1 IN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015 PRESENT HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND HON BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR ITA No. 339 OF 2009 (IT) BETWEEN : M/s.Karnataka Instrade Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director Sri. M.R.Seetharam (formerly known as M/s.Karnataka Minerals & Manufacturing Co Ltd.,) No.1, GEF Administrative Block, New BEL Road, MSRIT Post, Bangalore 560054. Appellant (By Sri. A.Shankar & M.Lava Advs.,) AND: Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, C.R.Building, Central Circle-2(2), Queens Road, Bangalore 560001. Respondent (By Sri. K.V.Aravind & Sri. G.Kamaladhar, Advs.,) 2 This ITA is filed U/S.260-A of I.T.Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 06-02-2009 passed in ITA No.855/BNG/2008, for Assessment Year 2002-03, praying that this Hon ble Court may be pleased to: i. Formulate substantial questions of law stated therein, ii. Allow appeal and set aside order passed by ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.855/BNG/2008, dated 06-02-2009, in interest of justice and equity. This Appeal is coming on for hearing and reserved for orders on 08/09/2015, this day B.MANOHAR J,. pronounced following: JUDGMENT assessee preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act for short) being aggrieved by order dated 6-2-2009 made in ITA No.855/Bang/2008 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench A, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short) for not granting deduction of various expenditures incurred in computation of income and also not allowing expenditure incurred 3 by appellant-Company for assessment year 2002-03. 2. appellant is Public Limited Company manufacturing cement in factory situated at Mathodu village, Hosadurga Taluk. assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2002-03 declaring business loss of Rs.2,32,77,931/-. In Schedule-12 attached to balance sheet filed along with return, assessee had declared other income of Rs.34,68,126/- which consists of interest income of Rs.66,482/- and balances written back amounting to Rs.34,01,644/-. In Schedule-13 which was titled as Notes to accounts , it was stated that depreciation was not provided during year on assets since Unit is dormant and there is no production during said year. Notices were issued under Sections 143(2) and also 142(1) of Act. During course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee-Company entered into agreement 4 of sale dated 25-08-1999 with M/s. Madras Cement Limited (hereinafter referred to as MCL for short) for sale of assets of Company, both moveable and immovable assets of Cement Factory. Further, assessee-Company executed irrevocable power of attorney on very same day i.e. on 25-08-1999 in favour of MCL to operate Cement factory and also another power of attorney for operating mining lease for sale consideration of Rs.19.00 crores subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions mentioned in agreement of sale. In pursuance of said agreement of sale and power of attorney, MCL took possession of Cement Plant and started commercial production on 03-09-2000. first payment of royalty for mining was made on 02-09-2000. As per Annual General Meeting of assessee-company held on 23-09-1999, assets of Company were transferred to M/s.MCL and this fact was mentioned in Annual Report. Further capital gains have been 5 taxed for assessment year 2000-01. When there is no business activity itself, question of incurring expenditure such as royalty paid, rates and taxes, legal profession fees, travel and conveyance, repairs and maintenance, salary wages, staff welfare, does not arise. Accordingly, notice was issued under Section 144 of Act to show cause as to why books of account shall not be rejected invoking Section 145 of Act. 3. In pursuance of notice issued, authorized representative of assessee filed his reply contending that though assessee-Company entered into agreement dated 25-08-1999 with MCL, physical possession was handed over during financial year 2000-01 relevant to assessment year 2001-02. agreement of sale contains stipulations such as, passing of title over all properties including mines owned by assessee. In order to perfect title of moveable and also immovable, assessee has to incur huge expenditures. He has to pay royalty to Mysore 6 Minerals, rates and taxes to Government, repairs and maintenance has to be made to covert factory into running Concern. For that, traveling and conveyance expenses, legal and professional fees have to be paid. These expenditures are allowable expenditures. Unless these obligations are fulfilled, conditions of agreement of sale will be violated, or in alternative, if Assessing Officer is of opinion that these expenditures are not revenue expenditures, Company may be allowed to deduct these expenses, out of sale consideration received from M/s.Madras Cement Limited and adjust sale consideration accordingly. 