These two appeals filed by revenue against order of Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Hyderabad dated 20-8-1984 for assessment year 1979-80 and separate order of same date for assessment year 1980- 81. assessee is limited company carrying on business in goods transport by road, manufacturing of textiles, steel re-rolling and manufacture of iron rods, etc. assessee had got two accounting years for different sources. As far as business is concerned, its accounting year ends by 30-6-1978 for assessment year 1979-80 and 30-6-1979 for assessment year 1980-81. As some of questions in both these appeals are common as assessee is one and same and as assessments involved are consecutive assessment years, we feel it convenient to dispose of both appeals by consolidated order. first common contention which arose in both appeals is whether expenditure of Rs. 60,000 shown as part of expenditure incurred for advertising and said to have been paid to Maud Advertising Services for assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 94,500 said to have been paid towards advertisement expenditure to Rita Advertising Agency, Bombay were in fact incurred as advertising expenditure and whether they are allowable as business expenditure in two assessment years under consideration. Ground Nos. 2 to 8 in grounds of appeal for 1979-80 and ground No. 6 in grounds of appeal for 1980-81 relate to common ground. Maud Advertising Services is proprietary concern of Mr. J.D. Fernandes and said proprietary concern is in existence since last 20 years. Rita Advertising Agency was proprietary concern floated in name of daughter of Mr. J.D. Fernandes in about 1978. From evidence on record, we gather that Mr. J.D. Fernandes was aged 53 years and was having 9 school-going children. He was paying amount of Rs. 300 per month perhaps for his office premises comprising of only four table space. rent is paid to one Shri Dhanji. He would be requiring Rs. 2,000 per month towards household expenses. He has no immovable properties but he has got bank accounts in Union Bank of India, Bombay where he has got account No. 23153 in name of Maud Advertising Services. So also, he had got another account in Central Bank of India, Share Bazar Branch, Bombay account No. 5333 and it stands in name of Maud Advertising Services. There are 9 cumulative time deposit accounts opened in Syndicate Bank, P.M. Road, Bombay in names of each of his children. He was having telephone of his own at his business premises and he employs 6 to 7 persons to work under him for business purposes. Out of them, all except peon are either daughters, sons or nephews of Mr. Fernandes on 14-4-1981, his business premises were searched under provisions of section 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (' Act ') and his statements were recorded twice on that date. On both occasions Mr. Fernandes gave statements on oath. salient points given out in his examination on oath, on that date are as follows. 2. He was being assessed to income-tax by 7th ITO, Ward A-1, Bombay and he has been deriving income from his proprietary concern Maud Advertising Services for last 20 years. He does press work, advertising, printing of stationery, like letter heads, bill forms, diary calendar, advertisement displays, etc., on behalf of his clients. While giving name and address of one of his major clients who remained as such for last four years before his deposition, he gave out name of assessee herein, as one out of 10 named by him. He stated that he did not maintain regular books of account and only at end of year, he tally monthwise incomes, outgoing bills and from there he deduct his expenses and net income only was shown in his income-tax return. He did not maintain any partywise accounts either for receipts or for expenses. When ITO put specific question what are services rendered by following concerns, namely: (1) Royal Advertisers, (2) Anjali Associates, (3) Modern Publicity Services, (4) Express Advertisers, (5) Great Art India, and (6) Arun Bros. to Mr. Fernandes and elicited his answer, Mr. Fernandes replied that Great Art India is printing greeting cards and Arun Bros. is printing calendars and all other concerns are doing display works on behalf of his clients. He does not remember on which clients' behalf services are received and payments made to them. He admitted in answer to another question that he had been maintaining two registers, one for sale and another for purchase and statement of expenditure incurred by him for various purposes. He had not maintained separate accounts exclusively for his different claims. Question No. 30 and answer given to it in first examination of Mr. Fernandes on 14-4-1981 appears to us to be categorical and so they are given out verbatim as under: " So according to you all receipts and payments made as per bills and your bank account are correct and genuine, is it not? Answer: Yes, they are all genuine." 