Ita/635/2009 Of The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trichur v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Trichur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.456 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 180/COCH/2000 DATED 31.10.2003OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHURBY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN.BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.98/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.148/2012, ITA.498/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1691/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.98/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.126/2012, - 2 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 I.T.A.No.98 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 93/COCH/2009 DATED 30-12-2011 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,NAICKANAL, TRICHUR -680001.BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, TRICHUR-680001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.116 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 94/COCH/2009 DATED 30-12-2011 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,NAICKANAL, TRICHUR-681001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, TRICHUR-681001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 126 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.133/COCH/2009 DATED 30-12-2011 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,NAICKANAL, TRICHUR - 681 001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, TRICHUR - 681 001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX - 4 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 126 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.133/COCH/2009 DATED 30-12-2011 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,NAICKANAL, TRICHUR - 681 001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T.NAGAR, TRICHUR - 681 001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.148 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.132/COCH/2009 DATED 30-12-2011 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,NAICKANAL TRICHUR-681001. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, S.T. NAGAR, TRICHUR - 681001. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAXSRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.498 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.336/COCH/2006 DATED 20-08-2007 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR.BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 7 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.635 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.337/COCH/2006 DATED 20-08-2007 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.498/2009, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.635 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.337/COCH/2006 DATED 20-08-2007 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.498/2009, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 8 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.643 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.165/COCH/2004 DATED 19-09-2005 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, - 9 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.651 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.1197/COCH/2004 DATED 29-12-2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, 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 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.712 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.1198/COCH/2004 DATED 29-12-2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.717 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.949/COCH/2004 DATED 28-07-2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.NARAYANAN POTTI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.1108 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.72/COCH/2001 DATED 11-08-2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.K.C.KIRANSRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED - 13 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No.1318 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.30/COCH/2006 DATED 10-01-2008 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: M/S.DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.P.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 1691 of 2009 RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1691/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 ITA.No. 1691 of 2009 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA.602/COCH/2006 DATED 16-03-2009 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT: THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD.,TRICHUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)SRI.MOHAN PULIKKALSRI.NARAYANAN POTTI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, ITA.1318/2009, ITA.1108/2009, ITA.717/2009, ITA.712/2009, ITA.651/2009, ITA.643/2009, ITA.635/2009, ITA.498/2009, ITA.456/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ALONG WITH ITA.148/2012, ITA.126/2012, ITA.116/2012, ITA.98/2012, JUDGMENT [ I.T.A.456/2009, I.T.A.1108/2009, I.T.A.116/2012,I.T.A.126/2012, I.T.A.1318/2009, I.T.A.148/2012,I.T.A.1691/2009, I.T.A.498/2009, I.T.A.635/2009,I.T.A.643/2009, I.T.A.651/2009, I.T.A.712/2009, I.T.A.717/2009 & I.T.A.98/2012 ] Vinod Chandran,J. The issues arising in the above appeals for theassessment years 1996-97 to 2006-07 are, in certain of theyears, common. There are also more than one appeal filed intwo years, i.e., in 1996-97 and 2006-07 two appeals each. In1996-97, the two appeals [I.T.A.Nos.456 & 643 of 2009] arise;one from the order of assessment under Section 143(3) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [for brevity “the Act”] and the otherfrom an assessment carried out under Section 143 read withSection 263 of the Act. In the year 2006-07, there are