9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considerations and as a matter of commercial expediency. The various other decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel in his synopsis also support his case to the proposition that the payment made to ITC Ltd. is allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37 of the IT Act. The answer to the question referred to by the Hon ble High Court to the Tribunal is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee. - ITA No.918/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 16-2-2021 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate And Ms Ragini Handa, CA For the Revenue : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th December, 2009 of the CIT(A)-2, New Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2006- 07. 2. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is the owner of Hotel Sea Rock at Band Stand, B.J. Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. It filed its return of income on 21st October, 2006 declaring a loss of ₹ 39,39,710/- and has paid an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... @ 10% applicable to the hotel building has to be allowed as was claimed by the appellant in original return of income. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 5th August, 2011. Before the Tribunal, the assessee made three without prejudice arguments in the following order of preference:- (a) The expenditure is revenue in nature; (b) The expenditure is for acquiring an intangible asset; and (c) The payment is made for improving the title of the hotel building. 5. So far as the argument that the expenditure is revenue in nature, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since on account of payment made to ITC Ltd. the assessee s business acquired a new lease of life after paying the aforesaid amount, it can only be held to be an expenditure of capital nature. 6. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the second alternate plea that the payment had led to acquisition of intangible asset and came to the conclusion that the payment cannot be said to be for acquisition of intangible asset. The Tribunal, finally at para 24.16 of the order held that the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the year and therefore depreciation is allowable. (d) The claim of payment made to ITC Ltd as revenue expenditure cannot be allowed. (e) The claim of acquiring intangible asset by way of payment of ₹ 30.86 crores to ITC Ltd cannot be allowed. (f) The payment made to ITC Ltd of ₹ 30.86 crores has rightly been capitalized by the appellant towards hotel building and depreciation @ 10% applicable to the hotel building has to be allowed as was claimed by the appellant in original return of income. 7. Aggrieved by the above order, both the Assessee and the Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT, which were disposed of by a common impugned order (which incidentally was also common to the appeals for the AY 2005- 06). It is seen from paragraph 24.6 of the impugned order of the ITAT that the counsel for the Assessee made three without prejudice‟ arguments before it in the following order of preference: (a) The expenditure is revenue in nature; (b) The expenditure is for acquiring an intangible asset; and (c) The payment is made for improving the title of the hotel building. 8. The discussion on the aspect whether the payment made to ITC Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A). 14. The Court finds merit in the contention that this aspect of the matter, viz., if the expenditure is not to be treated as capital expenditure‟, then it will have to be treated as revenue expenditure‟ was perhaps not addressed in the manner it should have been treated by the ITAT. On this aspect, therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to remit the matter to the ITAT for decision afresh on the treatment to be accorded to the expenditure incurred by the Assessee of the aforementioned sum of ₹ 30.86 crores and whether in particular, it should be treated as a revenue expenditure‟ or as capital expenditure‟. The Court makes it clear that it has not expressed any view one way or the other on the respective contentions of the Revenue or the Assessee on the issue, and, it will be open to the ITAT, after examining the entire records, including the original return filed by the Assessee to come to a fresh decision independent of its earlier decisions and any observations in the instant order. 15. As far as the Question (ii) is concerned, the Court is of the view that the findings both of the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT are consistent that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettlement agreement dated 11th May, 2005 copy of which is placed at pages 61-73 of the paper book and the consent terms dated 11th May, 2005 copy of which is placed at pages 74-99 of the paper book, the ld. Counsel submitted that legal proceedings were undertaken both by the assessee company and ITC Ltd. and the disputes were eventually settled after a period of 12 years. He submitted that in such circumstances the assessee company out of commercial expediency terminated the operator-cum-management agreement and paid a sum of ₹ 43.10 crores during assessment year 2006-07. Referring to page 67 of the paper book, he submitted that as per the terms of the settlement, ITC Ltd. would hand over vacant and peaceful possession of hotel property. He submitted that the amount was accounted for in the books of account of the assessee as under:- a) Repayment of security deposit ITC - ₹ 7.75 Cr. b) Reimbursement towards cost of stores acquired from ITC - 0.64 Cr. c) Reimbursement towards transfer of various account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as a consideration for getting rid of defect in the title would be a capital payment. 