REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4339-4340 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petiton (C) Nos. 24362-24363 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkata X .Appellant(s) Versus M/s Calcutta Export Company . Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4622 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11139 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4621 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18274 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4467 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11140 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4660 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6406 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4446 OF 2018 Signature Not Verified (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14698 OF 2014 Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2018.05.02 16:37:13 IST Reason: 1 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4449 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26649 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4448 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22282 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4451 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19974 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4468 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36797 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4623 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24879 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4469 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30611 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4453 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24747 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4454 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24748 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4459 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26780 OF 2014 2 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4457 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24750 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4456 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24749 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4471 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3512 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4624 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19305 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4460 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26781 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4462 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29246 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4463 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30639 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4466 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36421 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4465 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34200 OF 2014 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4470 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35170 OF 2015 3 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4386 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12098 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4625 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 14580 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4387 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12097 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4388 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2377 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4389 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12099 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4390 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12101 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4473 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12079 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4481 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7583 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4472 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7156 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4482 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10432 OF 2015 4 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4474 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9747 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4483 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17567 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4648 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9904 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4391 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19169 OF 2015 T.C. (C) No. 102 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4649 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28514 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4480 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28447 OF 2015 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4615 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13854 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4485 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16454 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4618 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11452 OF 2018 @ SLP(Civil)... CC No. 11917 OF 2016 5 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4552 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11202 OF 2018 @ SLP(C)... CC No. 12371 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4650 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23676 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4486 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26173 OF 2016 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4651 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6277 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4488 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29859 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4490 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11070 OF 2018 @ (DIARY No. 18542 OF 2017) CIVIL APPEAL No. 4489 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11069 OF 2018 @ (DIARY No. 18576 OF 2017) CIVIL APPEAL No. 4491 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23488 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4492 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19747 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4497 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19751 OF 2017 6 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4498 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19726 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4501 