4. Assessing Officer after considering matter in detail and taking into consideration all relevant facts, denied all expenditure claimed by assessee except expenditure with regard to maintenance of Corporate office i.e. salaries, remuneration to Directors, electricity charges, staff 7 welfare, audit fees, postage and telephone, printing and stationary and general expenditures of Rs.5,85,832/- and Bank charges. All other expenditures are denied by Assessing Officer, which are as under: (a)Rates and taxes Rs.1,48,45,881 (b)Traveling and Conveyance Rs. 3,02,476 (c)Legal and Professional fees Rs. 37,99,032 (d)Repairs and maintenance Rs. 25,389 (e)Royalty Rs. 71,71,643 Further, no claim has been made towards rates and taxes to Department of Mines and Geology for assessment year 2002-03. alternative claim with regard to capitalization of expenditure was also rejected by Assessing Officer on ground that expenditure has been claimed as revenue expenditure. Out of other declared income of Rs.34,68,126/-, Assessing Officer assessed total income at Rs.28,82,294/-. Being aggrieved by assessment order dated 10-03-2005, assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax 8 (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as First Appellate Authority for short) on various grounds. 5. First Appellate Authority granted relief insofar as traveling and conveyance, legal and professional fees, repairs and maintenance amounting to Rs.41,26,897/- and remanded matter in respect of rates and taxes amounting to Rs.1,48,45,881/- paid to Government and directed Assessing Officer to verify challans and if proof of payment is produced, same has to be allowed. Further, directed Assessing Officer to examine issue with regard to carry forward of loss and depreciation and allow same from income. However, First Appellate Authority rejected prayer insofar as Rs.34,68,126/- and declared as income from other sources. No relief has been granted insofar as royalty is concerned. First Appellate Authority was of view that assessee has shown capital gain for assessment year 2004-05 and that was accepted 9 by Department. Even though moveable and immovable assets of company were transferred, assessee has to incur other expenditure for transfer of moveable and immovable. Accordingly, partly allowed appeal by its order dated 31-3-2008. Being aggrieved by said order, assessee as well as Revenue preferred appeals before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. 6. Revenue mainly contended that allowance of expenditure on traveling and conveyance, legal and professional expenses, repairs and maintenance amounting to Rs.41,26,897/- even though no business activity was carried on, is contrary to law. When business of appellant-Company has already been transferred, question of incurring of expenditure for business does not arise. Further, allowing carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation is contrary to law since assessee is not carrying on business from year 1995 itself. 10 Hence, order passed by First Appellate Authority is contrary to law. 7. On other hand, assessee contended that denial of relief insofar as royalty and remanding matter to Assessing Officer insofar as rates and taxes is contrary to law. Further, balances written back from creditors had to be treated as business income under Section 41(1) of Act. assessee is entitled to claim deduction of expenses of previous year. Hence, sought for setting aside order passed by First Appellate Authority by allowing their appeal. 8. Tribunal, by its order dated 06-02-2009 allowed appeal filed by Revenue denying deduction in respect of expenditure of Rs.41,26,897/- and denied deduction in respect of royalty. Further, Tribunal has clearly held that assessee is not entitled for set-off of brought forward unabsorbed 11 depreciation in income of Rs.34,01,644/- though it was held to be assessable under head Profit and Gain of business. Further, Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee in part. assessee being aggrieved by order passed by Tribunal has filed this appeal. 9. above appeal was admitted for considering following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether Tribunal was justified in law in not granting deduction of various expenditures incurred in computation of income of appellant on facts and circumstances of case? (2) Whether Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing expenditure incurred by Appellant- Company, which expenses have all been incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of earning income? (3) Whether Tribunal erred in law holding that appellant is not in activity of business and consequently not entitled to 12 allowance of expenses as allowable deduction? (4) Whether Tribunal was justified in law in not setting off unabsorbed depreciation against income of current assessment year on facts and in circumstances of case? (5) Whether Tribunal was justified in law in holding that CIT (A) erred in directing assessing officer to allow brought forwards loss and depreciation against income assessed for year under appeal under any head? (6) Without prejudice, whether Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that above expenditure ought to have been allowed in computation of income on sale of assets of appellant? 