I.t A Nos.88 Of 2013 And Connected Cases v. Two Other Questions Arise In The Assessmentyear 1998-99 In I.t.a

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 12TH BHADRA, 1940 ITA.No. 703 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 63/2007 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DT.24.09.2007 - ASSESSMENTYEAR 2002-03 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHINCOCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD.WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003. BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.)SRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.P.BENNY THOMASSRI.P.GOPINATH THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON03.09.2018, ALONG WITH ITA Nos.716/2009, 873/2009,879/2009, 922/2009, 1060/2009,1084/2009, 1151/2009, 88/2013& 112/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: :2 :: I.T.A Nos.88/2013, 703/2009,716/2009, 873/2009,879/2009, 922/2009, 1060/2009, 1084/2009, 1151/2009 &112/2013 JUDGMENT Vinod Chandran, J. These appeals have been posted together since manyof the questions raised are common in certain appeals,but however, there are other independent questionsarising in some appeals. As of now, with respect tothe dis-allowance of licence fee paid to RPGEnterprises Ltd., the learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the Revenue submits that they are not pressing thesaid issue. Hence, we refuse to answer the questionraised and confirm the order of the Tribunal withrespect to that issue. The Tribunal's order standsconfirmed on that issue, in so far as the assessmentyears 1995-96 to 1999-2000 and 2001-02 to 2003-04. I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :3 :: 2. As for the dis-allowance of employees'contribution to provident fund under Section 43B, whicharises in the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and2004-05 (ITA Nos.716/2009, 703/2009 and 112/2013). Theissue stands covered in favour of the Revenue by ajudgment of this Court reported in Popular Vehicles andServices Pvt.Ltd., v. The Commissioner of Income Tax,Ernakulam [(2018) 406 ITR 150 (Ker)]. The question oflaw is answered in favour of the Revenue and againstthe asseseee. The order of the Tribunal is set aside onthat count and the dis-allowance made by the AssessingOfficer restored. 3. Two other questions arise in the assessmentyear 1998-99 in I.T.A.No.1060/2009. One of them is thedis-allowance of the premium paid on redemption ofdebentures under Section 37. The question of lawarising from the order is re-framed as follows:- Whether the entire premium paid on redemptionof debentures can be treated as allowableexpenditure in the assessment year 1998-99under Section 37 of the I.T.Act ? I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :4 :: 4. The brief facts to be noticed are that the assessee had availed a secured loan for its workingcapital requirement by allotting non-convertibledebentures to GIC Mutual Fund. The debentures where tocarry an interest of 18.75% and were redeemable at apremium of 5% on the face value in three instalmentscommencing from 16.10.1997. The assessee having madesubstantial profits in the subject assessment yearredeemed debentures in one instalment so as to save theinterest payment at the very high rate of 18.75%. Theentire premium paid was hence once claimed as adeduction under Section 37 of the I.T.Act. TheAssessing Officer declined the same relying on theMadras Industries Investment Corporation Ltd. v.C.I.T., [1997] 225 ITR 802 (SC). The First AppellateAuthority confirmed the dis-allowance. The Tribunal,however, found that even going by the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court, the claim has to be allowed,especially since the premium though stood deferred forpayment in three instalments, was paid in its entirety I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :5 :: on the first instalment itself, thus redeeming thedebentures fully. I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :5 :: on the first instalment itself, thus redeeming thedebentures fully. 5. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. was a case in which the company had issueddebentures at a discount of 2%; redeemable in twelveyears. The total discount for the debentures issued,having a face value of Rs.1.5 crores, was Rs.3 lakhs.In the subject assessment year, as on 30.06.1967, theproportionate discount for six months being Rs.12,500/-was claimed as a business expenditure. The AssessingOfficer and the First Appellate Authority disallowedsuch claim. The assessee before the Tribunal raised anew claim of the entire Rs.3 lakhs, being the totaldiscount allowed for issuance of debentures, should betreated as an expenditure in the subject assessmentyear, which stood allowed. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the various decisions of itself as also different HighCourts, found on 'expenditure', in the followingmanner:- I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :6 :: 7. Thus “expenditure” is not necessarilyconfined to the money which has been actuallypaid out. It covers a liability which hasaccrued or which has been incurred although itmay have to be discharged at a future date.However, a contingent liability which may haveto be discharged in future cannot be consideredas expenditure. XXX XXX XXX 10.Therefore, although expenditure primarilydenotes the idea of spending or paying out, itmay, in given circumstances, also cover anamount of loss which has not gone out of theassessee’s pocket but which is all the same, anamount which the assessee has had to give up.It also covers a liability which the assesseehas incurred in praesenti although it ispayable in futuro. A contingent liability thatmay arise in future is, however, not“expenditure”. It would also cover not just aone-time payment but a liability spread outover a number of years. A Paragraph in Batliboi's “Principles and Practice ofAuditing”, was also relied on, which is as follows:- “When debentures are issued at discount, an I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :7 :: account styled ‘Discount on Debentures Account’, willbe debited with the discount allowed on the issue.The debentures account will be credited in the booksat their normal value and will appear at that valueas a liability in the balance-sheet. The loss thusarising need not be completely written off in theyear in which the debentures are issued, since thebenefit to be derived from the amount borrowed willcontinue till the debentures are redeemed. Where thedebentures are redeemable at the end of a fixedperiod, a proportionate amount of discount should bewritten off out of the revenue every year duringwhich the debentures are outstanding.” 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the appellant had rightly claimed a deduction inrespect of the proportionate part of discount beingRs.12,500/- in the relevant accounting period. This wason the premise that though the liability was incurredon issuance of debentures on a discount, the liabilityto pay the amount in excess of that received onissuance, is at a later date; in that case after 12years. There is hence a continuing benefit for theassessee spread over a period of twelve years and the I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :8 :: liability too has to be spread over the period of thedebentures, was the finding. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the appellant had rightly claimed a deduction inrespect of the proportionate part of discount beingRs.12,500/- in the relevant accounting period. This wason the premise that though the liability was incurredon issuance of debentures on a discount, the liabilityto pay the amount in excess of that received onissuance, is at a later date; in that case after 12years. There is hence a continuing benefit for theassessee spread over a period of twelve years and the I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :8 :: liability too has to be spread over the period of thedebentures, was the finding. 8. In the present case, however, the facts aredistinctly different. The assessee in the present casethough had a benefit of deferred payment of the premiumin three instalments, as a prudent measure, to saveinterest, especially in the context of profit earned inthe subject assessment year; paid up the entire premiumin one instalment, thus redeeming the debenture, whichexpenditure was incurred in the subject assessmentyear. Even going by the cited decision of the SupremeCourt, as has been held by the Tribunal, the deductionhas to be allowed. The Supreme Court in MadrasIndustrial Investment Corporation Ltd. held that thediscounted amount over and above the amounts receivedon issuance of debentures, is a liability incurred forthe purpose of its business and is in the nature ofexpenditure. Dilating upon whether it be a capital orrevenue expenditure India Cements Ltd. Vs CIT [1966] 60ITR 52 (SC) was relied on to find that any liabilityincurred for the purpose of obtaining loan would be :9 :: revenue expenditure. Here the issuance of debentureswas also for the purpose of working capitalrequirements. We hence answer the question in favourof the assessee and against the Revenue; upholding thededuction as expenditure, as permitted by the Tribunal.9.The next question arising in the year 1998-99 in ITA No.1060/2009 is the dis-allowance of bad-debts written off relating to Bio-tech Division. Theassessee claimed that its Bio-tech Division hadadvanced amounts to various suppliers at variouslocations for procuring seeds in connection with theseed business of the assessee. The advances made wereto the agriculturists which was to be adjusted againstthe supplies made by them. Due to crop failure, thesupply did not materialise and hence the advances madewere written off as bad-debts and a claim was raised ofRs.41,63,375/- under Section 36. The Assessing Officerdeclined the same finding that the condition underSection 36(2)(i) that such debt or part thereof, havingto be taken into account in computing the income of theassessee of the previous year in which the amounts were I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :10 :: written off, had not been complied with. The Tribunal agreed with the finding of the Assessing Officerinsofar as the dis-allowance under Section 36, buthowever found the same to be an expenditure underSection 37 and hence allowable as a deduction. Thequestion of law framed from the order of the Tribunalis re-framed as follows: “Has not the Tribunal erred in permitting theclaim under Section 37 especially in the lightof the judgment of the Honourable SupremeCourt in 2010 (320) ITR 577 (SC) [SouthernTechnologies Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax]?” 