January, 1954, as an investment. It was admitted that she was not a dealer in sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r share. It was claimed by the appellant that, as a result of this depreciation in the price of her old ordinary shares, she suffered a capital loss in those shares to the extent of Rs. 37,630, and she was entitled to set off this loss against the capital gain of Rs. 45,262.50P. which she realised on selling her right to take the new ordinary shares. In the alternative, the case was put forward on the basis that the right to receive these new ordinary shares was a right which was embedded in her old ordinary shares, and, consequently, when she realised the sum of Rs. 45,262,50P by selling her right, the capital gain should be computed after deducting from this amount realised the value of the embedded right which became liquidated. The value of that right, according to the appellant, should be calculated in accordance with the principles of accountancy, as laid down by various authors on the subject to be applied in such Situations. Even if this principle be accepted, the amount taxable as capital gain in her hands would have to be reduced by at least a sum of Rs. 37,630, if not more. The contention of the assessee was rejected by the income tax authorities as well as by the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account. Thus, the capital gain or loss would be worked out at Rs. 45,262.50P. after deducting from it the sum worked out at 710 multiplied by the difference between Rs. 253 and Rs. 198.75P. This last amount comes to a little more than the sum of Rs. 37,630 which the appellant claimed should be deducted from Rs. 45,262.50P. in computing her capital gain. The claim made by the appellant was thus clearly justified because the net capital gain by her in the transaction, which consisted of issue of new shares together with her renouncement of the right to receive new shares and make some money thereby, could only be properly computed in the manner indicated by us above. In the alternative, the use can be examined in another aspect. At the time of the issue of new shares, the appellant possessed 710 old shares and she also got the right to obtain 710 new shares. When she sold this right to obtain 710 new shares and realised the sum of Rs. 45,262.50P., she capitalised that right and converted it into money. The value of the right may be measured by setting off against the appreciation in the face value of the new shares the depreciation in the old shares and, consequently, to the exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 522 which we have reproduced earlier. .. It was noticed that perhaps during the earlier hearing of this case, reliance has been placed by the department on the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ajay C. Mehta v. DCIT 305 ITR (AT) 155. In that case also assessee had claimed short term capital loss. The assessee had applied for 2,00,000 warrants and paid Rs. 2.70 per warrant as upfront payment. Later on, assessee exercised the option only in respect of 40,000 warrants and the right with respect to 1,50,000 warrants was extinguished, which was claimed as short term capital loss. This claim of loss was rejected by the Tribunal because no consideration was received by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty [supra]. In any case, in addition to the above detailed discussion, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of The Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [supra] wherein it is clearly held that if no compensation is received, then capital loss cannot be allowed. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that detailed facts are not available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated in USA was holding shares in Goodyear India Limited. As part of the global strategy, it was contemplating re-organising all its investments and, therefore, proposed to enter into Share Contribution Deed to contribute voluntarily entire 74% of its holdings in Goodyear India Ltd., to Goodyear Orient. (P) Ltd., Singapore without consideration and voluntarily. The following question was referred for consideration of the Hon'ble authority- "Whether the Applicant is liable to tax in India under the provisions of section 45 read with section 48 or under A.Y other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") in relation to the proposed contribution of its shares in Goodyear India Limited ("GIL") to Goodyear Orient Company (Private) Limited ("GOCPL") without consideration?" The Authority after detailed discussion observed at para-8 as under: "8. It is settled law that section 45 must be read with section 48 and if the computation provision cannot be given effect to for any reason, the charge under section 45 fails. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the interplay and relative scope of the two sections in the cases of B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 and Sunil Siddh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cated vide paras 4 and 5. In para 4 the contentions of both the parties have been considered and ultimately the issue had been adjudicated vide para-5 which is as under: "5. We have also heard the Learned D.R. on this issue. As submitted by the Learned Counsel, the identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y 2000-01 and the operative part of the findings is in para No.4 which reads as under: 4. The ground of appeal No.6 of the assessee is as under: "6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 31,33,240/- being obsolete/non-moving material written off." This ground of appeal consists of two parts i.e. with regard to the addition of Rs. 17,11,240/- on account of Times Music Pop albums and the other addition of Rs. 14,22,000/- on "Planet M". Learned Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the ground of appeal with regard to the addition of Rs. 14,22,000/- of "Planet M" and the ground of appeal of the assessee with regard to this addition of Rs. 14,22,000/- is dismissed. With regard to the other addition of Rs. 17,11,240/- of times music, the Ld. Counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee has to be treated as an industrial unit for Chennai also in view of this Circular, otherwise also, as per section 80IA[12], Industrial undertaking shall have the same meaning assign. Such Explanation to section 33B is reproduced below: Explanation: In this section, "industrial undertaking" means any undertaking which is mainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining. From the above, we find that any undertaking which is mainly engaged in processing of goods is also an industrial undertaking and in the present case, the Chennai unit is mainly engaged in gathering the news and procurement of advertisements and then processing the same to result in a news paper. These activities fulfil the condition of processing of goods and hence has to be treated as an industrial undertaking" The said order has been followed by the Tribunal in the other assessment years. As the facts are identical, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT[A] in this year also and dismiss Ground No.4 taken by the Revenue. Following the above order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