10. Sri. A.Shankar, learned counsel appearing for appellant contended that order passed by Tribunal denying deduction of various expenditure incurred in computation of income of appellant 13 is contrary to law. Though appellant entered into agreement to sell land, building, plant and machinery of Cement Factory along with mining lease right to M/s. MCL on 25-08-1999, actual transfer took place only during assessment year 2001-02. In fact, business of appellant was not transferred since certain obligations could not be fulfilled. transfer took place in phased manner and payments are being made only on fulfillment of said conditions. In fact, first installment of Rs.4.75 Crores was paid in year 1999. subsequent payments have been made in years 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2006-07. appellant has to incur expenditure for passing over clear title of all properties including mines owned by Company after complying with conditions of agreement. To perfect various titles of properties, appellant has to spend lot of money. During relevant year, Company has to incur various 14 expenses in form of payment of rates and taxes to Department of Mines and Geology, traveling and conveyance expenses, legal and professional fees, maintenance and repairs of machines, etc. All these expenses are to be met in order to fulfill obligations contained in agreement. In view of that, same were required to be deducted. Though First Appellate Authority granted relief to extent of Rs.41,26,897/-, Tribunal erroneously denied said deduction which is contrary to law. Tribunal has failed to consider that in returns, appellant has clearly stated that appellant has earned sum of Rs.34,68,126/- towards income from other sources, out of which, Rs.66,482/- is rental income. Though Tribunal held said income as income from business , however, refused to grant set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from heads of Profit and Gain from business, which contrary to law. In view of deeming fiction under Section 41(1) of Act, 15 Tribunal ought to have taken deeming fiction to its logical end and allowed expenditure against such income. Further, order made by Assessing Authority for assessment year 2000-01 was set aside by First Appellate Authority and said order was confirmed by Tribunal in ITA No.378/Bng/2006, wherein Tribunal clearly held that there is no transfer of cement factory in year under appeal. When there is no sale at all in year under appeal, there is no need to consider question of slump sale. capital gain earned out of sale of cement factory has been taxed during assessment years 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05. payment has been made in phased manner and as and when payment was made, it was brought to tax under capital gain. In order to keep cement factory in workable condition, assessee had to incur expenditure and these expenditure are allowable. order passed by Tribunal runs contrary to law 16 laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/S. M/s.Virmani Industries Pvt. Limited reported in (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Rampur Timber and Turnery Co. Ltd., (Allahabad) (1973) 89 ITR 150 and also another judgment of this Court in case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka V/S Kapila Textiles (P) Ltd. reported in (1981)129 ITR 458. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that denial of expenditure with regard to payment of royalty is in nature of statutory liability referred to in Section 43B of Act which is allowable in year of actual payment and not on accrual basis. Assessing Authority denied said deduction solely on ground that assessee has not carried on business for assessment year 2002-03. said order was confirmed by First Appellate Authority. However, Tribunal has not taken into consideration statutory expenditure. Though Assessing Authority has granted 17 expenditure in respect of maintenance of corporate office of appellant-Company, said deduction was upheld by First Appellate Authority. Even though Revenue has not preferred any appeal challenging deduction of expenditure in respect of maintenance of Corporate Office, Tribunal has wrongly deducted said expenditure which is also contrary to law. In support of contention of learned counsel for appellant, he relied upon judgment reported in Mcorp Global P. Ltd. V/S. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 309 ITR 434 (SC). 12. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Revenue argued in support of order passed by Tribunal and contended that as per agreement dated 25-08-1999, cement factory, land, plant and machinery has been sold to M/s. MCL along with irrevocable power of attorney for operating cement plant as well as mining lease. MCL also acknowledged that it has taken cement plant and 18 started commercial production on 3-9-2000. Further, first payment of royalty for mining was made on 2-9-2000. In view of transfer of cement plant, claim of assessee in respect of various expenses is to be disallowed. Assessing Officer, taking into consideration all these aspects of matter disallowed all expenditure including royalty except expenses with regard to maintenance of Corporate Office. agreement of sale executed by assessee in favour of M/s.MCL has resulted in transfer in terms of Section 247(v) and resulted in slump sale. Since assessee has already sold property, question of incurring expenditure does not arise. He relied upon Section 28(1) and 41(1) of Act in this regard. Further with regard to depreciation is concerned, assessee declared income of Rs.34,68,126/-, which consists of interest income of Rs.66,482/- and balances written back of RS.34,01,644/-. assessee themselves have admitted in Schedule-13 that unit 19 is dormant and there is no production during relevant assessment year. Hence, there is no question of depreciation of income from other sources. Accordingly, Assessing Authority rightly denied claim of depreciation, which was confirmed by First Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal. He further submitted that certain deductions can be made only on actual payment under Section 43-B of Act. No document has been produced to show that assessee had incurred business expenditure and no receipt has been produced to prove said expenditure. First Appellate Authority remanded matter to Assessing Authority insofar as rates and taxes is concerned. Tribunal set aside expenditure incurred with regard to traveling and conveyance, legal and professional fees, repairs and maintenance. No document has been produced to show that assessee had incurred any expenditure with regard to payment of royalty. In support of his contention, he relied upon 20 judgments reported in (1986) 161 ITR 135 (Mad) (EAST ASIATIC COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. v/s COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) and (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v/s MOTHER INDIA REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (P). LTD. and sought for dismissal of appeal. 13. We have carefully considered arguments addressed by learned counsel for parties and perused orders impugned and other relevant records. 14. Issues Nos. 1 to 3 are with regard to denial of expenditure incurred in computation of income of appellant-assessee. records clearly disclose that appellant-Company was under rehabilitation scheme of Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). They could not continue production from year 1995. In order to come out of clutches of BIFR, they entered into agreement 21 with M/s. MCL to sell cement factory, along with plant and machinery including mining lease as per agreement dated 25-8-1999 subject to certain conditions. Initial payment of Rs.4.75 crores has been made to M/s. MCL on 25-08-1999 and remaining amount has been paid in six installments on fulfilling conditions imposed in agreement. For assessment year 2000-01, capital gain towards sale of factory was assessed. said assessment order was challenged before First Appellate Authority and First Appellate Authority has given some relief. Against said order, Revenue went up in appeal before Tribunal and said appeal has been dismissed on 19-09-2008. specific case of assessee is that though there was agreement to sell on 25-08-1999, actual transfer of cement factory took place only in subsequent assessment year. There is no transfer of business to M/s. MCL. All that appellant has agreed to sell was only business 22 assets consisting of land, building, plant and machinery of cement factory along with mining lease right. appellant has claimed expenditure to extent of Rs.41,26,987/- in respect of traveling and conveyance, legal and professional fees, repairs and maintenance. However, Assessing Authority disallowed said expenditure on ground that cement factory has already been transferred in year 1999 and appellant has not carried on any business during assessment years in question and hence they are not entitled for any deduction towards expenditure. However, First Appellate Authority reversed said finding and held that appellant is entitled for deduction of expenditure as there was no transfer of entire property of assessee for assessment year 2000-01. capital gain earned by selling of cement factory was assessed for assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07. department has accepted same. However, Tribunal disallowed said 23 expenditure holding that assessee had closed business in year 1995 itself and no document has been shown that they had incurred any expenditure during relevant period, though plant and machinery has been transferred in year 1999 itself, by giving irrevocable power of attorney to operate cement factory and mining lease. 