twoappeals [I.T.A.Nos.126 & 116 of 2012]; one from the order ofthe Tribunal rejecting the appeal of the Department and theother from the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal ofthe assessee.2. In the years 1997-98 [I.T.A.No.1108/2009],1998-99 [I.T.A.No.651/2009], 1999-2000 [I.T.A.No.1691/2009]and 2000-01 [I.T.A.No.717/2009] one of the questions is withrespect to the dis-allowance of bad debts written off underSection 36(1)(vii). The specific contention of the assessee was that having debited the sums in the separate assessmentyears, in the P&L account and netted the same from the totaladvances outstanding in the balance sheet, there is acomplete write off and there is no warrant to look intowhether there has been a credit made to the specific account.The assessee had raised the contention before the AssessingOfficer [for brevity “AO”] on the basis of a decision of theGujarat High Court in Vithaldas H.Dhanjibhai Bardanwalav.C.I.T.[(1981) 130 ITR 95 (Guj.)]. We have in I.T.A.No.264 of2009[South Indian Bank Ltd.v. CIT] vide common judgmentdated 04.12.2018, already found the issue against theassessee and in favour of the Revenue. This Court had alsonoticed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SouthernTechnologies Ltd. v. Joint CIT[(2010) 320 ITR 577], whereinthe Gujarat High Court decision was reversed. Hence, thisquestion for all these years has to be answered in favour ofthe Revenue and against the assessee.3. In the years 2001-02 [I.T.A.No.712/2009], 2005-06[I.T.A.No.98/2012] and 2006-07 [I.T.A.No.116/2012], a commonquestion is raised of the disallowance of expenditureincurred under Section 14A. The said issue has been answeredin favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by theHon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Taxv. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. [(2018) 401 ITR 445]. The Hon'ble SupremeCourt had categorically held that Section 14A would beapplicable only from the year 2007-08. In the present appealsarising from the prior years, the dis-allowance made by theAO under Section 14A as affirmed by the Tribunal, has to beset aside. The question is answered in favour of the assesseeand against the Revenue. 4. In the year 2006-07 [I.T.A.No.116/2012], there isone other issue raised of levy of interest under Section234B. The question has already been answered in favour of theRevenue and against the assessee in South Indian Bank Ltd. v.CIT[(2010) 325 ITR 517 (Ker.)]. The question, hence, standsanswered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 5. In I.T.A.No.126 of 2012, a further issue arisingfor the year 2006-07 is the dis-allowance of provision forleave encashment under Section 43B(f), Section 43B spoke ofcertain deductions only on actual payment. Sub-clause (f) iswith respect to any sum payable by the assessee as anemployer in lieu of any leave at the credit of his employee.The deduction, hence, is allowable only on actual payment. Itis submitted that the Calcutta High Court has struck down thesaid provision. Admittedly a Special Leave Petition was filedbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is also a stay order granted. In such circumstances, the provision appliesand this Court has also in a similar case answered thequestion in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee inSouth Indian Bank Ltd.v. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 111 (Ker)]. Thesaid question is also answered against the assessee and infavour of the Revenue, affirming the order of the Tribunal tothat extent. 6. For the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 inI.T.A.Nos.148 of 2012 and 126 of 2012, there is a question ofdis-allowance of bad debts of non-rural Banks written offunder Section 36(1)(vii). The AO declined the same. TheTribunal relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court inCommissioner of Income Taxv. The South Indian Bank Ltd.[(2010) 326 ITR 174 (Ker)] to uphold the dis-allowance.However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the Full Benchdecision of this Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.v.Commissioner of Income Tax[(2012) 343 ITR 270 (SC)]. Inconsidering the allowance of deduction of actual written offdebts under sub-clause (vii) of Section 36(1) with respect tourban bad debts as distinguished from rural bad debts, forwhich provision is allowable under sub-clause (viia), thesame cannot be with reference to the provision undersub-clause (viia). The write off of non-rural bad debts under sub-clause (vii) has been found by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtto be independent of the provision for rural bad debts madeunder sub-clause (viia). In such circumstances, the questionhas to be answered in favour of the assessee and against theRevenue, with only reservation as to examination of whetherany provision for non-rural bad debts has been granteddeduction in the previous assessment year. If there is adeduction allowed for provision for non-rural bad debts, thennecessarily the allowance for write off has to be only thatin excess of the deduction granted for the provision. We makeit clear that what we have directed the AO to examine is onlyas to whether there is an allowance granted for provision ofnon-rural bad debts in the earlier assessment year; withoutany reference to the rural bad debts, the provision for whichhas been granted deduction under sub-clause (viia).7. The next question arising in the maximum numberof appeals, i.e., for the years 1996-97 to 2005-06; 10 years,is the question of deduction under Section 35D of the Act.The question framed is as below: "Whether the Tribunal was correct in having declinedamortisation of expenses incurred in connection withthe issue of public subscription of shares underSection 35D for reason of the assessee being not an'industrial undertaking'?" 