Ita/352/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. The Federal Bank Ltd., Alwaye-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 352 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 31/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHINBENCH DATED 30-06-2003 APPELLANT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE-1. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)SRI.TERRY V.JAMES OTHER PRESENT: THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.38/2011, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009,ITA.769/2009,ITA.815/2009,ITA.817/2009,ITA.872/2009,ITA.1287/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 38 of 2011 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 710/2010 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-09-2010 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,COCHIN BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., H.O., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA-683101. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.872/2009, ITA.352/2009, ITA.597/2009,ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009 &ITA.1287/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 597 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 450/1999 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018,ALONGWITHITA.1287/2009,ITA.872/2009,ITA.817/2009,ITA.815/2009,ITA.769/2009,ITA.755/2009,ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 755 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 246/2001 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018,ALONGWITHITA.1287/2009,ITA.872/2009,ITA.817/2009,ITA.815/2009,ITA.769/2009,ITA.597/2009,ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 769 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 491/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCOCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 769 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 491/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCOCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018,ALONGWITHITA.1287/2009,ITA.817/2009,ITA.815/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 &ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 815 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 459/2006 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009 ITA.817/2009,ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 &ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 817 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 654/2005 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITEDFEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018,ALONGWITHITA.1287/2009,ITA.872/2009,ITA.815/2009,ITA.769/2009,ITA.755/2009,ITA.597/2009,ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 872 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 26/2002 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCOCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S. FEDERAL BANK LTD.ALUVA. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018,ALONGWITHITA.1287/2009,ITA.815/2009,ITA.817/2009,ITA.769/2009,ITA.755/2009,ITA.597/2009,ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 1287 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 1110/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 11-10-2007 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCOCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 1287 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 1110/2004 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 11-10-2007 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCOCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.,FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.872/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009,ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 &ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT [ITA 352/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009,ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009,ITA.872/2009, ITA.1287/2009 & ITA.38/2011] Vinod Chandran, J. Common questions arise in many of the appeals, butnot in all. In such circumstances, we would firstframe the questions of law arising in the appeals andthen answer it, which would lead to the disposal of theappeals as such. The questions of law re-framed are asfollows: I)Whether the bad debts written off, for non-rural branches claimed under clause (vii) of Section 36(1) has to be allowed only in excessof the provision made for rural branches underclause (viia) of Section 36(1) ? II)Whether depreciation or loss on revaluation ofsecurities can be permitted on the basis ofthe market value or cost price, whichever isless, as stipulated by the Reserve Bank ofIndia ? III)In determining the provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(viia), has the non-rural branches to be determined on the basis of a revenue village and the population thereat ? IV)Whether the interest accrued on securities, which are not yet matured has to be assessedas income for the year ?as income for the year ? V)Whether the expenditure for purchase of giftsgiven to shareholders, who participated in theannual general meeting can be considered as apermissible business expenditure under Section37 ?given to shareholders, who participated in theannual general meeting can be considered as apermissible business expenditure under Section37 ? VI)Whether the Tribunal was correct in having not applied Section 14A for the assessment year2004-05 ?2004-05 ? VII)Whether the current investments written off can be claimed as loss for the assessment year in which it has been written off ? VIII) Whether the enhancement made by the First Appellate Authority under Section 14A could be sustained in view of the specific proviso prohibiting enhancement before the assessmentyear 2001-02 ? IX)Whether the Tribunal was correct in having permitted the allowance of write off of an amount, which the assessee was entitled to, as dividend from another company, which was returned as income on receipt of a cheque, which subsequently got dishonoured ? 2.On the first question the issue has to beanswered in favour of the assesee and against theRevenue, going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. The Assessing Officer shall verify thecomputation, looking into whether there is anyallowance granted for provision of bad debts in non-rural branches for the previous years. In which eventalone, the allowance of written off of bad debts innon-rural branches will be confined to the excess allowed from the provision made, and deduction allowed,for non-rural branches. We make it clear that in makingthe computation, there can be no consideration of the provision for bad debts for rural branches as grantedunder clause (viia) of Section 36(1). Hence, the firstquestion in I.T.A.Nos.352, 769, 872 & 815 of 2009 andI.T.A.No.38/2011 is answered in favour of the assesseeand against the Revenue. Court in [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. The Assessing Officer shall verify thecomputation, looking into whether there is anyallowance granted for provision of bad debts in non-rural branches for the previous years. In which eventalone, the allowance of written off of bad debts innon-rural branches will be confined to the excess allowed from the provision made, and deduction allowed,for non-rural branches. We make it clear that in makingthe computation, there can be no consideration of the provision for bad debts for rural branches as grantedunder clause (viia) of Section 36(1). Hence, the firstquestion in I.T.A.Nos.352, 769, 872 & 815 of 2009 andI.T.A.No.38/2011 is answered in favour of the assesseeand against the Revenue. 3.On depreciation or loss; the issue of revaluation of securities is covered by [2003] 264 ITR 545 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and [2011]339 ITR 606 (Ker), C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.This Court had held that revaluation of securities canbe only on the basis of market value or cost price,whichever is lesser, as stipulated by the Reserve Bankof India. The Tribunal's order to that extent isupheld. Question No.II is answered in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos.597 and872 of 2009. 4.On the third question, the issue stands coveredin favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., this Court had held that the determination of non-rural branches shall be only withreference to the revenue villages and not solely on the basis of the population. This Court specifically noticed the anomaly insofar as even wards in municipalities being included for identification ofrural branches, when the identification is on the basis of the population alone in wards of the localauthorities. We hence answer the third question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee inI.T.A.Nos.597, 755, 769, 815, 817, 872 and 1287 of 2009. The dis-allowance made by the Assessing Officerto that extent has to be restored. 5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee has an alternative submission insofar as theassessee having written off the said debts and therebeing no requirement to find out whether those arerural branches or not. The contention is that the assessee could have claimed it under clause (viia) ofSection 36(1). A similar contention was raised inassessee's own case in a batch of cases decided on11.12.2018 in I.T.A.No.533/2009 and connected cases. Wehave found that such a question does not arise in theRevenue's appeal. The assessee had also not taken up such a contention before any of the authorities. In such circumstances, the assessee cannot be permitted totake that contention at this stage, especially when there is no appeal filed by the assessee. We hencerefuse to look into the said contention. 6.The fourth question also stands covered in favour of the assessee as per the decision of this Court in [2008] 301 ITR 188 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd. The S.L.P. from the aforesaid decisionnumbered as S.L.P.(CC) No.17071/2008 also stands dismissed. Hence, this question is answered in favourof the assessee and against the Revenue inI.T.A.Nos.769, 815, 817 and 1287 of 2009. 7.On the fifth question, another Division Bench of this Court had in judgment dated 04.02.2008 in I.T.A.No.191/2001, Federal Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. found the same to be permissible allowance as businessexpenditure under Section 37. S.L.P.(C) No.2070/2009 from the aforesaid judgment also stands dismissed. We,hence, answer the said question in I.T.A.No.352/2009 infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue. favour of the assessee as per the decision of this Court in [2008] 301 ITR 188 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd. The S.L.P. from the aforesaid decisionnumbered as S.L.P.(CC) No.17071/2008 also stands dismissed. Hence, this question is answered in favourof the assessee and against the Revenue inI.T.A.Nos.769, 815, 817 and 1287 of 2009. 7.On the fifth question, another Division Bench of this Court had in judgment dated 04.02.2008 in I.T.A.No.191/2001, Federal Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T. found the same to be permissible allowance as businessexpenditure under Section 37. S.L.P.(C) No.2070/2009 from the aforesaid judgment also stands dismissed. We,hence, answer the said question in I.T.A.No.352/2009 infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 8.The sixth question deals with Section 14A andthe application of the same in the assessment year2004-05. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2018] 401 ITR445 (SC), C.I.T. v. ESSAR Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd., hadfound that the provision can be made applicable onlyfrom the assessment year 2007-08. Hence, for theassessment year 2004-05, Section 14A has no application. Hence, the said question is answered infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue inI.T.A.No.815/2009. 9.On current investments written off, this Courtin I.T.A.No.411/2009 (C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.) followed the decision in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and [1999]240 ITR 355 (SC), United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v.C.I.T., WB-II, Calcutta to rule in favour of the assessee. The question hence is answered in favour oftheassesseeandagainsttheRevenueinI.T.A.No.815/2009. 10. The enhancement made by the C.I.T. (Appeals) isthe issue raised as question No.VIII. The issue has tobe answered in favour of the assessee in view of the prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 14A, asalso the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ESSARTeleholdings Pvt.Ltd. The prohibition is specific andthere can be no application of Section 14A also in theassessment year 1998-99 in which the enhancement wasattempted by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, thequestion is answered in favour of the assessee andagainst the Revenue in I.T.A.No.872/2009. 11. The last question arising in the assessmentyear 1998-99 is on the dividend received by cheque,later written off for reason of the cheque beingdishonoured. In the previous assessment year, theassessee had returned as income the dividend receivedfrom another company, when the cheque on that count was received. However, later the cheque presented gotdishonoured. The assessee hence wrote off the saidamount due to it as dividend and claimed for allowanceunder Section 36(1). The Tribunal allowed the same.We do not find any infirmity in the allowance, since ifat all the assessee gets the dividend in a later year,it could be treated as income in that year. The write off on the ground of dishonour of cheque cannot at all be disputed and is evident from the books of accounts.We, hence, answer this question in favour of theassessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.872/2009. Hence, I.T.A.Nos.597, 755, 769, 815, 817, 872, 1287 of 2009 are partly allowed on the third question alone.I.T.A.Nos.352/2009 and 38/2011 are rejected. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE dkr Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE APPENDIX OF ITA 352/2009 APPENDIX OF ITA 38/2011 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX OF ITA 597/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19/3/1997 U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/8/1999 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 450/COCH/1999 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95. APPENDIX OF ITA 755/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A of 2009 are partly allowed on the third question alone.I.T.A.Nos.352/2009 and 38/2011 are rejected. No costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE dkr Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE APPENDIX OF ITA 352/2009 APPENDIX OF ITA 38/2011 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX OF ITA 597/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19/3/1997 U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/8/1999 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 450/COCH/1999 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95. APPENDIX OF ITA 755/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/8/2000U/S. 143(3)R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACTFOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95. ANNEXURE-BCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/3/2001 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THEINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHINBENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 246/COCH/01 FORTHE ASST. YEAR 1994-95. APPENDIX OF ITA 769/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 19.2.2003 FOR THE ASST. YEAR2001-02. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2004 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2006 OF THEINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHINBENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO.491/(COCH)/2004 FORTHE ASST. YEAR 2001-02. APPENDIX OF ITA 815/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 16/12/2005FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/5/2006 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/1/2008 OF THEINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCHIN ITA NO. 459/COCH/2006. APPENDIX OF ITA 817/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 23/11/2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR2003-04 ANNEXURE-BCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/1/2005 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/8/2006 OF THEINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHINBENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 654/(COCH)/2005FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04. APPENDIX OF ITA 872/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2001U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THEASST. YEAR 1998-99. ANNEXURE BCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2001 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2004 OF THEINCOME TAX APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHINBENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO.26/COCH/2002 FORTHE ASST. YEAR 1998-99. APPENDIX OF ITA 1287/2009 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE ACOPY OF ORDER U/S. 143 (3) DATED 26.3.2004FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03. ANNEXURE B COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.7.2004 OF THECOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2007 OF THEINCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCHIN ITA NO.1110/COCH/2004.