10.1 Referring to the order of the Tribunal, he submitted that the Tribunal held that it was a case of re-possession of an asset leased to ITC Ltd. and it enhanced the right of the assessee to use the premises in any manner it desires which was otherwise encumbered upto 30.06.2011 and, therefore, the payment was attributable to hotel building and was entitled for depreciation at the rate applicable to hotel building. The Tribunal further held that the assessee can take a plea or claim for deduction in the return filed u/s 153A. It also held that the payment did not lead to acquisition of any intangible asset. The Tribunal further held that the payment can only be attributed to hotel building as it enhanced the right of the assessee to use the premises in any manner it desires. 10.2 Referring to paras 9 to 14 of the order of the Hon ble High Court dated 20th August, 2019, he submitted that now that the Hon ble High Court has remitted the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh on treatment of the same stating that the Tribunal had not examined whether the expenditure was revenue and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of settlement agreement with no claim of any nature remaining outstanding between the assessee and the ITC. It is also stated at point 12 at page 66 of the paper book that ITC will withdraw its management personnel from the hotel and deliver possession to the assessee. Referring to clause (iv) of point n. of consent terms, copy of which is placed at page 78 of the paper book, he submitted that payment of ₹ 32.42 crores was only for relinquishment of rights under operating licence. He submitted that there was no addition to the capital asset and there was no change in the capital structure. He submitted that payment made for removal of restriction, obstruction or disability may result in acquiring benefits to the business, but that by itself would not acquire any capital asset. By getting freed from the ITC, the assessee did not acquire any advantage in the capital field. It did not result in starting any new business to enable it to continue its business without being hinged by the contract. The stage of parting with ownership in relation to the hotel in possession of ITC had not been reached. Since there was no question of acquiring a property, it cannot be sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19) 412 ITR 489 (Del); iii)Shyam Buriap Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 151 (Calcutta); iv) Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 39; v) CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); vi) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC); vii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC); viii) Airport Authority of India vs. CIT (2012) 340 ITR 407 (Del); ix) CIT, Bombay vs. Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd.; x) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 32 taxmann.com 282 (Gujarat); xi) CIT vs. M/s Shriram Builcons Ltd. ITA No.39,53,60,65 of 2006. xii) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 223 ITR 112 (Karnataka); xiii) CIT vs. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1 (Bombay); xiv) CIT vs. Auto Distributors Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 222 (Calcutta); xv) CIT vs. Peico Electronics Electricals (1992) 107 CTR Cal 240; xvi) Cannanore Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 528 (Ker.); xvii) Ebrahim Aboobaker vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 664 (Bombay); xviii) Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Inspecting assistant Commissioner (1989) 31 ITD 350 (Bang) ITAT; xix) CIT vs. B.L. Dhingra Sons (1985) 153 ITR 167 (Del); xx) P. Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re to be revenue in nature. He accordingly submitted that the issue relating to admissibility of claim of this expenditure as revenue has already been adjudicated by the Hon ble Delhi High Court and, therefore, the Tribunal has limited jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch as it has to decide as to whether it is capital in nature eligible for depreciation or revenue in nature to be allowable in full. 16. On a pointed query raised by the Bench as to whether the assessee can make a new claim in a search assessment when such claim was not made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Counsel submitted that the search in the instant case took place on 28th February, 2007 and the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2006-07. The assessment was pending on the date of search and would be an assessment when any and every matter would be considered regardless of the incriminating material found during the course of search. He submitted that it is the settled law that the concluded assessments have to be restricted to the material found during the course of search and those assessments which have not been completed on the date of search are to be treated as regular ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being raised on account of any legal infirmity or technical ground. 17. The ld. Counsel submitted that this is purely a legal claim which can be raised at any stage of the proceedings before any court provided it does not require any fresh facts. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383. He accordingly submitted that the claim of the assessee that the payment made to ITC Ltd. amounting to ₹ 30.86 crores is to be treated as revenue expenditure. 18. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find, the assessee, in the instant case, is the owner of hotel known as Hotel Sea Rock at Band Stand, B.J. Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai which was being managed by ITC Ltd. under Hotel Operator Agreement effective from 1986 pursuant to which ITC Ltd. was in possession, control and management of the hotel property and the assessee was entitled to a certain percentage of the Revenue the balance being the remuneration of ITC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the nature of business and commercial rights which is evident from page 38 of the paper book. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee, apart from other things had submitted as under which finds mention at page 4 of the assessment order:- During the year under consideration the assessee, in the return u/s 139(1) had capitalized a sum of ₹ 30.86 crores under the head building'. This amount represented the payment made to ITC Ltd., for termination of the operator/ Management agreement and taking over vacant possession of the property to enable, the assessee company to manage and. operate its own hotel. This payment being in the nature of vacation charges constitute the improvement to the assets, eligible for depreciation. Subsequently the auditors of the company have advised that the said payment constitutes payment for acquisition of intangible assets being the right to manage the hotel Accordingly, the assessee has modified its. claim by treating the same as intangible assets. In the alternative it is contended that the said payment resulting in an. improvement in the value of the building should be capitalized accordingly. 20. We find, the AO while r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o decide the issue on merit and rejected the claim of revenue expenditure by holding as under:- (ii).1. Even otherwise on merit also, this expenditure can not be said as revenue expenditure as has been held by the apex court in the case of V Jagmohan Rao VS. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits-tax [75 ITR 373 (SC)]. While answering the question as to whether amount paid by assessee to perfect a title or as consideration for getting rid of defect in the title would be a capital payment or revenue payment, Hon ble Apex Court has held that same is towards capital payment. While delivering the decision Hon ble Apex Court has further observed as under:- .it is well established that where money is paid to perfect a title or as consideration for getting rid of a defect in the title or a threat of litigation the payment would be capital payment and not revenue payment. What was essential to be seen was whether the amount of ₹ 1,15,000 was paid for bringing into existence a right or asset of an enduring nature. In other words if the asset which was acquired was in its character a capital asset, then any sum paid to acquire it must surely be capital outlay. Money pai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any manner it desires. 23. Before the Hon ble High Court, the issue was relating to the allowability of depreciation @ 10% on the above expenditure which was treated as a part of the building. During the course of arguments before the Hon ble High Court, the assessee also raised its claim that the expenditure should be considered as revenue in nature and allowed in full. The Hon ble High Court agreed with the contentions of the assessee and, accordingly, restored the issue to the file of the Tribunal directing that the matter be visited with an open mind as to whether depreciation @10% will be allowed or the entire expenditure is to be revenue in nature. 24. Therefore, the issue before the Tribunal now is confined to admissibility of claim of expenditure as revenue in nature or it is a capital expenditure. 25. We find Clause 2.1 of the Article II of the agreement dated 3rd May, 1996 between ITC Ltd. and the assessee reads as under:- ARTICLE II 2.1 Subject to the terms and conditions herein contained EHIL hereby grants Licence to ITC to operate the said Hotel in terms of this agreement by maintaining ITC s own books of Accounts from the 1st day of July 1986 for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce. The relevant clause of the agreement reads as under:- The sum of ₹ 32.42 crore (Rupees Thirty two crores Forty two lakhs only) is and by way of relinquishment of rights to operate the hotel under the operating licence. 26. We, therefore, find merit in the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel that when there was no addition to the capital asset and no change in the capital structure and there was no asset of any enduring nature involved, but, only an alteration in the mode of earning the money from the hotel, therefore, such compensation paid had arisen out of business necessity and should be allowed as revenue in nature. The assessee, in our opinion, in the instant case, has acquired nothing new of enduring nature as it always held the asset of enduring nature. It was not a case where the assessee was acquiring for the first time something which it did not otherwise own or possess. It was, thus, a change in the method of earning profits from the hotel and not a transfer of any asset. We find merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel that the agreement was terminated on business considerations and as a matter of commercial expediency. 