10. In Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra), theHonourable Supreme Court was concerned with a provisionfor bad-debts made by the assessee-company, which wasnot entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989. Theprovision was made in accordance with the Non-BankingFinancial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank)Directions, 1998; which stipulated disclosure of incomeafter deducting provision against non-performing assets(NPA). This provision was held to be not constituting I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :11 :: “Has not the Tribunal erred in permitting theclaim under Section 37 especially in the lightof the judgment of the Honourable SupremeCourt in 2010 (320) ITR 577 (SC) [SouthernTechnologies Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner ofIncome Tax]?” 10. In Southern Technologies Ltd. (supra), theHonourable Supreme Court was concerned with a provisionfor bad-debts made by the assessee-company, which wasnot entitled to deduction after April 1, 1989. Theprovision was made in accordance with the Non-BankingFinancial Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank)Directions, 1998; which stipulated disclosure of incomeafter deducting provision against non-performing assets(NPA). This provision was held to be not constituting I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :11 :: 'expenses' on the basis of which deduction could beclaimed under Section 36(1)(vii). On and from01.04.1989 by insertion of an Explanation under Section36(1)(vii), clarifying that any bad debt written off asirrecoverable will not include any provision made forbad and doubtful debts; the provision stood excludedfor deduction under Section 36. In this context, it washeld that Section 37 applies only to items which do notfall under Sections 30 to 36 and a provision fordoubtful debts being expressly excluded from Section36(1)(vii) cannot be applied for deduction underSection 37 even on the basis of the 'real incometheory'. The provision made for compliance of theReserve Bank Directions of 1998 was held to be anotional expense which had to be added back forcomputation of total income under the Income Tax Act. 11. In the present case, there is no specificexclusion of the expenditure incurred by the assesseeand the dis-allowance was on the ground that thededuction cannot be claimed under Section 36 forreasons of non-compliance under sub-Section (i) of I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :12 :: Section 36(2). Obviously, there was a mistaken claimmade by the assessee and if it had been claimed as arevenue expenditure under Section 37, it could havebeen allowed was the finding of the Tribunal. We findsufficient support, as found by the Tribunal, from thedecision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported inAIR 1967 SC 723 [Commissioner of Income Tax v. MysoorSugar Company Ltd.]. 12. The facts in Mysoor Sugar Company Ltd. areidentical and the issue considered was whether theadvances to sugar-cane growers, liable for set offagainst the consideration of its supply, could betreated as an expenditure, on such supplies notmaterialising for reason of crop failure. The Tribunalin that case found that the expenditure if at all canbe treated only as a capital expenditure. TheHonourable Supreme Court on facts held that theexpenditure is clearly a revenue expenditure eligiblefor deduction under the then existing Income Tax Act,We extract here-under para 11 of the judgment: I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :13 :: 12. The facts in Mysoor Sugar Company Ltd. areidentical and the issue considered was whether theadvances to sugar-cane growers, liable for set offagainst the consideration of its supply, could betreated as an expenditure, on such supplies notmaterialising for reason of crop failure. The Tribunalin that case found that the expenditure if at all canbe treated only as a capital expenditure. TheHonourable Supreme Court on facts held that theexpenditure is clearly a revenue expenditure eligiblefor deduction under the then existing Income Tax Act,We extract here-under para 11 of the judgment: I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :13 :: 11. These cases illustrate thedistinction between an expenditure by wayof investment and an expenditure in thecourse of business, which we havedescribed as current expenditure. Thefirst may truly be regarded as on thecapital side but not the second. Applyingthis test to this simple case, it is quiteobvious which it is. The amount was anadvance against price of one crop. TheOppigedars were to get the assistance notas an investment by the assessee Companyin its agriculture, but only as an advancepayment of price. The amount, so far asthe assessee Company was concerned,represented the current expendituretowards the purchase of sugar cane, and itmakes no difference that the sugar canethus purchased was grown by theOppigedars with the seedlings, fertiliserand money taken on account from theassessee Company. Insofar as the assesseeCompany was concerned, it was doing nomore than making a forward arrangement forthe next year’s crop and paying an amountin advance out of the price, so that thegrowing of the crop may not suffer due to want of funds in the hands of the growers.There was hardly any element of investmentwhich contemplates more than payment ofadvance price. The resulting loss to theassessee Company was just as much a losson the revenue side as would have been, ifit had paid for the ready crop which wasnot delivered. We respectfully follow the aforesaid judgment of theHonourable Supreme Court, on identical facts and lawand answer the question in favour of the assessee andagainst the Revenue confirming the order of theTribunal with respect to the deduction for the year1998-99. 