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11074 OF 2018 @ (DIARY No. 20508 OF 2017) CIVIL APPEAL No. 4515 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23081 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4502 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22584 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4503 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23489 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4626 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23054 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4504 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29789 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4505 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29867 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4506 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29852 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4507 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30953 OF 2017 7 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4508 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29872 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4509 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29855 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4510 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29874 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4511 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32190 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4512 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30336 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4513 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32887 OF 2017 CIVIL APPEAL No. 4514 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32991 OF 2017 JUDGMENT R.K.Agrawal, J. 1) Leave granted. 8 2) present appeal has been filed against impugned final judgment and order dated 03.09.2012 passed by High Court at Calcutta in GA No. 2029 of 2012 ITAT No. 175 of 2012 whereby Division Bench of High Court dismissed appeal filed by Appellant against order dated 29.02.2012 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short Tribunal ) in ITA No. 1487/Kol/2011. 3) Brief facts:- (a) M/s. Calcutta Export Company - Respondent is partnership firm and is manufacturer and exporter of casting materials having its principal place of business at Kolkata. Respondent filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2005-06 for Rs. 4,18,17,910/-. case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short IT Act ) was completed on 28.12.2007. Assessing Officer, vide order dated 12.10.2009, disallowed export commission charges paid by assessee to M/s. Steel Crackers Pvt. Ltd. 9 amounting to Rs. 40,82,089/- while stating that tax deducted at source (TDS) on such commission amount on 07.07.2004, 07.09.2004 and 07.10.2004 ought to have been deposited by Respondent before end of previous year i.e. 31.03.2005 to get commission amount deducted from total income in terms of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act as it stood then. But same was deposited on 01.08.2005, hence, Respondent cannot be allowed to claim deduction of commission amount from total income. Assessing Officer revised total income to Rs. 4,58,99,999/- with requirement to pay additional tax amount of Rs. 23,88,832/- by Respondent. (b) Being aggrieved by order dated 12.10.2009, Respondent preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). Learned CIT (Appeals), vide order dated 01.08.2011, allowed appeal while holding that commission amount is eligible for deduction under said Assessment Year. 10 (c) Being aggrieved, Revenue preferred appeal being ITA No. 1487/Kol/2011 before Tribunal which came to be dismissed on 29.02.2012. (d) Being aggrieved by order dated 29.02.2012, Revenue preferred appeal before High Court. High Court, vide judgment and order dated 03.09.2012, had dismissed appeal. (e) Aggrieved by judgment and order dated 03.09.2012, Revenue has preferred this appeal before this Court. 4) Heard learned senior counsel for parties and perused factual matrix of case. Point(s) for consideration:- 5) Whether amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act is retrospective in nature to apply to present facts and circumstances of case. Rival contentions:- 6) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Revenue contended that impugned judgment passed by High Court is bad in law and is liable to be set aside by this Court. 11 7) Learned senior counsel further contended that courts below have erred in extending meaning of amendment made in Section 40(a) (ia) and in not accepting plain meaning of Section as being prohibitory in nature which makes Respondent to deduct TDS and remit it in government account within time limit prescribed under Section. He further contended that amendment made under Section 40 (a) (ia) by Finance Act, 2010, clearly states that amendment has retrospective effect from Assessment Year 2010-11 and it cannot be held to be retrospective from Assessment Year 2005-2006. 8) Learned senior counsel further contended that High Court erred in relying on decision given by jurisdictional High Court in ITAT No. 302/2011 (G.A. No. 3200/2011) considering fact that no appeal was preferred against said judgment considering low tax effect in said matter. 9) Learned senior counsel finally contended that though tax effect is low in present case also and High Court has decided issue in favour of tax payer but in similar 12 situation in case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd. vs. Deputy CIT (ITA No. 404/Mumb/2009) Special Bench of ITAT has decided issue in favour of Revenue on 09.09.2011. Learned senior counsel finally contended that in view of conflicting opinions by coordinate Benches, correct interpretation of law is required by this Court. 10) Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent submitted that purpose of insertion of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act was to ensure compliance of TDS provisions and not to punish those assessees who have deducted and paid TDS to government sooner or later. said purpose is also very much clear from amendment made in 2008 and further by amendment in 2010 to existing provisions of Section 40(a)(ia). In support of this argument, learned senior counsel placed reliance on decision of Division Bench of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township Pvt Ltd. in ITA No. 160/2015. 11) Learned senior counsel further submitted that amendments of curative nature have to be applied 13 retrospectively and hence amendment made in 2010 to existing provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) should be given retrospective effect from date of insertion and in support of this contention learned senior counsel relied on decision of this Court in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd etc. vs. CIT, Delhi - (1997) 224 ITR 677(SC). 