3. Mr. Fernandes having thus examined in morning hours on 14-4-1981 i n first instance was again examined on oath in presence of Ashok Kockar, ADI from 8 p.m. to 11-30 p.m. In second examination, he stated that when he started his business his income was Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 12,000 from business and it gradually rose to Rs. 20,000 per year. In about November and December 1976 he fell sick and it resulted in curtailment of his business as he could not move around much. In that period, his wife came to his help and carried on his business substantially and during that period of his illness despite substantial help of his wife, he was not able to earn at least sufficiently to meet both ends meet with large family of 9 school-going children. His wife introduced him to one Shri Jalan, regional manager of assessee-company w h o in turn introduced him to Mr. S.R. Jivarajka. They gave idea to Mr. Fernandes that he can give bogus bills purporting to be for display, advertising and for doing this they have assured financial profits. In that way, he was lured into clandestine business of havala bills. Slowly his clientage in this type of business increased and with that his income also grew. When specific question was put as to who are partners and to whom havala bills were issued during last four years Mr. Fernandes gave out name of assessee who was one among four to whom such bills were given. When asked to explain modus operandi of clandestine business Mr. Fernandes stated that he receives message on telephone from parties concerned to prepare bills for desired amount. He personally carries these bills to respective offices either on same day or sometime later he would be paid amount mentioned in bills by crossed account payee cheque. cheque would be received by him in their offices and it would be deposited by him in one of his bank accounts. After gap of 4 to 6 days, he would withdraw 90 per cent of above amount by self-cheque and that amount would be carried by him and would be handed over back to party who issues cheque. In this process, he confessed that he would get 10 per cent of total amount mentioned in bill. He further stated that he used to hand over money after encashing self-cheque to one Shankerlal who is probably employee in assessee's company. He admitted that he had no personal relationship or contract with him. He stated that none of transactions carried on with any one of four parties named by him, in which assessee is one were genuine transactions. He stated that all transactions carried on by them are bogus. He further stated except these four parties named in deposition he did not issue havala bills to any other concern. total of bogus bills, thus, issued by him would be around Rs. 5 lakhs for year. He did not show commission earned by him on these havala bills in his income-tax returns and in order to cover up said clandestine income earned by him he used to inflate his expenses and he would show that payments were made to four named bogus concerns. He also stated for one question as to what are obvious mistakes found in his accounts, he stated that in total turnover declared by him accommodation amounts received in name of Rita Advertising Agency is not included. So also bogus expenses shown as payments made to four bogus concerns named by him are accounted only in case of his proprietary business, namely, Maud Advertising Services and no expenses have been debited in accounts of Rita Advertising Agency. He stated categorically that except his bare word of mouth there is no proof for his returning back 90 per cent of amount by cash. He stated that he does not own any hoarding site. But yet, he had given bogus bills in which period of display and site of address of hoarding was given and it can be verified from site-owners that such display was never made. When asked why he made contradictory statements earlier in day he explained at that time he was under confusion and mental tension and he asserts that his statement which continued up to 11.30 p.m. is true one from which he never altered or changed. On 10-10- 1983, on behalf of Shri Jalan one Shri C.L. Aggarwal, CA, was given opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Fernandes. In answer to question No. 5, Mr. Fernandes went to extent of stating that prior to statement recorded from him at 8 p.m. on 14-4-1981 he did not give any other statement on that date to Income-tax Department. When cross-examined as to when he was introduced to Mr. S.R. Jivarajka and how and in what capacity Mr. Fernandes was connected with Mr. Jalan, Mr. Fernandes answered that he knows Shri Jalan and he introduced him to Mr. S.R. Jivarajka and he does not remember date and year. When asked how he was introduced, he stated that Shri Jalan asked Mr. Fernandes to go and see Mr. Jivarajka. To another question asked he had stated that his wife asked him to go and see Shri Jalan in his office. He further stated that he was sick for five years and in spite of his sickness, he was attending office regularly. He stated that except issuing bogus bills he did not have other business with either Shri Jalan or with assessee's company during period in question. He also stated that he does not know how his wife knows Shri Jalan. He further stated exactly for how many years he has issued bogus bills to Shri Jalan. To another question, he answered that he has been showing bill amounts issued in favour of assessee-company as part of his income in his income-tax returns. He admitted that on 14-4-1981 both his office as well as his residence were searched. He ascertained that he returned amount only to Shri Shankerlal. To question from which concerns he had been issuing advertisement bills to TCI Ltd., and he stated that he had issued bills from Maud Advertising Services. 