27. We find, the Hon ble De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee had sought to explain that this compensation corresponded to the increase in the resale value, [Para 25] The mere fact that the space buyer's agreement or the allotment letter did not mandate payment of compensation would not come in the wav of the assessee treating such payment as 'revenue expenditure.' [Para 29] Applying the law explained by the Supreme Court in Shahzada Nand Sons v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 358 (SC) and CIT v. Nainital Bank Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 638 (SC) to the case in hand, the plausible conclusion is that the compensation paid by the assessee to the allottees of the commercial spaces for the surrender of their rights therein cannot be said to be disallowable on the ground of such payment having been made for 'extraneous considerations'. [Para 33] In the instant case, the assessee has a plausible explanation for making such payment of compensation to protect its business interests.' While it is true that there was no 'contractual obligation' to make the payment, it is plain that the assessee was also looking to build its own reputation in the real estate market [Para 35] Further the mere fact that the recipients ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring nature. Rather the compensation was paid to the existing tenants to have their portions vacated to have new, tenants with higher rent and thus to have a higher rental income which was a business activity permitted by the Memorandum. [Para 14] 27.3 We find, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 39 has held as under:- Where the assessee has an existing right to carry on a business, any expenditure made by it during the course of business for the purpose of removal of any restriction or obstruction or disability would he on revenue account, provided the expenditure does not acquire any capital asset Payments made for removal of restriction, obstruction or disability may result in acquiring benefits to the business, but that by itself would not acquire any capital asset The facts of each case have to be borne in mind in considering the question having regard to the nature of business,-its requirement and the nature of the advantage in commercial sense. In the instant case, the assessee had been granted mining lease in respect of 4.27 square miles at Jamsar under which he had right to sink, dig, drive, quarry and extract min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of an enduring nature. The Tribunal rightly allowed the expenditure on revenue account. Accordingly, the order of the High Court was to be set aside and that of the Tribunal was to be restored. 27.4 We find, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC) has held as under:- In the case of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1. the Supreme Court observed that there may be cases where expenditure, even if incurred for obtaining an advantage of enduring benefit, may. nonetheless, be on revenue account and the cost of enduring benefit may break down. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more effectively or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held as under:- Applying the test laid down in CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 371 / 176 Taxman 355 (Delhi) as well as the ratio of Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 39/[1990] 53 Taxman 279 (SC) to the facts of instant case, a conclusion would be that the expenditure in question by the assessee was revenue in nature. It is not in dispute that the land belongs to the assessee. Certain encroachers in all these airports had encroached upon the part of the land, in the schemes formulated by the Government for removal of these encroachers and rehabilitate them at other places, if the assessee had paid the amount, that amount is not for acquisition of new assets. The payment was made to facilitate its smooth functioning o f the business, i.e.. in relation to carrying on the business in a profitable manner. [Para 13] Therefore, such an expenditure, if incurred by the assessee, would be on revenue account and is not capital in nature. [Para 14] The Tribunal, however, proceeded to discuss the case on the basis that only a provision for such an expenditure was made and in fact there was no payment made in the assessment year(s) in question. It, thus, went ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be allowed by the Assessing Officer only after the assessee furnishes proof of having made such a payment in the different assessment years in question, [Para 17] The criteria laid down by the Tribunal that for admissibility of the expenditure there has to be an agreement between the assessee and the hutments dweller is clearly wrong. It is a matter of record that in these schemes no such agreement is actually arrived at between the persons who make the payment like the assessee herein and the hutments dwellers. Therefore, even if in a given case the assessee is able to show that, rehabilitation scheme was formulated by the Government and the assessee as beneficiary was asked to make the payment under the said scheme, that would be sufficient evidence to claim the deduction of expenditure as held by the Supreme Court in Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. (supra ). However, it is found that in the instant case, a finding of fact is recorded by the Tribunal that no such scheme could be furnished by the assessee for which the assessee was supposed to make the provision. To that extent, therefore, the Tribunal is correct in its view. At the same time, following Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by CIT(A) and it does not call for any interference. In the result, this ground of the Revenue is rejected. 