15. As per conditions of agreement of sale, appellant-assessee has to hand over cement factory in running condition; to renew mining lease license and perfect various titles to property and to purchase remaining lands, for which, assessee has to incur expenditure. These expenditure are expenditure incurred to perfect title and other expenditure are revenue expenditure. Hence assessee is entitled for deduction of same. Though assessee has not earned any income, to perfect title to properties expenditure incurred are allowable deductions against balances written back 24 of Rs.34,01,644/-, which is assessable as business income. This Court in judgment reported in (2011) 203 Taxmann 200 (Kar) (Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bangalore V/S Lawrence D souza) held that though business was stopped in year 1994, expenses are incurred in connection with business. This Court allowed deduction holding that expenses are continued to be incurred in connection with business, until it is sold. Tribunal denied expenditure solely on ground that business activities are closed in view of transfer of cement factory, plant and machinery. However, as per agreement, assessee has to fulfill other obligations, for which they have to incur expenditure and these are revenue expenditure. Hence, assessee is entitled for deduction in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to transfer of plant and machinery to M/s. MCL. As stated earlier, Assessing Officer has accepted expenditure for assessment year 25 2004-05 and 2006-07. Hence, issues Nos. 1 and 2 are held in favour of assessee and against Revenue. 16. With regard to disallowance of deduction on royalty expenditure is concerned, assessee has not produced any documents to show that they have paid royalty during assessment year 2002-03. As per agreement of sale entered into between assessee and M/s. MCL, by executing irrevocable power of attorney, mining lease was allowed to operate. In fact, MCL themselves have admitted that first payment of royalty for mining was made on 2-9-2000 itself. In absence of any material with regard to expenditure on royalty, all authorities concurrently held that assessee has not incurred any expenditure in respect of royalty. Hence, assessee is not entitled for deduction towards royalty. We find there is no infirmity or irregularity in said finding. Hence, issue No.3 is answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee. 26 17. Issues Nos.4 and 5 are with regard to denial of setting off of unabsorbed depreciation against income is concerned. assessee while filing return declared interest income of Rs.66,482/- and Rs.34,01,644/- in respect of balances written back. Assessing Officer as well as First Appellate Authority held that said amount is income from other sources. However, First Appellate Authority directed Assessing Officer to examine issue of carry forward loss and depreciation and allow same. But, Tribunal denied carry forward loss and depreciation to be set-off against income, even though it was held that income of Rs.34,01,644/- is business income. Tribunal failed to appreciate fact that when once income on written back is assessed as business income by virtue of Section 41(1) of Act, expenditure incurred has to be allowed as deduction in arriving at business income. 27 18. Section 28 of Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that profit and gain of any business or profession carried on by assessee, at any time during previous year shall be chargeable to income tax under head Profits and Gains of business or profession. Section 29 of Act provides that income from profits and gains of business or profession referred to in Section 28 shall be computed in accordance with provisions contained in Sections 30 to 43-D. Therefore in computing income from business, provisions of Section 32 as well as Section 41 of Act would be applicable. Therefore, once amount realized by assessee by sale of building, plant and machinery is treated as income arising out of profits and gains from business by virtue of sub-Section (2) of Section 41 of Act, notwithstanding fact that assessee was not carrying on any business during relevant assessment year, provision contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 32 become applicable and consequently, 28 set-off has to be given for unabsorbed depreciation allowances of previous year brought forward in terms of that provision. 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in VIRMANI INDUSTRIES case (supra) examined Section 32(2) of Act and held that while availing benefit of Section 32(2), it is not necessary that business carried on in following previous year should be same business as was carried on in preceding previous year. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that We are of opinion that in absence of any words to that effect, no such requirement ought to be read into said sub-section. look at Section 72 shows that where Parliament intended to provide such limitation, it did so expressly. Section 72 deals with carry forward and set-off of business loss. proviso to clause (i) of sub-Section (1) Section 72 expressly provides that such course is permissible only where business or profession for which loss was originally computed continued to be carried on by him in 29 previous year relevant for that assessment year . In absence of any words to that effect, it must be held that for availing of benefit of Section 32(2), it is not necessary that business carried on in following year is same business as was carried on in previous year. 20. In judgment referred to above, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed unabsorbed depreciation relating to assessment year 1956-57 as against total income of assessment year 1965-66. Further, Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Kapila Textiles Private Limited (supra) held that benefit under sub-Section(2) of Section 32 of Act is not subject to condition that business must have been carried on by assessee during relevant assessment year. Therefore, Tribunal was right in accepting claim of assessee and confirming orders of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax applying ratio of judgment of Allahabad 30 High Court in Rampura Timber and Turnery Company case. 21. Sri. K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Revenue contended that for claiming benefit under Section 32(2) of Act, assessee has to establish that they must be carrying on same business as was carried in previous year and that if business is not in existence in following year, unabsorbed depreciation of previous year cannot be adjusted. continuation of business is condition precedent for carry forward loss and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of previous year. Relying upon judgment reported in (1986) 161 ITR 135 (supra), said contention of learned counsel for Revenue cannot be accepted in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Viramani Industries case. 31 22. Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment reported in (1966) 59 ITR 555 (CIT V/S JAIPURIA CHAINA CLAY MINES (P) LIMITED) held that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward and would be set-off even against profit under head other than business income . relevant paragraph reads as under: It is, therefore, clear that effect must be given to depreciation allowance first against profits or gains of particular business whose income is being computed under section 10 and if profits of that business are not sufficient to absorb depreciation allowance, allowance to extent to which it is not absorbed would be set off against profits of any other business and if part of depreciation allowance still remains unabsorbed, it would be liable to be set off against profits or gains chargeable under any other head and it is only if some part of depreciation allowance still remains unabsorbed that it can be carried forward to next assessment year But 32 where any part of depreciation allowance remains unabsorbed after being set off against total income chargeable to tax, it can be carried forward under proviso (b) to clause (vi) to following year and set off against that year s income and so on for succeeding years. method adopted by statute for achieving this result is that carried forward depreciation allowance is deemed to be part of and stands on exactly same footing as current depreciation for assessment year and is thus allowable as deduction under clause (vi). Hence, we are of opinion that assessee is entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation and set-off. Accordingly, substantial question of law 4 and 5 are held in favour of assessee. 23. Tribunal is not justified in law in holding that expenditure allowed by Assessing Officer as well as First Appellate Authority to extent of Rs.5,85,832/- towards maintenance of corporate 33 office is not deductible from income of written back. Revenue has not challenged deduction allowed by Assessing Officer as well as First Appellate Authority. However, Tribunal disallowed said allowance made by authorities below which is contrary to law. Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment reported in Mcorp Global Pvt. Limited, relying upon HUKUMCHAND MILLS v/s CIT, held that Tribunal is not authorized to take back benefit granted to assessee by Assessing Officer. Tribunal has no power to enhance assessment. In view of judgment of Supreme Court, Tribunal has no power to enhance assessment, though said deduction is challenged before Tribunal. Hence, assessee is entitled deduction towards maintenance of corporate office. 34 23. Accordingly, we pass following:- ORDER appeal is allowed in part. assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to transfer of plant and machinery, traveling and conveyance, repairs and maintenance and also entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation and set-off. However, assessee is not entitled to deduction towards royalty. Hence, Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. Issue No.3 is answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee. Since issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of assessee, issue No.6 need not be answered. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* M/s.Karnataka Instrade Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2)