4. On 23-1-1982, Shri Jalan, regional manager of assessee-company was examined. He stated that on promotion he came to Bombay and assumed office on 23-9-1976. He came from Pone where he worked as circle manager of assessee-company. He came to know Mr. Fernandes only from 1978 onwards. His wife Mrs. Fernandes approached him for canvassing business for advertisement. Sometime later he was introduced to her husband. Even after that Mrs. Fernandes alone used to come in connection with advertisement dealings. He admitted to have given advertisement and publicity work to Maud Advertising Agency or Rita Advertising Agency during years 1977 to 1981. He also stated that display of hoardings on highways at prominent places is type of advertisement or publicity which were entrusted to them. Payments used to be made after, execution of work. Once or twice he got verified whether advertisement was done or not through his subordinates. Now he cannot say who was employee and who made verification. He also did not obtain any written report of getting verified advertisement work done by Maud Advertising Agency and Rita Advertising Agency. Later, payments were made on trust and no specific verification was done as to whether hoardings were displayed or not. When version of Mr. Fernandes that he was made to part with havala bills and in modus operandi adopted, Mr. Fernandes used to get only 10 per cent commission and rest of bills amount used to draw and used to be handed over to him. Shri Jalan emphatically denied it and termed statement of Mr. Fernandes as completely false. He asserted that every payment was made by account payee cheque and Mr. Fernandes never paid back any money to him. He was not aware that Mrs. Fernandes was owner of three advertising concerns herself. He further stated that newspaper advertisements and calendars, etc., was entrusted to Chitla Advertising Agency, Bombay. He also stated that he got verified once or twice whether Maud Advertising Agency had displayed hoardings. According to him, he verified hoarding in highway named Eastern Express Highway between Bombay and Agra. He also stated that it is in April or May 1981 after enquiry by Income-tax Department stated he came to know that Maud Advertising Services had not displayed hoardings as per bills passed by it. They gave legal notice to Mr. J.D. Fernandes and also gave reminder. further course of action had to be decided. Now they have terminated services of Maud Advertising Agency and Rita Advertising Agency and work of giving advertisements is now being handled by one of its directors Shri V.P. Agarwal, who had his office at Nariman Point, Bombay. 5. On 23-1-1982, i.e., same day on which Shri Jalan was examined and Shri Shankerlal Sinwal was also examined on oath. He stated that in June 1970 he was appointed as accountant in assessee's company firstly at Secunderabad and later he was transferred to Bombay. He stated that person who is authorised to determine whether any expenditure should be incurred for company was his regional manager, Shri Jalan, where amount involved is more than Rs. 1,000. He knows Mr. J.D. Fernandes for last 4 or 5 years and 2 or 3 times he had handed over cheques to him. modus operandi spoken in his (Mr. Fernandes) deposition is false. He had never paid to Shri Shankerlal any money. In fact, normally cheques were issued by cashier only. Only when there is any difficulty he might have interfered and seen that cheques are issued. He does not know that any one verified whether hoardings claimed to have been put up were actually put up or not. Only regional manager would know about it. He knows Rita Advertising Agency for past one-half year. 6. Mrs. Fernandes, wife of Mr. Fernandes, was examined on 11-1-1985. Except stating that she had sent her husband to Mr. Jalan she denied knowledge about actual publicity work done by Maud Advertising Services and Rita Advertising Agency to assessee-company. To question, how she knows Shri Jalan, she replied that she goes to transport company for business and that is how she came to know of it. 7. On 10-1-1985, one Mr. L. Rego manager of Art Advertising Bureau was examined. He deposed that Mrs. Kantabai P. Zaveri is proprietrix of said concern and he has been working since 20 years. They have taken lease rights of putting up two neon sign boards and one advertisement hoarding on outer wall of building known as ' Marina Mansion ' situated at Chowpatti, Bombay. lease agreement is dated 14-11-1974. lease rent fixed was Rs. 300 per month. According to him, from 1977 till date neon sign board of Transport Corporation of India was never exhibited on Marine Mansion building. To question whether Maud Advertising Service did any publicity on Marine Mansion building at any time, he stated that 10 years ago there was advertisement of ' Zeep Torch ' through Maud Advertising Service. It was only board advertisement and not neon sign and it was for about three months. Thereafter in 1982, there was advertisement for Road Transport Corporation, Bombay through Maud Advertising Service for period of three months. Except these two instances, said concern had not done any publicity on Marine M n s i o n building he categorically stated that nopublicity of Transport Corporation of India Ltd., was done on Marine Mansion building by Rita Advertising Services. Mr. Rego was cross-examined on 2-8-1985. In cross- examination, he stated that they have taken three sites of Marine Mansion buildings on lease. He also stated that owners of said building was not prohibited for allowing other advertising agencies to put on their advertisements on rest of walls on said building but they should not obstruct their advertisements. 