8. In this context, we have to first notice that by Finance Act, 2008 with effect from 01.04.2009 there was anamendment of Section 35D by Section 8 of the Finance Act,which reads as under: "8. Amendment of Section 35-D.- In Section 35-Dof the Income Tax Act, with effect from the 1[st] day ofApril, 2009,- (a) for the words "industrial undertaking", whereverthey occur, the word "undertaking" shall besubstituted;they occur, the word "undertaking" shall besubstituted; (b) for the words "industrial unit", wherever theyoccur, the word "unit" shall be substituted."occur, the word "unit" shall be substituted." The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contendthat there being a substitution, the amendment would have tobe deemed to be retrospective. The judgment of a DivisionBench of this Court in Commercial Tax Officerv. Najeem[2018(3) KLT 877] is also put forth. It is argued that this Courthad found that when there is a substitution, if it is notspecifically expressed to be prospective, then "the Courtscould always interpret it to be retrospective, looking at thescheme of the enactment, the purpose and object of theamendment, especially when the amendment by substitution, wasintended at removing an obvious anomaly or correcting ablatant error or obliterating an absurdity or bringing it inconsonance with any other law or the Constitution...". Hence, the intention definitely was to extend the benefit to allundertakings. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for Government of India (Taxes), however, takes us through the Notes on Clausesof Finance Bill, 2008 and the Memorandum Explaining theProvisions in the Finance Bill, 2008. Clause 6 in the Noteson Clauses seeking to amend Section 35D specifically says so: "The proposed amendment seeks to substitute the words"industrial undertaking" with the word "undertaking" andthe words "industrial unit" with the word "unit", whereverthey occur in the said section. This is intended to providebenefit of amortisation of specified post commencementpreliminary expenses to all sectors for the extension of anundertaking or the setting up of a new unit. This amendment will take effect from 1[st] April, 2009and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessmentyear 2009-10 and subsequent assessment years". The Memorandum also indicates so: "The proposed amendment seeks to substitute the words"industrial undertaking" with the word "undertaking" andthe words "industrial unit" with the word "unit", whereverthey occur in the said section. This is intended to providebenefit of amortisation of specified post commencementpreliminary expenses to all sectors for the extension of anundertaking or the setting up of a new unit. This amendment will take effect from 1[st] April, 2009and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessmentyear 2009-10 and subsequent assessment years". The Memorandum also indicates so: "With a view to providing a level playing field to theservices sector, it is necessary to extend to the servicesector, the same benefit of amortization of specifiedpost-commencement preliminary expenses as it available tothe manufacturing sector for the extension of anundertaking or the setting up of a new unit. Therefore, itis proposed to amend section 35D accordingly. The amendment will take effect from the 1[st] day ofApril, 2009 and will accordingly apply in relation toassessment year 2009-10 and subsequent assessment years". In the above circumstances, there cannot be any necessaryintention found from the statute especially since what werecovered under sub-clause (ii) of Section 35D(1) was only"industrial undertakings". We are of the opinion that withoutgranting any retrospectivity to the said amendment, we canlook at the manner in which the “industrial undertaking” hasbeen dealt with by the various High Courts in the context ofthe IT Act; to find whether the assessee, a Bank extendingfinancial services, would be entitled to amortisation ofpreliminary expenses in connection with the issue of sharesfor public subscription.10. The learned Counsel for the appellant has reliedon the decisions in Alikunju, M.A.Nazeer Cashew Industriesv.C.I.T. [(1987) 166 ITR 804 (Ker)], Shankar Construction Co.v. C.I.T.[(1991) 189 ITR 463 (Kar.)], C.I.T.v. EmiratesCommercial Bank Ltd. [(2003) 262 ITR 55 (Bom.)], C.I.T.v.Computerised Accounting and Management Service Pvt. Ltd.[(1999) 235 ITR 502 (Ker)] and C.I.T. v. Peerless Consultancyand Service (P.) Ltd. [(2001) 248 ITR 178]. The learnedStanding Counsel for Government of India (Taxes) has reliedon the decision in Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. v. CIT[(2010) 320 ITR 420 (Delhi)]. 11. In Alikunju, M.A.Nazeer Cashew Industries, this Court was concerned with the issue whether the constructionof a lodging house would be considered as an “industrialundertaking”. Therein the provision was one which grantedexemption to gains arising on transfer of land and buildingforming part of industrial undertaking; when invested insetting up another industrial undertaking. The assessee hadan ice factory; the land and buildings of which were acquiredby the Government. The consideration was treated as long termcapital gains as against which, the assessee claimedexemption under Section 54D on the ground that he hadinvested the capital gains in the construction of a lodginghouse. This Court found that the running of a lodge would bean industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 54D.12. In Shankar Construction Co., the Karnataka HighCourt was considering the meaning of “industrial undertaking”under Section 32A. The Karnataka High Court reiterated theprinciple that when a taxing statute is construed and thereare two views possible, the view that favours the assesseehas to be adopted. It was also held that in construing wordsin the absence of a statutory definition, it would be open tolook for the meaning by reference to definitions in sisterlegislation. The High Court, looking at the various definition clauses as also the definition under theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, found the constructionactivities carried on by the assessee to be possible of beingtermed an “industrial undertaking”. definition clauses as also the definition under theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, found the constructionactivities carried on by the assessee to be possible of beingtermed an “industrial undertaking”. 13. InComputerised Accounting and ManagementService Pvt. Ltd., the question came to be considered was asto whether “manufacture or production of an article or thing”would extend to a business in computerised accounting andmanagement services. The assessee therein was engaged inpreparing information, through mechanical process; with theaid of computers, to be supplied to various parties afterprocessing the data furnished by their clients in raw form.The activity carried on by the assessee was found to comeunder the meaning of the term “manufacture or production”used under Section 32A of the IT Act. 14. In Peerless Consultancy and Service (P.) Ltd.,the question again was as to whether the assessee wasentitled to investment allowance claimed, with respect to theexpenditure incurred for installation of a generator by adata processing company. The Tribunal's order allowing theclaim under Section 32A was upheld, finding that 'the Revenuehas been unable to show us any judgment of a court of thiscountry or abroad which takes the view that the processing of data is not the processing of goods'. 15. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. again considered the issue of data processing and the allowance claimed underSection 32A in respect of the computers installed in theoffice premises, to find in favour of the assessee, which washeld to be an industrial undertaking. 16. The High Court of Delhi, however, in Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. took a contrary view withrespect to the business of construction and sale ofmulti-storeyed residential buildings and complexes, promotionand development of residential colonies, etc. The saiddecision is in direct conflict with the decision of theKarnataka High Court in Shankar Construction Co. We alsonotice that the decision in Alikunju, M.A.Nazeer CashewIndustrieswas distinguished, finding that the Division Benchof this Court had only dealt with the expression“undertaking” and not with the expression “industrialundertaking”. We are unable to agree with the High Court ofDelhi on that issue since the specific finding was that “therunning of a lodge could be said to be an industrialundertaking within the meaning of Section 54D”. 17. The Division Bench decisions of this Court inAlikunju, M.A.Nazeer Cashew Industries and Computerised Accounting and Management Service Pvt. Ltd., have a bindingeffect on us while the decision of the High Court of Delhi inAnsal Housing and Construction Ltd. can only be persuasive.We, hence, respectfully follow the Division Bench decisionsof this Court and in doing so, we reiterate the principle asstated by the Karnataka High Court insofar as the assesseebeing favoured when two views are possible in construing ataxing statute. We also notice that the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Delhi had also construed the words “industrialundertaking” on the common parlance test. The Division Benchof this Court in Alikunju, M.A.Nazeer Cashew Industries alsoconsidered the issue on the very same principle, as can beseen from the following extracts: “What then is an “industrial undertaking”? TheIncome-tax Act does not define what is “anundertaking”orwhatisan“industrialundertaking”. It has, therefore, become necessaryto construe these words. Words used in a statutedealing with matters relating to the general publicare presumed to have been used in their popularrather than their narrow, legal or technical sense.Loquitur ut vulgus, that is, according to thecommon understanding and acceptation of the terms,is the doctrine that should be applied inconstruing the words used in statutes dealing withmatters relating to the public in general. In “What then is an “industrial undertaking”? TheIncome-tax Act does not define what is “anundertaking”orwhatisan“industrialundertaking”. It has, therefore, become necessaryto construe these words. Words used in a statutedealing with matters relating to the general publicare presumed to have been used in their popularrather than their narrow, legal or technical sense.Loquitur ut vulgus, that is, according to thecommon understanding and acceptation of the terms,is the doctrine that should be applied inconstruing the words used in statutes dealing withmatters relating to the public in general. In short, if an “Act is directed to dealings withmatters affecting everybody generally, the wordsused have the meaning attached to them in thecommon and ordinary use of language.” (Vide Unwinv. Hanson [1891] 2 QB 115 (CA), per Lord Esher M.R.at page 119). That the Income-tax Act is of generalapplication, is beyond dispute. It, therefore,follows that the meaning that should be given tothese words “industrial undertaking” must be thenatural meaning. It is all the more so because theIncome-tax Act is one consolidating and amendingthe law relating to income-tax and super tax. (SeeRao Bahadur Ravulu Subba Rao v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR163 (SC) at 169). xxxxxxxxx The words “industrial undertaking” therefore,should be understood to have been used in section54D in a wide sense, taking in its fold any projector business a person may undertake. The “running ofa lodge”, by the assessee, therore, can be said tobe an “industrial undertaking” within the meaningof section 54D of the Income-tax Act”. Hence, this Court would answer the question in favour of theassesseeandagainsttheRevenue,findingtheappellant-assessee to be eligible for the claim under Section35D. The actual expenditure, whether it comes within