Ita/5/2018 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Lakshadweep Development Corporation Ltd

“C.R.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM TUESDAY, THE 14 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943 ITA NO. 5 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 18/2017 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXKOCHI-1, KOCHI, INCOME TAX OFFICES, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI.682018. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI NAVANEETH N NATHSRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.G-406, LDCL, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI.682036. BY ADVS.SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEPSRI.BOBBY JOHN, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORYOF LAKSHADWEEP OTHER PRESENT: ADV . NAVANEETH N NATH FOR THE APPELLANT., ADV. BOBBY JOHN FOR SC S. MANU THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 14.09.2021,ALONG WITH ITA.7/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM TUESDAY, THE 14 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943 ITA NO. 7 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 19/2017 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/S: THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMBY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI NAVANEETH N NATHSRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXE TAX, KOCHI 1 BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI NAVANEETH N NATHSRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: M/S. LAKSHDWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTDG-406, LDCL, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036. BY ADVS. SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEPSRI.BOBBY JOHN, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OFLAKSHADWEEP THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 14.09.2021,ALONG WITH ITA.5/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 J U D G M E N T [ITA Nos.5/2018, 7/2018] S.V.Bhatti, J. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr P K RavindranathaMenon and Mr Bobby John, learned Advocate holding for Adv. S.Manu, for parties. 2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1/Revenue is the appellant. M/s. Lakshadweep Development Corporation Ltd, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi/assessee is therespondent. The subject tax appeals are directed against thecommon order dated 01.08.2017 in ITA Nos.18 & 19/Coch/2017of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’),Cochin Bench, Cochin. The details of the Assessment Years etcare stated in the following tabular form: Sl.Assessment Year &Order of Commissioner ofIncome TaxITA No.NoDate of AssessmentIncome TaxAppellate Tribunal .Order12011-12;ITA 98/R-1/E/CIT(A)-II/2013-ITA05/01/1dtd.31.01.201414 DT.24.11.2016NO.18/COCH/20178DTD 01.08.201722012-13;ITA 18/R-1/E/CIT(A)-I/2015-ITA07/01/1dtd.18.03.201516 DT.24.11.2016NO.19/COCH/20178DTD 01.08.2017 2.1The appeals are admitted on the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. - i.Does the assessee, a company registered under theCompanies Act, come within the true ambit of section10(26B) of the Income Tax Act?Companies Act, come within the true ambit of section10(26B) of the Income Tax Act? ii.Is the assessee entitled to the benefit of Section10(268) of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal being basedon the submissions, statements and written submissions of theassessee and without any independent finding being renderedand evidence relied on by the Tribunal, is not the conclusion of ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 the Tribunal perverse and unreasonable? substantial questions of law. “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. - i.Does the assessee, a company registered under theCompanies Act, come within the true ambit of section10(26B) of the Income Tax Act?Companies Act, come within the true ambit of section10(26B) of the Income Tax Act? ii.Is the assessee entitled to the benefit of Section10(268) of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal being basedon the submissions, statements and written submissions of theassessee and without any independent finding being renderedand evidence relied on by the Tribunal, is not the conclusion of ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 the Tribunal perverse and unreasonable? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal is right in law and in fact interfering with theorder of the Assessing Officer?” 3.ITA No.5/2018 is treated as the representative appeal and consideration of details and circumstances of this appealwould be sufficient for disposing of the other matter as well. Inboth the appeals, the questions arising for consideration areunder Section 10(26B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short‘the Act’). The controversy is whether the assessee being aCompany formed under the Companies Act, in spite of satisfyingthe qualifying requirements of Section 10(26B), can, being aCorporation incorporated by the Central Government underthe Companies Act, claim exemption of income from incometax. ITA No.5/2018 4.The assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 filed its ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 return on 30.09.2011 and also revised return dated 24.12.2012.The return has been taken up for scrutiny by issuing noticeunder Section 143(2) dated 31.07.2012. The assessee filed ‘Nil’return claiming exemption of income under Section 10(26B) ofthe Act. In response to the notice issued by the AssessingOfficer, it was stated that the assessee