12) Learned counsel for Respondent finally submitted that decision of High Court is well within parameters of law and requires no interference. Discussion:- 13) dispute in present case revolves around fact that whether amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 to provisions of Section 40 (a) (ia) of IT Act is retrospective in nature so as to apply to present case or not. If it is so, then tax duly paid by assessee on 01.08.2005 is well in accordance with law and assessee is allowed to claim deduction for tax deducted and paid to government, in previous year in which tax was deducted. 14 14) For deciding as to retrospective effect of amendment made by Finance Act, 2010, it is required to see Section as it stands before and after amendment made through Finance Act, 2010 and purpose of such insertion or amendment to said provisions. provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) came into force in year 2005 which stood as under:- 40. Amounts not deductible- Notwithstanding anything to contrary in [Sections 30 to 38], following amounts shall not be deducted in computing income chargeable under head Profits and gains of business or profession,- (a) in case of any assessee- (i) (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to resident, or amounts payable to contractor or sub contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVIIB and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid during previous year, or in subsequent year before expiry of time prescribed under sub-section(1) of section 200; Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year or, has been deducted during previous year but paid in any subsequent year after expiry of time prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 200, such sum shall be allowed as deduction in computing income of previous year in which such tax has been paid. 15) purpose of bringing said amendment to existing provision of Section has been highlighted in 15 memorandum explaining provision which reads as under:- With view to augment compliance of TDS provisions, it is proposed to extend provisions of section 40(a)(ia) to payments of interest, commission or brokerage, fee for professional services or fee for technical services to residents and payments to residential contractor or sub-contractor for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax has not been deducted or after deduction, has not been paid before expiry of time prescribed under sub-section(1) of section 200 and in accordance with provisions of other provisions of Chapter XVII-B. 16) purpose is very much clear from above referred explanation by memorandum that it came with purpose to ensure tax compliance. fact that intention of legislature was not to punish assessee is further reflected from bare reading of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act. It only results in shifting of year in which expenditure can be claimed as deduction. In case where tax deducted at source was duly deposited with government within prescribed time, said amount can be claimed as deduction from income in previous year in which TDS was deducted. However, when amount deducted in form of TDS was deposited with 16 government after expiry of period allowed for such deposit then deductions can be claimed for such deposited TDS amount only in previous year in which such payment was made to government. 17) However, it has caused some genuine and apparent hardship to assesses especially in respect of tax deducted at source in last month of previous year, due date for payment of which as per time specified in Section 200 (1) of IT Act was only on 7 th of April in next year. assessee in such case, thus, had period of only seven days to pay tax deducted at source from expenditure incurred in month of March so as to avoid disallowance of said expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act. 18) With view to mitigate this hardship, Section 40(a)(ia) was amended by Finance Act, 2008 and provision so amended read as under:- 40. Notwithstanding anything to contrary in Sections 30 to 38, following amounts shall not be deducted in computing income chargeable under head profit and gains of business or profession (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to resi-dent, or amounts payable to contactor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work 17 (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid- (A) in case where tax was deductible and was so deducted during last month of previous year, on or before due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139; or (B) in any other case, on or before last day of previous year; Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted (A) during last month of previous year but paid after said due date; or (B) during any other month of previous year but paid after end of said previous year, such sum shall be allowed as deduction in computing income of previous year in which such tax has been paid. 19) above amendments made by Finance Act, 2008 thus provided that no disallowance under Section 40 (a) (ia) of IT Act shall be made in respect of expenditure incurred in month of March if tax deducted at source on such expenditure has been paid before due date of filing of return. It is important to mention here that amendment was given retrospective operation from date of 01.04.2005 i.e., from very date of substitution of provision. 20) Therefore, assesses were, after said amendment in 2008, classified in two categories namely; one; those who 18 have deducted that tax during last month of previous year and two; those who have deducted tax in remaining eleven months of previous year. It was provided that in case of assessees falling under first category, no disallowance under Section 40(a) (ia) of IT Act shall be made if tax deducted by them during last month of previous year has been paid on or before last day of filing of return in accordance with provisions of Section 139(1) of IT Act for said previous year. In case, assessees are falling under second category, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act where tax was deducted before last month of previous year and same was credited to government before expiry of previous year. net effect is that assessee could not claim deduction for TDS amount in previous year in which tax was deducted and benefit of such deductions can be claimed in next year only. 21) amendment though has addressed concerns of assesses falling in first category but with regard to case falling in second category, it was still resulting into 19 unintended consequences and causing grave and genuine hardships to assesses who had substantially complied with relevant TDS provisions by deducting tax at source and by paying same to credit of Government before due date of filing of their returns under Section 139(1) of IT Act. disability to claim deductions on account of such lately credited sum of TDS in assessment of previous year in which it was deducted, was detrimental to small traders who may not be in position to bear burden of such disallowance in present Assessment Year. 22) In order to remedy this position and to remove hardships which were being caused to assessees belonging to such second category, amendments have been made in provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) by Finance Act, 2010. 