4, No question of law arises. Tax appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 27.8 We find, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 223 ITR 112 (Karnataka) has held as under:- Far from stating that the agreement was a step in implementation of the protocol it did not even make a reference to the same. This circumstance was significant looking to the fact that the protocol and the agreement were executed within a short span of less than 3 months apart, if the intention of the parties was to take only a step in aid of the implementation of the protocol there was no reason why the agreement should not have specifically said so. Prom a reading of the relevant clauses of the agreement it was apparent that the agreement did not recognise GEC's right to continue with the distributorship work beyond February 1977, no matter the protocol in principle recognised such a right. Further, a plain reading of clause 13 of the agreement showed that all agreements, whether verbal or written, subsisting between the parties immediately pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribution of its products. The Tribunal had found that the GEC had been operating in this territory for over 20 years and due to its dominance in the area was in a position to seriously prejudice the assessee s business if the distributorship were to be prematurely terminated without compensation. It had further held that the bona fides behind the decision taken by the assessee were established by the subsequent events, according to which, as against a projected profit at ₹ 1.50.000 the company made an actual profit at ₹ 1.96.000. With the said findings in the background, it was difficult to see how the view taken by the Tribunal could be said to be in any way erroneous. Thus, while the protocol dated 28-1-1972 stood superseded and the agreement itself did not entitle the GEC to insist upon a renewal with the result that strictly speaking GEC may not have had any legal claim against the assessee, yet in order to ensure a smooth transition from marketing through a sole distributor to a marketing by the company itself, the payment made to the erstwhile distributor was sufficiently justified by the considerations of commercial expediency. The payment was made without, to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss of office which they had been holding for more than three decades and claiming deduction of the same in computation of its total income. Therefore, the amount of compensation paid was allowable as deduction under section 37(1). 27.10 We find, the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Auto Distributors Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 222 (Calcutta) has held as under:- The assessee was all along holding FIRPO building on leasehold basis. It was the assessee who had let out a portion of the first floor of the said premises to Mr. C. This tenancy had also been revoked by Mr. C subsequently. The Textile Mills to which Mr. C had let out the said portion had no privity of contract with the assessee. The assessee did not acquire any leasehold rights in FIRPO building by making the payment to the Textile Mills. The assesses was in fact, already holding such leasehold rights. By making payment to the Textile Mills assessee was only able to remove the unauthorised occupants creating an impediment to the commercial exploitation of the lease right. If the assessee-company had taken legal proceedings against the Textile Mills, it would have incurred huge legal expenses and substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. report in (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC) observed as follows: There is no doubt that, as a result of the termination of the services of the managing agents, the company got rid of its liability to pay office allowance as well as the commission it was required to pay under the Managing Agency Agreement not only during the accounting year hut also for a few years more, The expenditure thus saved undoubtedly swelled the profits of the company. From the facts found it is clear that the managing agency was terminated on business consideration and as a matter of commercial expediency. There is no basis for holding that by terminating the managing agency. the company acquired any enduring benefit for any income yielding asset. It is true that by terminating the services of the managing agents. the company not only saved the expense that it would have had to incur in the relevant previous year but also for few more years to come. It will not be correct to say that bv avoiding certain business expenditure, the company can be said to have acquired enduring benefits or acquired any income yielding asset. 27.13. The Supreme Court in that judgment noted with approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, eyen though the advantage may endure for in indefinite future. In the present case, no doubt the advantage secured for the business of the assessee was of a long duration inasmuch as it would lust so long as the roads continued to be in motorable condition, but it was not an advantage in the capital field, because no tangible or intangible assset was acquired by the assessee, nor was there any addition to or expansion of the profit-making apparatus of the assessee. The amount of ₹ 50,000 was contributed by the assessee for the purpose of facilitating the conduct of the business of the assessee and making it more efficient and profitable and it was clearly an expenditure on revenue account 28. The various other decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel in his synopsis also support his case to the proposition that the payment made to ITC Ltd. is allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37 of the IT Act. The answer to the question referred to by the Hon ble High Court to the Tribunal is accordingly answered in the affirmativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