8. To question as to how he knows Maud Advertising Service, he replied that we had taken one hoarding site from them for ' Geep Torch ' advertisement. following specific question and answer are important and hence they are quoted: " Have you ever seen advertisement of TCI Ltd., on Marine Mansion building?" Answer: " I have not seen on our side." He has been shown three photos disclosing that advertisement of Transport Corporation of India Ltd., was exhibited on building called Marina Mansion. He said that after 1982 Marine Mansion building was booked by Road Transport Corporation through Maud Advertising Service. It is possible that they would have actually displayed name of Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. He did n o t verify actual advertisement, but, this happened only in 1982. agreement dated 14-1-1974 entered into by Trust of Vithaldas Thakurdas Charity Trust with proprietrix of Art Advertising Bureau, Mrs. Kantabai P. Zaveri has been provided in paper book filed on behalf of department at pages 9 to 11. Except to disclose that Art Advertising Bureau is entitled to display and one advertisement board and two neon sign boards on outer wall of said building (Marine Mansion) for period of ten years from 1-1-1974 with proviso that she will be entitled to display with option to renew for further period of 10 years under same terms and conditions set out, it is not of much relevance to our purpose. 9. ITO after going through evidence came to conclusion that payment made to Maud Advertising Agency is not genuine and, therefore, disallowed Rs. 60,000 and also added same to returned income. Following elaborate discussion made by him in his assessment order for 1979-80, for assessment year 1980-81 also he had disallowed and added Rs. 94,000 to returned income disbelieving payment made to Rita Advertising Agency. In appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that assessee had made payments during assessment year 1979-80 to Maud Advertising Services by account payee cheque. He stated that Mr. Fernandes earlier in day gave statement on 14-4-1981 stating that he had only done advertisement work for Transport Corporation of India Ltd. fact that 90 per cent of amount was withdrawn 2 or 3 days after crossed cheque was remitted into bank account of Maud Advertising Agency and Rita Advertising Agency can be explained away otherwise than on reasonable hypothesis substantiating complicity of assessee-company in alleged clandestine business. Mere withdrawal of 90 per cent of amount paid by crossed cheque does not point out complicity of assessee-company and it does not lead to only conclusion that withdrawal must again have come to coffers of assessee-company. withdrawal of 90 per cent of amount covered by crossed cheques deposited would not lead to irresistible conclusion in favour of hawala transaction. It could be that this amount may be withdrawn for payment for work done by other persons to whom sub-contracts were given by Mr. Fernandes. learned Commissioner (Appeals) also held that evidence of Mr. Fernandes cannot be believed especially when there were glaring discrepancies and there was no corroborative evidence to prove that Mr. Fernandes gave back 90 per cent of amount. Under circumstances, learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside ITO's order and allowed Rs. 60,000 for assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 94,000 paid to Rita Advertising Agency for assessment year 1980-81. 10. As against impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), revenue came up in second appeals before this Tribunal. It is contended that t h e disallowance of Rs. 60,000 should have been upheld as there was no supportable evidence to substantiate assessee's version. deposition of Mr. Fernandes goes to establish that 90 per cent of payments came back to it by form of withdrawals by Mr. Fernandes. preponderance of probability or circumstantial evidence available on record corroborates deposition of Mr. Fernandes as against mere denial by Shri Jalan and Mr. Shankerlal. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in assuming that withdrawal made by Shri Fernandes might have been paid to sub-contractors in face of clear evidence on records that no publicity work was undertaken at all. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate fact that assessee-company never cared to inspect whether any advertisement service was rendered at all and said conduct of company itself would further strengthen deposition of Mr. Fernandes that 90 per cent of payments were refunded to assessee-company. It is also contended that case of Associated Electrical Agency is different from facts of assessee's case. We have heard Shri C. Satyanarayana, learned senior departmental representative and Shri Y. Ratnakar learned advocate for assessee-company. 11. For assessment year 1979-80, assessee filed return on 20-8- 1979 disclosing total income of Rs. 80,95,727. However, assessment was completed on 27-9-1982 on total income of Rs. 91,16,320. total turnover under all units being run by assessee-company worked out to Rs. 25,10,54,785. assessee-company was having about 450 branches throughout India but learned departmental representative submits that hoardings were exhibited only in Bombay and nowhere else. Obviously this would not be correct because in bills furnished by Rita Advertising Agency it is stated that neon sign boards were exhibited at Dapudi, Pune and also at Pune Road, Nasik. particulars of bills issued by Maud Advertising Services for accounting year relevant to assessment year 1979-80 and Rita Advertising Agency for accounting year relevant to assessment year 1980-81 were furnished by learned senior departmental representative in paper. On 14-4- 1981 Shri J.D. Fernandes gave two statements which are contrary to each other in material particulars. In first of statements, he stated that under bills issued, inter alia, to assessee-company he had rendered advertisement services, whereas, in second statement given on same day he had resiled from it and came with story that every bill issued to assessee- company was hawala bill and he did not take out any boarding sites and did not also render any services to Transport Corporation of India Ltd. He went to extent of stating that he did not give any statement whatsoever earlier on day, i.e., 14-4-1981. This would speak volumes about truthfulness of version of Mr. Fernandes. Admittedly, he did not show income derived from bill amounts received from Transport Corporation of India Ltd., as part of his income. Taking advantage of that vulnerable aspect, ADI who got statement of Mr. Fernandes recorded from 8 to 11.30 p.m. might have influenced Mr. Fernandes by threats and promises and extracted statement. Therefore, that statement cannot be taken to be true in our opinion, evidence of Mr. Fernandes should be viewed as evidence of approver in criminal law which is entitled to no value at all unless it is corroborated in material particulars by reliable and material pieces of evidence. One of such corroborative piece of evidences led by revenue was that 90 per cent of amount paid under bill was soon withdrawn by self-cheque and said to have been paid to assessee-company. This circumstance is not clinching circumstance inasmuch as it is capable of being explained away on hypothesis other than that of establishing complicity of assessee-company. For instance, if Maud Advertising Services had not taken any premises on lease to exhibit its hoardings or put on neon signs, nothing prevents it to hire such premises from other advertising agencies and with reference to such hiring he might have withdrawn 90 per cent and paid it to other advertising agencies wherefrom it had hired premises for performing its advertising services. Mr. Rego had already admitted that Maud Advertising Services had taken one hoarding from them for ' Geep Torch ' advertisement. Mr. Fernandes in his first statement on 14-4-1981 admitted that (i) Royal Advertisers, (ii) Anjali Associates, (iii) Modern Publicity Services, and (iv) Express Advertisers used to do display works on behalf of their clients. But he does not remember on which of his clients behalf services were rendered and particulars of payment made to them. This would show that there is every scope for Mr. Fernandes to utilise services of above four concerns also to display works and advertisements on behalf of its clients for which payments might have been made. Therefore, simply because Maud Advertising Services did not take any premises on lease for putting up advertisements or neon sign boards does not by itself establish that he was not capable of rendering advertisement services to his clients. According to us he can do so through others and in order to pay to others, 90 per cent of amounts mentioned in bill might also have been withdrawn. However, Mr. Fernandes in all probability might have been under influence of threats or promises which made him give altogether different twist and made second statement on 14-4-1981. Otherwise, there is no rational explanation as to why he made almost volte-face in his version given on same day. Further, version of Mr. Fernandes that only with reference to four parties, he used to make havala bills and all other transactions which he had were genuine and real did not sound true and does not conform to natural course of human conduct. Further except his bare word of mouth, there is nothing in evidence to show that 90 per cent of bill money withdrawn was handed over at any time to Shri Jalan or to Shri Shankerlal. version of Mr. Fernandes was that crossed cheques used to be given by Shri Shankerlal in bill amounts, he used to hand over 