Section35D(2)(c)(iv) would be left for consideration by the AO. 18. One ancillary issue arising in the assessmentyear 2002-03 [I.T.A.No.1318 of 2009] is the following: “Whether the Tribunal is correct in law and fact indismissing the issue relating to the disallowanceof expenses relating to right issue in view of thedecision of the Supreme Court in the case of BrookeBond India Ltd.vs. CIT[225 ITR 798]? The decision brooks no dispute and the question has to beanswered in favour of the Revenue and against the assesseeand we do so. Inthelightofthefindingsabove, I.T.A.Nos.456/2009, 643/2009, 498/2009, 635/2009, 712/2009,98/2012 and 148/2012 are allowed and I.T.A.Nos.1108/2009,651/2009, 1691/2009, 717/2009, 1318/2009, 126/2012 and116/2012 are partly allowed. Parties are left to suffer theirrespective costs, in the appeals. Sd/-K.VINOD CHANDRANJUDGE Sd/-ASHOK MENONJUDGE APPENDIX OF ITA 456/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH IN DATED 31/10/2003 IN ITA 180/COCH/2000. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COCHIN DATED 29/02/2000. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/12/1998 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPENDIX OF ITA 98/2012 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 17/12/2007. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 15/01/2009. ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 30/12/2011. APPENDIX OF ITA 116/2012 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2008. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 21/11/2008. ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 30/12/2011. APPENDIX OF ITA 126/2012 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2008. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 21/11/2008. ANNEXURE-C ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 17/12/2007. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DATED 15/01/2009. ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 30/12/2011. APPENDIX OF ITA 116/2012 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2008. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 21/11/2008. ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 30/12/2011. APPENDIX OF ITA 126/2012 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2008. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 21/11/2008. ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 30/12/2011. APPENDIX OF ITA 148/2012 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17/12/2007. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 21/11/2008. ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 30/12/2011. APPENDIX OF ITA 498/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.336/COCH/2006 DATED 20/08/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V, KOCHI ITA NO. 67/RI/TCR/CIT-V/05-06, DATED 17/03/2006. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 15/12/2005 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04. APPENDIX OF ITA 635/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.337/(COCH)/2006 DATED 20/08/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. NO.337/(COCH)/2006 DATED 20/08/2007 FOR THE ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V, KOCHI ITA NO.66/RI/TCR/CIT-V/05-06, DATED 28/03/2006. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 15/12/2005 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2004-05. APPENDIX OF ITA 643/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH IN DATED19/09/2005 IN ITA 165/COCH/2004. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COCHIN DATED 01/12/2003. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20/03/2002 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPENDIX OF ITA 651/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN DATED 29/12/2006 IN ITA 1197/COCH/2004. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COCHIN DATED 10/09/2004. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16/11/2000 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPENDIX OF ITA 712/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: APPENDIX OF ITA 717/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN DATED 28/07/2006 IN ITA 949/COCH/2004. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COCHIN DATED 07/06/2004. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/09/2002 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPENDIX OF ITA 1108/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH IN DATED11/08/2006 IN ITA 72/COCH/2001. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COCHIN DATED 04/12/2000. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/03/2000 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPENDIX OF ITA 1318/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.30/COCH/2006 DATED 10/01/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COCHIN DATED 07/06/2004. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/09/2002 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPENDIX OF ITA 1108/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH IN DATED11/08/2006 IN ITA 72/COCH/2001. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COCHIN DATED 04/12/2000. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23/03/2000 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. APPENDIX OF ITA 1318/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.30/COCH/2006 DATED 10/01/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V, KOCHI ITA NO. 70/RI/TCR/CIT-V/04-05 DATED 24/10/2005. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31/01/2005 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03. APPENDIX OF ITA 1691/2009 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN DATED 16/03/2009 IN ITA 602/COCH/2006. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COCHIN DATED 31/08/2006. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/01/2004 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. Vku/- [ true copy]