13. A common question arising from theassessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 {ITA Nos: 922,873, 1084 and 1060 and 879 of 2009} is with respect todis-allowance of expenditure incurred for earningincome from tax free bonds under Section 14A. Thequestion of law framed is re-framed as follows: Whether the Tribunal was correct in deletingthe dis-allowance of interest earned on I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :15 :: expenditure incurred for income from tax freebonds and was not the dis-allowance properlymade by the Assessing Officer? 14. The Revenue has relied on a decision ofthe Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner ofIncome Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., [2012]344 ITR 259(Ker) wherein it was held that the dis-allowance couldbe permitted only from the year 2001-02. Even thisapplies in favour of the assessee in the present cases,since all the years are prior to 2001-02. Further thelearned Counsel for the assessee has pointed out adecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court finding theprovision under Section 14A applicable only from theassessment year 2007-08 onwards, in Commissioner ofIncome Tax v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., [(2018) 101 CCH0021 I SCC((2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC))] . We need onlyrefer to Paragraph 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment whichreads as under:- “30. It is also relevant to know as to how the statutory provisions of Section 14A sub- :16 :: “30. It is also relevant to know as to how the statutory provisions of Section 14A sub- :16 :: section (2) and sub-section (3), Rule 8D wasunderstood by the Income Tax departmentitself. After insertion of sub-section (2)and sub-section (3) in Section 14A byFinance Bill, 2006, circular dated28.12.2006 was issued by the Departmentwherein paragraph 11.3, following wasstated: “11.3. Applicability - from assessmentyear 2007- 2008 onwards” 31. The methodology for determining amountof the expenditure in addition to income notincludable in total income was for the firsttime prescribed by Rule 8D as was envisagedin Section 14A sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). It is also relevant to noticethat Constitution Bench in the Commissionerof Income Tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.,has also referred to and relied the CBDTcircular to find out the understanding ofthe Central Board of Direct Tax itself in context of Provision which was in issue inthe above case. 32. Explanatory memorandum issued with theFinance Bill, 2006 and the CBDT circulardated 28.12.2006, thus, clearly indicatesthat department understood that sub-section(2) and sub-section (3) was to beimplemented with effect from assessment year2007-2008. The Rule 8D prescribing themethod was brought into statute book witheffect from 24.03.2008 to implement sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) with effectfrom assessment year 2007-2008, is clearindicator of the fact that a new method forcomputing the expenditure was brought in bythe rules which was to be utilized forcomputing expenditure for the assessmentyear 2007-2008 and onwards. 15. In the context of the binding precedent, the question for the subject assessment years will haveto be answered in favour of the assessee and againstthe revenue. The order of the Tribunal to that extentis upheld. I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :18 :: 16. With respect to Section 14A, there alsoarises a question insofar as the dis-allowance ofreplanting expenses made by the Assessing Officer andallowed by the first appellate Authority and theTribunal. The assessment years in which such questionarises are 2002-03 to 2004-05 (ITA Nos.703/2009,1151/2009 and 88/2013). The issue is no longer resintegra and is covered by the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in CIT v. Essar TeleholdingsLtd.(supra). The question is hence answered againstthe Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 17. The last question arising in ITANo.879/2009 for the assessment year 1999-2000 is withrespect to the dis-allowance of contribution paid toTea Traders' Association under Section 37. Whether theTribunal was right in allowing the same as anexpenditure incurred out of commercial expediency. TheTea Trader's Association is said to have been providingvarious services to its members by representingindustrial and other trade matters of its members atvarious Government Forums. They required a building to I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :19 :: effectively carry out its activities for the commonbenefit of its members for which a contribution wasmade. The contribution was made to the Building