23) Section 40(a)(ia), as amended by Finance Act, 2010, with effect from 01.04.2010 and now reads as under: 4(a)(ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to resident, or amounts payable to contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or; after deduction, has not paid on or before due date specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139: 20 Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted during previous year but paid after due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as deducted in computing income of previous year in which such tax has been paid. 24) Thus, Finance Act, 2010 further relaxed rigors of Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act to provide that all TDS made during previous year can be deposited with Government by due date of filing return of income. idea was to allow additional time to deductors to deposit TDS so made. However, Memorandum explaining provisions of Finance Bill, 2010 expressly mentioned as follows: This amendment is proposed to take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 2010 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to Assessment Year 2010-11 and subsequent years. 25) controversy surrounding above amendment was whether amendment being curative in nature should be applied retrospectively i.e., from date of insertion of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) or to be applicable from date of enforcement. 21 26) TDS results in collection of tax and deductor discharges dual responsibility of collection of tax and its deposition to government. Strict compliance of Section 40(a)(ia) may be justified keeping in view legislative object and purpose behind provision but provision of such nature, purpose of which is to ensure tax compliance and not to punish tax payer, should not be allowed to be converted into iron rod provision which metes out stern punishment and results in malevolent results, disproportionate to offending act and aim of legislation. Legislature can and do experiment and intervene from time to time when they feel and notice that existing provision is causing and creating unintended and excessive hardships to citizens and subject or have resulted in great inconvenience and uncomfortable results. Obedience to law is mandatory and has to be enforced but magnitude of punishment must not be disproportionate by what is required and necessary. consequences and injury caused, if disproportionate do and can result in amendments which have effect of streamlining and correcting anomalies. As discussed above, 22 amendments made in 2008 and 2010 were steps in said direction only. Legislative purpose and object of said amendments were to ensure payment and deposit of TDS with Government. 27) proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make provision workable, proviso which supplies obvious omission in Section, is required to be read into Section to give Section reasonable interpretation and requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that reasonable interpretation can be given to Section as whole. 28) purpose of amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 is to solve anomalies that insertion of section 40(a)(ia) was causing to bona fide tax payer. amendment, even if not given operation retrospectively, may not materially be of consequence to Revenue when tax rates are stable and uniform or in cases of big assessees having substantial turnover and equally huge expenses and necessary cushion to absorb effect. However, marginal and medium taxpayers, who work at low gross product rate and 23 when expenditure which becomes subject matter of order under Section 40(a)(ia) is substantial, can suffer severe adverse consequences if amendment made in 2010 is not given retrospective operation i.e., from date of substitution of provision. Transferring or shifting expenses to subsequent year, in such cases, will not wipe off adverse effect and financial stress. Such could not be intention of legislature. Hence, amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 being curative in nature required to be given retrospective operation i.e., from date of insertion of said provision. 29) Further, in Allied Motors (P) Limited (supra), this Court while dealing with similar question with regard to retrospective effect of amendment made in section 43-B of Income Tax Act,1961 has held that new proviso to Section 43B should be given retrospective effect from inception on ground that proviso was added to remedy unintended consequences and supply obvious omission. proviso ensured reasonable interpretation and retrospective effect would serve object behind 24 enactment. aforesaid view has consistently been followed by this Court in following cases, viz., Whirlpool of India Ltd., vs. CIT, New Delhi (2000) 245 ITR 3, CIT vs. Amrit Banaspati (2002) 255 ITR 117 and CIT vs. Alom Enterprises Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306. 30) Hence, in light of forgoing discussion and binding effect of judgment given in Allied Moters (supra), we are of view that amended provision of Sec 40(a)(ia) of IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from date when Section 40(a)(ia) was inserted i.e., with effect from Assessment Year 2005-2006 so that assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what object and purpose of provision mandates. As developments with regard to Section recorded above shows that amendment was curative in nature, it should be given retrospective operation as if amended provision existed even at time of its insertion. Since assessee has filed its returns on 01.08.2005 i.e., in accordance with due date under provisions of Section 139 IT Act, hence, is allowed to claim 25 benefit of amendment made by Finance Act, 2010 to provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of IT Act. 31) In light of forgoing discussion, we are of view that judgment of High Court does not call for any interference and, hence, appeals are accordingly dismissed. In view of above, all connecting appeals, interlocutory applications, if any, transferred cases as well as diary numbers are disposed off accordingly. Parties to bear cost on their own. . J. (R.K. AGRAWAL) .... J. . (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE) NEW DELHI; APRIL 24, 2018. 26 Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata X v. Calcutta Export Company