is a 100% Government ofIndia owned Company in Lakshadweep Union Territory. TheCompany is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. TheRevenue does not seriously dispute the aims and objects of theassessee and the prime object of the assessee is to work for thedevelopment and uplifting of the Scheduled Tribe community ofthe Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The claim for exemptionunder Section 10(26B) was rejected by the Assessing Officer,firstly by noting that the assessee is not a Corporationconstituted/established under an Act of the Centre, State orProvincial Act, but a Company formed under the Companies ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 Act. The assessee never claimed the status under Section10(26B) of the Act in any of the previous assessment years. Theclaim of the assessee that it is a 'body wholly financed by theGovernment' and is entitled to claim the benefit under Section10(26B), was also rejected, because the assessee is a Corporationand the expression ‘body’, ‘institution’ or ‘association’ inSection 10(26B) is about residuary class of organisations and notspecific, such as Quasi-Government Organisations, AutonomousBodies, Affiliated Bodies etc. The conclusion of the aboveconsideration is that the assessee is a Corporation under theCompanies Act, therefore, not entitled to the exemption underSection 10(26B). The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the findings of theAssessing Officer in all aspects, including the claim ofexemption under Section 10(26B) of the Act. 5.Being aggrieved by the orders denying exemptionunder Section 10(26B), as noted above, the assessee filed appeal ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the factual andlegal aspects and by following the decisions reported in CIT v.Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam[1] and Arunachal PradeshForest Corporation Ltd v. ACIT[2], held as follows: 5.Being aggrieved by the orders denying exemptionunder Section 10(26B), as noted above, the assessee filed appeal ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the factual andlegal aspects and by following the decisions reported in CIT v.Harijan Evam Nirbal Varg Avas Nigam[1] and Arunachal PradeshForest Corporation Ltd v. ACIT[2], held as follows: “ 7.9 In the light of the above said reasoning and the judicialpronouncements cited supra, we are of the view that theassessee which is financed and established by the Governmentfor promoting the interest of the members of the scheduledtribes living in the Lakshadweep Islands, is entitled to thebenefit of section 10(26B) of the I.T. Act. Since we hold that theassessee is entitled to the benefit of section 10(26B) of the I.T.Act, the other grounds relating to the issue ofdisallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer has beenrendered infructuous and we dismiss the same as notadjudicated. It is ordered accordingly. Hence the appeals filedby the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13are partly allowed as indicated above.” Hence the appeal. 1226 ITR 696 2(2007) 290 ITR 139 ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 6.The learned counsel appearing for the parties have made detailed submissions on substantial question no.1, and,independent of the instant observation, we are of the view thatsubstantial question nos.2 and 3 are dependent on the outcomeof substantial question no.1. Secondly, the findings recordedby the Tribunal, whether would merit consideration forinterference under Section 260A of the Act. Hence, we take upsubstantial question no.1 for discussion. Question no.1 7.Senior Advocate Mr P K Ravindranatha Menonappearing for Revenue argues that the assessee cannot andcould not be brought within the ambit of Section 10(26B) of theAct. Firstly, the logic being, the assessee is a Companyincorporated under the Companies Act. A Companyincorporated under the Companies Act, from a reading ofS.10(26B), is not included for the purpose of exemption under ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 Section 10(26B). Secondly, the assessee though a Company, i.e.,a Government Company, is not established by an Act ofParliament to get the benefit under Section 10(26B). The words,namely, “where such corporation….....has been established……”,further emphasize the necessity of maintaining consistencywith the former portion of Section 10(26B). The expression“such corporation” given literal meaning does not take within itsfold a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, butexemption is attracted only to corporations established by law.For the purpose of demonstrating the meaning of the word‘established’ and the meaning of words under construction isappreciated in the company of other words in the same section,he relies on the judgment in Dalco Engineering Private Limited v.Satish Prabhakar Padhye[3] and Salem Co-operative Central BankLtd v.. Commissioner of Income Tax[4] 3(2010) 4 SCC 3784(1993) 201 ITR 6974(1993) 201 ITR 697 ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 7.1He further argues that even assuming that theassessee is a fully Government-of-India owned company, theobjects of the assessee, even if are for the benefit of ScheduledTribe residents of Lakshadweep Union Territory, the exclusionfrom the computation of income of the assessee would arise ifthe assessee falls within one or the other entities contemplatedby Section 10(26B) of the Act. A Company incorporated per se isoutside the benefit of the sub-section granting exemption. Theapproach of the Tribunal is illegal and erroneous. Thus,warrants interference of this Court under Section 260A, byanswering substantial question no.1 in favour of the Revenueand against the assessee. 7.2The learned Senior Counsel commends to the Courtthat the rule of construction: Noscitur a Sociis is also an aptinterpretative tool to the case on hand, and the meaning of anunclear word is to be judged by the company it keeps. 7.2The learned Senior Counsel commends to the Courtthat the rule of construction: Noscitur a Sociis is also an aptinterpretative tool to the case on hand, and the meaning of anunclear word is to be judged by the company it keeps. ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 Therefore, the word ‘established’ if understood in the companyof the words surrounding it, means established by or under anenactment of Parliament/State legislature. Lastly, he relies onthe judgment reported in State Level Committee v.Morgardshammar India Ltd[5] to argue that the choice between astrict and a liberal construction arises only in a case of doubt inregard to the intention of the Legislature. The interpretativeprocess arises where meaning is not manifest in the plain wordsof the Statute. The word 'established' is given its due and literalmeaning, then the assessee is satisfying the requirement ofSection 10(26B) of the Act. 8.Adv. Bobby John prefaces his arguments that toanswer substantial question no.1, the origin and existence ofthe assessee read with the assessee’s objectives are appreciated.The assessee is a Government-owned Company established for Adv. Bobby John prefaces his arguments that to ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 dispute that the assessee is established to provide benefits andwelfare measures to Scheduled Tribes of Lakshadweep UnionTerritory. The construction now commended by the Revenue tothis Court excludes an entity of Government of India fromavailing the exemption benefit, even though the entity satisfiesthe entities covered by words “body, institution, orassociation”, the second portion of Section 10(26B) of the Act.The assessee, a company/corporation incorporated under theCompanies Act, comes within the fold of 'otherbody' whollyfinanced by the Government, and such other body has beenestablished or formed for promoting the interests of themembers of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes orbackward classes or of any two or all of them. There is noambiguity whatsoever in Section 10(26B) of the Act, it dealswith a few entities and not individuals, the constitution andeligibility depend upon the formal and legal manner in which ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 the assessee is brought into existence. According to him, the understanding of the Revenue is erroneous, for, it is addingwords into the first limb of Section 10(26B) of the Act. He relieson the very same judgments considered by the Tribunal andconcludes by arguing that the assessee is legally and by theproper interpretative process of Section 10(26B), has beengranted exemption under Section 10(26B). He prays foranswering the question against the Revenue and in favour ofthe assessee. 9.We have perused the record and noted the rivalsubmissions. 9.1In the case on hand, this Court is called upon to construe Section 10(26B) and apply to the admittedcircumstances of the case, and also, whether the Tribunal isright in granting exemption to the assessee under Section10(26B) of the Act. An attempt has been made to challenge the ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 findings recorded by the Tribunal and the resultantconstruction of Section 10(26B). Answer to substantial questionno.1 can be addressed in two ways: firstly, by finding out theapproach adopted by the Tribunal- whether is correct or notand, secondly, construct Section 10(26B) and find out theapplicability to the different situations, including the case onhand. We are examining the issue by dealing with the legalargument advanced by both the counsel on Section 10(26B) ofthe Act. Section 10(26B) reads as follows: construe Section 10(26B) and apply to the admittedcircumstances of the case, and also, whether the Tribunal isright in granting exemption to the assessee under Section10(26B) of the Act. An attempt has been made to challenge the ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 findings recorded by the Tribunal and the resultantconstruction of Section 10(26B). Answer to substantial questionno.1 can be addressed in two ways: firstly, by finding out theapproach adopted by the Tribunal- whether is correct or notand, secondly, construct Section 10(26B) and find out theapplicability to the different situations, including the case onhand. We are examining the issue by dealing with the legalargument advanced by both the counsel on Section 10(26B) ofthe Act. Section 10(26B) reads as follows: “(26B) any income of a corporation established by a Central,State or Provincial Act or of any other body, institution orassociation (being a body, institution or association whollyfinanced by Government) where such corporation or otherbody or institution or association has been established orformed for promoting the interests of the members of theScheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or backward classesor of any two or all of them.” ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 which do not form part of total income. In other words, it dealswith the income exempted from computation under the Act. Byapplying the interpretative tool of literal construction toSection 10(26B), we notice that the sub-section deals withentities that fall within the exempted purview and thequalification required for claiming status and the purpose forwhich the entity is established. Section 10(26B) literally read,deals with exemption from income computation in thefollowing cases: Firstly, any income of a Corporation established by a Central(Government), where such Corporation has been established forpromoting the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castesor the Scheduled Tribes or backward classes or of any two or allof them. Secondly, any income of a Corporation established by a State(Government), where such Corporation has been established for ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 promoting the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or backward classes or of any two or allof them. Thirdly, any income of a Corporation established by a provincial Act, where such Corporation has been established forpromoting the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castesor the Scheduled Tribes or backward classes or of any two or allof them. Fourthly, any income of any other body wholly financed by Government, where such other body has been formedforpromoting the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castesor the Scheduled Tribes or backward classes or of any two or allof them. Fifthly, any income of any other institution or association, wholly financed by Government, where such institution orassociation was formed for promoting the interests of the ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes orbackward classes or of any two or all of them. 9.3The argument that a Company incorporated under aCompanies Act is out of the purview of exemption needs to beadverted to. The argument of Revenue is based on theunderstanding that the assessee, since being a Companyincorporated under the Companies Act, is not deriving itsexistence under an enactment, therefore cannot be permittedto claim status of exemption under Section 10(26B) of the Act.The understanding of the nature of establishment of assessee,by the Revenue, is erroneous. 9.4Let us keep in perspective the entities as occasionedin the same sequence in which they are incorporated in Section10(26B) and such understanding would make it clear that whenit comes to Corporation it is established by a Central or State orby Provincial Act, the entities refer to the existence of a Let us keep in perspective the entities as occasioned ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 9.4Let us keep in perspective the entities as occasionedin the same sequence in which they are incorporated in Section10(26B) and such understanding would make it clear that whenit comes to Corporation it is established by a Central or State orby Provincial Act, the entities refer to the existence of a Let us keep in perspective the entities as occasioned ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 Corporation established by Central, State or Provincial Act. ‘Or’is used in a disjunctive sense in Section 10(26B) between thewords Central, State, or Provincial Act or of any other body,institution or association. The Section deals with not only aCorporation established by Central/State, but it also deals withincome of any other body, institution or association, which isfully financed by the Government, and such body, institution orassociation has been formed for promoting the interests of themembers of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes orbackward classes or of any two or all of them. The requirementof sub-section (26B) is not that it is limited only to entitiesbrought into existence by an Act of Parliament or Legislature. 9.5There could be an instance of establishing aCorporation under an enactment by the Centre/State.Centre/State can also establish a Corporation in the mannerknown to law. These entities automatically do not become ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 eligible for exemption under section 10(26B). They becomeeligible for claiming exemption only when these entities areformed for promoting the interests of the members of theScheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or backward classesor of any two or all of them. When it comes to income of anyother body, institution or association, firstly it is whollyfinanced by Government and Sub-section (26B) refers to suchbody, institution or association formed for promoting theinterests of the members of the Scheduled Castes or theScheduled Tribes or backward classes or of any two or all ofthem. The incorporation of assessee under the Companies Actgives the assessee the status of a body corporate and theobjects, indisputably, of the assessee are promoting theinterests of the members of the Scheduled Castes or theScheduled Tribes or backward classes or of any two or all ofthem of Lakshadweep Union Territory. The argument of ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 learned Senior Counsel that Corporation established byProvincial Act does not fit into the literal or plain reading ofSection 10(26B). The argument that the Corporation isestablished by the Centre/State by an enactment is unavailablefrom the expression used in Section 10(26B) of the Act. 9.6The argument of the Revenue omits to notice anotherinconsistency in the argument. Section 10(26B) providesexemption to any other body, institution or association whollyfinanced by the Government and formed for the purpose ofpromoting the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castesor the Scheduled Tribes or backward classes or of any two or allof them. To come within the ambit of a body, institution orassociation, the requirement is - such body, institution orassociation is fully financed by the Government and promotesthe interests of Schedule Tribe individuals. The words are notlimiting the application only to a body, institution or ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 association formed by the Central or the State Governments. Soa body formed but financed by the Central or the StateGovernments can claim exemption; now through theconstruction of section 10(26B) a Corporation brought intoexistence under the Companies Act by the Government of India,ought not be denied the benefit of Section 10(26B). Theparameters on which the final analysis of the construction ofSection 10(26B) are: (i) a Corporation established byCentre/State/Provincial Act; (ii) any other body, institution orassociation fully financed by the Government; (iii) thecorporation, body, institution or association established orformed for promoting the interests of the members of theScheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or backward classesor of any two or all of them. The word 'established' used in sub-section (26B) is attributable where the Section deals withCentre/State/Provincial Act. When it comes to body, ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 institution or association, the corresponding expression used is'formed'. Incorporation of a Company under the Companies Actis again incorporating a body with legal identity and status. Byhaving incorporated as a Corporation or Company under theCompanies Act, ought not to be used against the assessee fordenying the benefit of exemption under Section 10(26B) of theAct. 9.7The decisions on which reliance is made by theRevenue are clearly distinguishable and the ratio is notapplicable to the case on hand. This Court is construing Section10(26B), both by keeping in mind the golden rule ofconstruction and also Noscitur a Sociis, and the inescapableconclusion is that the assessee though incorporated under theCompanies Act falls within the ambit of exemption envisaged bySection 10(26B) and is entitled to benefit of exemption. 9.8We take judicial notice of the fact that Centre/State ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 Governments, as the case may be, bring into existence what isknown as Government Companies. All these companies are notimmediately entitled to be bracketed within the ambit ofSection 10(26B) because the existence of that Company isrelatable to the primary aim of promoting the interests of themembers of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes orbackward classes or of any two or all of them. The assessee is abody viz., incorporated under the Companies Act and formed toachieve or promote the interests of the members of theScheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or backward classesor of any two or all of them, receives full financial assistancefrom the Government, hence is entitled to exemption. We are inagreement with the reasoning and the conclusion recorded bythe Tribunal and for the above reasons as well, substantialquestion no.1 is answered in favour of the assessee and againstthe Revenue. ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 Question Nos.2 and 3 10.Having regard to the view expressed in question no.1, question nos.2 and 3 consequently are to be answered in favourof the assessee and against the Revenue. ITA No. 7/2018 11.By following the aforementioned discussions and thereasons, the substantial questions framed in this appeal isanswered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Income Tax Appeals fail, accordingly dismissed. No orderas to costs. Sd/-S.V.BHATTIJUDGE Sd/-VIJU ABRAHAMJUDGE ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 APPENDIX OF ITA 05/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 31.01.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER IN ITA NO.98/R-1/CIT(A)-II/2013-14 DATED 24.11.2017 ANNEXURE CCERTIFIED PLUS COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THEITAT COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO,18 & 19/COCH/2017 DATED 01.08.2017 FOR AYS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ANNEXURE DCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ANNEXURE E COPY OF THE REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE FORMING PARTOF THE DIRECTORS' REPORT. ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 Income Tax Appeals fail, accordingly dismissed. No orderas to costs. Sd/-S.V.BHATTIJUDGE Sd/-VIJU ABRAHAMJUDGE ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 APPENDIX OF ITA 05/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 31.01.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER IN ITA NO.98/R-1/CIT(A)-II/2013-14 DATED 24.11.2017 ANNEXURE CCERTIFIED PLUS COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THEITAT COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO,18 & 19/COCH/2017 DATED 01.08.2017 FOR AYS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ANNEXURE DCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ANNEXURE E COPY OF THE REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE FORMING PARTOF THE DIRECTORS' REPORT. ITA Nos. 5 & 7/2018 APPENDIX OF ITA 07/2018 PETITIONER ANNEXURE ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 18.03.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE CIT(A)'S ORDER IN ITA NO.18/R-1/CIT(A)-I/2015-16 DATED 24.11.2016 ANNEXURE CCERTIFIED PLUS COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THEITAT COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO,18 & 19/COCH/2017 DATED 01.08.2017 FOR AYS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ANNEXURE DCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ANNEXURE E COPY OF THE REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE FORMING PARTOF THE DIRECTORS' REPORT.