Fundconstituted by the General Body of the Tea TradeAssociation, which according to the assessee was madeout of business expediency. The learned counsel forthe assessee has also relied on 1996(6) SCC 611 [SreeVenkita Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Company v.Commissioner of Income Tax]. I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :19 :: effectively carry out its activities for the commonbenefit of its members for which a contribution wasmade. The contribution was made to the Building Fundconstituted by the General Body of the Tea TradeAssociation, which according to the assessee was madeout of business expediency. The learned counsel forthe assessee has also relied on 1996(6) SCC 611 [SreeVenkita Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Company v.Commissioner of Income Tax]. 18. We do not find any assistance to theassessee from the aforesaid decision which was on quitedistinct facts. There, a District Welfare Fund wasestablished under a scheme evolved by the Rice Millers'Association in consultation with the DistrictCollector. Export of rice from the State otherwisethan under a permit from the District Collector wasprohibited. There was a condition that a permit wouldbe issued only on a contribution being made to theDistrict Welfare Fund at a specified rate. It was heldthe test to determine whether such contribution wasallowable, is of commercial expediency and not of I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :20 :: compulsion to contribute. Though there is nocompulsion to contribute; an expert permit would not beissued unless the contribution was made. This made itnecessary that a contribution be made at the specifiedrate for obtaining an export permit making thecontribution imperative to carry on the business ofexport, thus making it one on account of commercialexpediency. In the present case, there is absolutelyno commercial expediency as projected by the assessee.But for the association, ventilating the grievance ofits members before the authorities, requiring abuilding for its operation, there cannot be anycommercial expediency ferreted out from the above factsto make it a claim of business expenditure. We henceanswer the question against the assessee and in favourof the revenue. We set aside the order of the Tribunalto that extent for the year 1999-2000 and uphold thedis-allowance of the claim made by the AssessingOfficer. 19. I.T.A Nos. 922 of 2009(A.Y. 1995-96), 873of 2009(A.Y. 1996-97), 1084 of 2009(A.Y. 1997-98), 1060 Though there is no I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :21 :: of 2009(A.Y. 1998-99), 1151 of 2009(A.Y. 2002-03) and88 of 2013(A.Y. 2003-04) are rejected. I.T.A No:'s 879of 2009(A.Y. 1999-00), 716 of 2009(A.Y. 2001-02) and703 of 2009(A.Y. 2002-03) stand partly allowed, thefirst sustaining the dis-allowance made by the A.O onthe contribution paid to Tea Trade Association and thetwo others sustaining the dis-allowance under Section43B. I.T.A No: 112 of 2013(A.Y. 2004-05) stands allowedsustaining the dis-allowance under Section 43B. Partiesleft to suffer their respective costs throughout. Sd/-K.VINOD CHANDRANJudge jma Sd/- ASHOK MENONJudge I.T A Nos.88 of 2013 and connected cases :22 :: APPENDIX (IN ITA NO.703/2009) PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3)R.W.S 147 DT. 30.03.2006 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2002-0330.03.2006 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2002-03 ANNEXURE BCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DT 6.11.2006OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DT 6.11.2006 ANNEXURE CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT 24.09.2007APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT 24.09.2007 ANNEXURE DCOPY OF THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN FOR THE ASST.YEAR 1998-99COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN FOR THE ASST.YEAR 1998-99 ANNEXURE ECOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASST.YEARS 1995-96 TO 1997-98 AND 1999-2000OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASST.YEARS 1995-96 TO 1997-98 AND 1999-2000 ANNEXURE FCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OFM/S RPG ENTERPRISESM/S RPG ENTERPRISES ANNEXURE GCOPY OF ORDER OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD.CASE OF M/S.SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. ANNEXURE BCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DT 6.11.2006OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DT 6.11.2006 ANNEXURE CCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT 24.09.2007APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT 24.09.2007 ANNEXURE DCOPY OF THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN FOR THE ASST.YEAR 1998-99COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN FOR THE ASST.YEAR 1998-99 ANNEXURE ECOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASST.YEARS 1995-96 TO 1997-98 AND 1999-2000OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASST.YEARS 1995-96 TO 1997-98 AND 1999-2000 ANNEXURE FCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OFM/S RPG ENTERPRISESM/S RPG ENTERPRISES ANNEXURE GCOPY OF ORDER OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD.CASE OF M/S.SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES : NIL //TRUE COPY//