90 per cent of drawn cheques to Shri Shankerlal. Shri Shankerlal kly refuted same on oath when he was examined by revenue. Further, in our opinion, unless assessee-company had requisite knowledge of bogus transaction or clandestine arrangement, or unless it had knowledge that amounts withdrawn reach coffers of assessee- company, it cannot be said that amounts paid towards advertising to Maud Advertising or Rita Advertising Agency do not constitute expenditure incurred by t h e assessee-company. accounts maintained by Mr. Fernandes in Central Bank of India as well as in Union Bank of India were extracted by ITO in his assessment orders. date of remittances of amounts given by crossed cheques to Maud Advertising Services and dates of withdrawal therefrom are near to each other and dates would fit in with situation set up by Mr. Fernandes. However, as regards Rita Advertising Agency is concerned, correlation of dates of remittances and dates of withdrawal were never established just like in case of Maud Advertising Services. That itself would falsify version of Mr. Fernandes regarding havala nature of transactions. Further, in vast organisation like that of assessee-company, it is well-nigh impossible either to check or detect dealings which staff of assessee-company develop with outsiders. Assuming without admitting that either Shri Jalan or Shri Shankerlal was hand in glove with Maud Advertising Agency, how can assessee-company be punished for it unless assessee-company is consenting party to clandestine transactions? revenue did not even suggest at least faintly that assessee-company had hand in such clandestine act of obtaining hawala bills from two advertising agencies. Further, photographs with which Shri Rego was confronted with in cross-examination would clearly show that advertising service was done on Transport Corporation of India Ltd., at Marina Mansion. Out of 4 sides of building, permission was taken for display hoardings on three sides by Mr. Rego's Master. fourth side was not given on rent to Art Advertising Bureau. When specific question was put to Mr. Rego whether he had ever seen advertisement of Transport Corporation of India Ltd. on Marina Mansion, he replied that he has not seen on their site. That does not mean that advertisement might not have been displayed on side not taken on rent by Art Advertising Bureau. Therefore, we are satisfied that some advertising service was performed by Maud Advertising Agency in accounting year relevant to assessment year 1979-80 and we also hold that story of havala transaction spoken of by Mr. Fernandes does not appear to be true or believable. Further, as regards Rita Advertising Agency is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to show that payment is not made by assessee-company and Rita Advertising Agency did not do any advertising services to assessee-company. It is no doubt true that letter dated 2-8-1985 addressed by Nasik Municipal Corporation to ITO and letter dated 3-10- 1985 addressed by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to ITO and also letter dated 12-2-1985 addressed by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to ITO were filed. They only show that Rita Advertising Agency did not obtain any permit for display of neon signs at Chowpatty, Marina Mansion from 1-1-1978 to 30-9-1978, from 1-10-1978 to 30-9-1980 and 1-1- 1978 to 30-9-1980. However, as we have already stated nothing prevented Rita Advertising Agency to take on rent places already taken on rent by any other advertising agencies and display either hoardings or neon signs in those places. Therefore, letters produced by learned departmental representative were not conclusive of matters. We, therefore, hold that there is nothing to show that amounts of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 94,000 incurred as expenditure for advertising by assessee-company were not spent for said purposes, but, 90 per cent of said amount was received back by assessee-company. Therefore, order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in our opinion is quite justifiable and cannot be interfered with. Even otherwise, it should be held to be trading loss under section 28 of Act. Even on this ground, amounts are allowable as business expenditure. revenue fails on this point. 12. next common question is about disallowance made by ITO under section 40A(5) of Act which was set aside by Commissioner (Appeals). disallowance involved is Rs. 60,215 in accounting year relevant to assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 1,11,764 for accounting year relevant to assessment year 1980-81. learned Commissioner (Appeals) held in his impugned orders that matter is covered by Tribunal's decision rendered in assessee's case for earlier assessment year. Both parties agreed that matter is covered by order of this Tribunal dated 19-7-1984 passed in IT Appeal No. 664 (Hyd.) of 1983 for assessment year 1976-77. Even otherwise, matter is covered by Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. [1984] 145 ITR 24, Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 633. Hence, this ground raised by assessee in both appeals should fail. 13 to 18. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED