Dharampal Premchand Ltd Vs DCIT

1. These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 27.04.2018, 28.02.2018, 21.05.2019 & 21.12.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 31, 30 New Delhi relating to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively.

2. Since the issue in all the four appeals are common, therefore we have clubbed all the appeals together for the sake of brevity and convenience, however, we are taking ITA No.4300/Del/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 as a lead case.

3. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :

4. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing of flavored Chewing Tobacco and Kiwam under the brand name “BABA”. Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 23.09.2013 declaring loss of Rs.2,68,66,417/-. In the computation of income assessee had declared profit of Rs.16,70,45,622/- which was adjusted against the brought forward losses and depreciation resulting into Nil income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 21.03.2016 and the total business loss before set off was determined at Rs.23,44,85,808/- and income from other sources at Rs.11,71,940/-. Thus the total income was assessed at Rs.11,71,940/-.

5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 27.04.2018 in Appeal No.47/16-17/2474/40/16-17 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:

“1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi (CIT (A) for short) erred in confirming the action of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-29, New Delhi AD for short) in holding that the loss of Rs.2,00,44,853/- incurred in future trading is speculation loss.

1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in holding that the loss of Rs.3,08,97,129/- in dealings of shares based on actual delivery was speculation loss.

1.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that sum of Rs.28,14,118/-was disallowable u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act.1961 (Act for short).

1.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing a loss of Rs.14,99,999/-on account of revaluation of 1,50,000/- shares of M/s. Radiant Chemtech (P) Ltd.

1.5 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in whittling down the claim of the appellant that it was entitled to a deduction of Rs.100,12,142/ u/s 10A of the Act to Rs.52,05,176/-

6. That the appellant craves liberty to add, alter, vary or amend any ground of appeal.”

6. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR submitted that assessee does not wish to press ground Nos.1.1 & 1.2. In view of the aforesaid submissions of Learned AR, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed.

7. Ground No.1.3 is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.

8. During the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed and has noted at para 5 of his order that assessee has following the investments in the shares and equities.

(i). Non trade unquoted Rs.8,10,08,898/-

(ii). Trade unquoted Rs.7,50,000/-

(iii). Current investment Rs.19,47,69,600/-

 Total                           Rs.27,65,28,498/-

9. He also noticed that assessee had claimed dividend of Rs.28,14,818/- as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. The assessee was therefore, asked as to why the disallowance should not be made according to provision of Section 14A r.w.r 8D. To the query of the AO, assessee inter alia submitted that similar additions was made in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2008-09, but the same were deleted by Hon’ble ITAT. It was further submitted that since the General Reserve of the assessee was substantial, it could be presumed that the investment are out of surplus funds. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO relying on the CBDT Circular No.6 of 2014 dated 11.02.2014, noted that for invoking disallowance u/s 14A, it is not material that assessee should have earned exempt income during the financial year under consideration and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules provides the basis of computing the expenditure relating to earning of income which was not included in the total income. AO thereafter, by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D worked out the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.97,92,030/- and made its additions.

10. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the order restricted the disallowance of Rs.28,14,818/-, being exempt income earned by the assessee. He accordingly granted relief to the extent of Rs.69,77,212/-.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us.

11. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before AO and CIT(A). He thereafter pointing to the copy of the Balance Sheet placed at page 110 of the paper book submitted that Interest Free funds in the form of Share Capital and Reserve and Surplus are at Rs.156.40 cr. (rounded off) which are much more than the investments made and in such situation the presumption would arise that the investments made are out of the interest free funds and therefore no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is called for.

12. With respect to the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) towards administrative expenses is concerned, he submitted while calculating the average investments only those investments which have actually yielded dividend income during the relevant year should be considered and not the entire investments and to support the aforesaid contention he placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in 374 ITR 108. He thereafter pointed to page 13 of the paper book wherein the details of dividend income earned by the assessee is tabulated and from the aforesaid table he pointed to the fact that all the investments have not yielded dividend income. He thereafter submitted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2014-15 before the Tribunal and Tribunal had set aside the issue to the file of AO to work out the disallowance as per the directions contained therein. He pointed to the relevant findings of Tribunal at para 15 of the ITAT order of A.Y. 2014-15 in ITA No.4460/Del/2017order dated 07.09.2020 the copy of which is placed at page 152 of the paper book. He therefore submitted that since the facts of the case in the year under consideration are identical to that of earlier years, the matter may be remitted back to the lower authorities with similar directions.

13. Learned DR on the other hand did not controvert the factual submissions made by Learned AR but however supported the order of AO.

14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the ITAT Rules. It is the contention of the assessee that interest free funds available with the assessee in the form of Share Capital and free Reserves are much in excess then the investments and therefore no disallowance of interest expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is called for. As far as the disallowance of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, it is the contention of the Learned AR that all the investments which the assessee is holding have not yielded tax free income in the form of dividend. We find that there is no finding of lower authorities on the issue as to whether the interest free funds available with the assessee are more than the investments and the investments which have yielded tax free income. We find that identical issue arose before the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2014-15 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 07.09.2020 in ITA No.4460/Del/2017 had restored the issue back to the file of AO. The relevant findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal are as under:

12. Now coming to the contention of the Ld. AR about the utilisation of the own funds of the assessee for investment in shares, it could be seen from the assessment order vide paragraph No. 5.2 that the assessee contended before the learned Assessing Officer that the investment in shares was made out of substantial reserve and surplus is of the assessee company and no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income and therefore, no disallowance under section 14 A of the Act could be made. Learned Assessing Officer had not considered this aspect as to the availability of the funds with the assessee in the shape of share capital and Reserves & Surplus. So also, the Ld. CIT(A). In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of the assessee merits consideration by the learned Assessing Officer.

13. Ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee by limiting the disallowance to the exempt income in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case ofJoint Investments P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 694. However, further grievance of the assessee is that for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, such an amount should have been computed only qua the investment which yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del) and the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. vs DCIT, 144 ITD 141n (Kol-Trib).

14. Coming to this submission of the learned AR,in view of the decision in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs ACIT, 374 ITR 108 (Del) and REI Agro Ltd. vs DCIT, 144 ITD 141n (Kol-Trib), the appeal against which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in ITA No.220 of 2013, while calculating the average investment under Rule 8D(2)(ii)(iii), only those investments which have actually yielded dividend income during the relevant year should be considered.We are, therefore, convinced with this argument of the Ld. AR. In fact, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ACB India Ltd. (supra) held that the learned AO is required by the mandate of Rule 8D(2)(i) to (iii) detailed in the methodology to be adopted; and the learned AO cannot adopt the average value of the total investment instead of the average value of investment of which income is not part of a total income i.e. value of tax-exempt investment. In view of this binding precedent, we find that the learned AO had to consider only those investments which have actually yielded the tax-exempt income during the relevant year and not the total investment.Assessee furnished the details of the investments which yielded the exempt income, vide page No. 9 of the paper book.

15. In view of our above finding, we set aside the findings of the authorities below on this issue and remand the issue back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for considering the extent of own funds of the assessee for investment in the shares and in case the whole funds of the assessee in the shape of share capital and Reserves & Surplus exceeds the investment in the current year, the question of interest component under rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules does not arise. Further we direct the learned Assessing Officer to verify the investments yielding exempt income and to reach the correct amount of disallowance keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd (supra). Ground No. 2 is therefore, allowed for statistical purpose.”

15. Since the issue raised in the present ground as admitted by Learned AR is identical to that of A.Y. 2014-15, we following the same reasoning of the Co-ordinate Bench while deciding the issue for A.Y. 2014-15 and similar reasons restore the issue back to the file of AO and direct him to rework that disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r 8D in accordance with law and the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. AO shall be free to call for such information and explanations as he deems fit to adjudicate the claim of the assessee. Assessee shall also be free to file such documents, explanations, submissions as it deems fit in respect of the claim. Needless to state that AO shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to promptly furnish the required details called for by the authorities. Thus this ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

16. Ground No.1.4 is with respect to the disallowance of loss of Rs.14,99,999/-.

17. During the course of assessment proceedings and on perusing the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account, AO noticed that assessee had declared the value of 1.50 lacs shares of M/s. Radiant Chemtech (P.) Ltd. at Rs.1/- whereas in the Balance Sheet for the immediate preceding year, the value were shown at Rs.15 lacs. AO noticed that assessee had debited Rs.14,99,999/-in the Profit and Loss account as “investments written off”. The assessee was asked to justify as to how the amount of write off of investments was allowable expenditure. Assessee made the submissions which was not found acceptable to AO. AO therefore held that since the loss has been created by writing off value of share and not by way of any actual loss on the sale, the same was not business expenditure. He accordingly disallowed the claim of loss.

18. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide para 5.4 of his order upheld the action of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now before us.

19. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions made before lower authorities. During the course of hearing a question was put to the Learned AR as to whether the loss was a business loss or a capital loss and if it is a capital loss whether the loss can be allowed as a business expenditure? Learned AR fairly submitted that the loss is not on account of business. He thereafter submitted that the matter be decided accordingly.

20. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities.

21. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the claim of loss of Rs.14,99,999/-. The loss in the present case is on account of depreciation in the value of investments. It is not the case of assessee that the loss is a business loss. In such a situation, when the loss is not a business loss, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and thus this ground of assessee is dismissed.

22. Ground No.1.5 is with respect to the claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act.

23. AO noted that assessee has a pan masala, gutka, tobacco manufacturing unit at Noida Special Economic Zone and had claimed profit of Rs.1,00,12,142/- of the unit being exempt u/s 10AA of I.T. Act. AO also noted that the auditor had computed the exemption under Section 10AA of the Act at Rs.96,12,694/-. The assessee was therefore asked to explain as to how the exemption u/s 10AA of the Act was claimed at Rs.1,00,12,142/- in place of Rs.96,12,694/- as computed by the Auditor and also justify the claim of exemption. In response to the query of AO, assessee inter alia submitted that the unit at Noida, SEZ had commenced production from F.Y. 2008-09 and it is 100% export oriented unit and therefore assessee is eligible for exemption. As far as quantum of exemption, it was submitted that the exemption as computed by the Auditor by allowed. AO noted that as per provision of Section 10AA(6) of the Act, the profit of the unit has to be determined after set off the carry forward losses u/s 72(1) or 74(1) / 74(3) of the Act. AO noted that assessee had brought forward the losses of the unit amounting to Rs.2,73,862/-. AO therefore in view of the provision u/s 10AA(6) of the Act, set off the loss from profit for the purpose of exemption u/s 10AA of the Act.

24. AO noted that for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 10AA, the assessee has to maintain separate books of accounts. He noted that assessee was providing various services from its corporate office, Noida but the cost of providing such services was not transferred to allowable unit for the purpose of computing profit to the unit. He noted that various expenses incurred in the head office were also not allocated to the NSEZ Unit. He was therefore of the view that due to non allocation of these expenses, the profit of the eligible unit was artificially increased. He has listed out the expenses at para 8.4 of the order which according to him aggregated to Rs.3,10,47,175/- which should have been allocated to the unit for computing correct profit. He thereafter allocated the expenses to NSEZ Unit in the ratio of turnover of NSEZ Unit to the total turnover of the company which according to him worked out at 2.62%. On the basis of the aforesaid ratio, he reworked the head office expenses and after allocating it he reworked the profit exempt u/s 10AA of the Act.

25. He also on perusing the Balance Sheet of NSEZ Unit, noticed that the average liability towards head office was Rs.3,09,95,253/-and the unit had not declared any loan or borrowing from head office in its account and therefore concluded that the funding of eligible unit has been made by head office. He was of the view that as per the provision of Section 80IA(8), the transactions have to be determined at the market price. He thereafter considered the rate of interest @12% per annum that should have been charged by Head Office on account of financing the exempt unit. He accordingly worked out interest of Rs.37,19,430/- and after deducting the aforesaid interest computed the profit of NSEZ Unit as under:

26. Accordingly, he reduced the claim of exemption u/s 10AA by Rs.52,06,176/-.

27. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the material on record on the issue of allocation of head office expenses at para 7.5 of the order while upholding the action of AO noted that each and every items included in the figure of head office expenses benefits the business as a whole and assessee has not been able to substantiate as to which all expenses did not pertain to the business as well. With respect to the allocation of interest, CIT(A) at para 7.1 had upheld the action of AO by noting that plea of the assessee that Section 80IA(8) contemplated transfer of goods and services only and therefore the argument of the assessee that interest was not covered to be farfetched and misleading. He thus upheld the action of AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now before us.

28. Before us, Learned AR reiterated the submissions before AO and CIT(A) and further submitted that before CIT(A) assessee has made the submissions which though noted by CIT(A) at pages 21 and 22 of the order but has not considered the same while deciding the issue. He further submitted that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case before the Tribunal for A.Y. 2014-15 and the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in ITA No.4460/Del/2017 dated 07.09.2020 has restored the issue back to the file of AO. He thereafter pointed to the relevant findings on the issue of the Tribunal at page 152 to 157 of the paper book. He submitted that since the facts of the case in the year under consideration are identical to that of A.Y. 2014-15, the matter may be remitted back to AO with similar directions.

29. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of lower authorities.

30. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the computation of the exemption u/s 10AA of the Act. We find that assessee had admitted before the AO that claim of exemption u/s 10AA of the Act be considered at Rs. 96,12,694/-that was computed by the Auditor but however AO after making the adjustment on account of allocation of office expenses and interest and other adjustment recomputed the exemption u/s 10AA of the Act at Rs.48,05,966/-. We find that identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2014-15 and Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal on this issue restored the issue back to the file of AO observing as under:

“16. Ground No. 3 is concerned with the disallowance of Rs.45,83,724/- under section 10AA of the Act. Assessee claimed the profit of the unit exempt under section 10AA of the Act to the tune of Rs. 2,95,16,153/- and submitted that the unit situated at Noida, SEZ is engaged in the manufacture and export of articles and things; that such unit commenced production from the financial year 2008-09 and has been 100% export oriented unit; and that, therefore, the profit of the unit is eligible for exemption under section 10AA of the Act.

17. On examination of the Balance Sheet in the profit and loss account of the NSEZ unit, learned Assessing Officer found that the funds of the company were provided by head office and at the end of the year the profit of the unit was also transferred to the head office and in the P&L Account also the operational figures of sale, purchase and other expenses which were directly incurred in the unit were also shown. Learned Assessing Officer further found that the assessee company was provided various services by the head office but the value of which was not transferred to the eligible unit for the purpose of computing the profit of the unit, and thereby though the nonallocation of expenses has not resulted into suppression of consolidated profits of the assessee company, such non-allocation of expenses has resulted into overstatement of profits of the eligible undertaking which are exempt from the tax. On this premise, taking the turnover as the basis for apportionment of certain expenses at 2.64%, the learned Assessing Officer allocated a sum of Rs. 6,50,923/- to NSEZ out of the total expenses of Rs. 2,46,56,200/- incurredby the head office in respect of key man insurance, basic salary of Director, transit goods insurance, cash transit insurance, motor car insurance so on and so forth and reduces the same from the profit of the eligible unit.

18. Learned Assessing Officer, on examination of the Balance Sheet of the eligible unit, further found that the liability towards head office as on 31/3/2013 was Rs. 3,03,77,120/- and as on 31/3/2014 was 3,51,69,570/-, the average of which comes to Rs. 3,27,73,345/- and therefore, considering the interest at 12% per annum reduced the profit of the eligible unit by Rs. 39,32,81/- and therefore he totally disallowed a sum of Rs. 45,83,724/- from out of Rs. 2,95,16,153/- claimed by the assessee under section 10AA of the Act and limited it to Rs. 2,49,32,429/-.

19. In the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), it was argued on behalf of the assessee that the duties of the Directors of a company are not confined to just towards seeing the turnover of the company, that it is common knowledge that a major part of the duties of the Directors is to administer the affairs of the company with emphasis on the compliance of the companies act and a host of other acts aggregating to 3 dozen and odd; that expenses on key-man insurance, basic salary of Director, audit fees, tax audit fees and certification, taxation matter and Directors meeting fees should not be allocated to NSEZ. It was further pleaded that the expenses relating to transit good incidence and Diwali expenses in respect of NSEZ have been separately claimed in the books of NSEZ and therefore the question of allocation of such expenses to NSEZ does not arise. According to the assessee the total expenditure which has to be apportioned between the head office and the NSEZ is only Rs. 72,13,329/- and the disallowance on this count shall be confined only to Rs. 1,90,432/-.

20. In respect of the allocation of interest component is concerned, it was argued that a perusal of section 8 IA (8) of the Act would show that it takes into its ambit only goods or services which stand transferred to the eligible business and since there is no definition of “services” in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the definition of services as per section 659 of the finance act, 1994 has to be taken which shows that a transaction in money or actionable claim is not considered as a service by the legislature.

21. Ld. CIT(A) on consideration of these contentions raised before him, observed that the expenses incurred on key man insurance, basic salary of Directors, audit fees, tax audit fees and certification, tax matters and Directors meeting fees were incurred for the whole of the business of the assessee, including the NSEZ unit and not only for the head office, as claimed by the assessee and therefore, in view of the fact that the assessee has not allocated such common expenses to the NSEZ unit, there was artificial increase in the exempted profits claimed under section 10AA of the Act. He, therefore, held that there is no infirmity in the allocation of expenses by the learned Assessing Officer, and accordingly confirmed the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 6,50,923/- .

22. In respect of the disallowance of interest allocable to the NSEZ, Ld. CIT(A) held that since the expenses incurred on interest towards finance to NSEZ unit was not allocated and all the expenditure towards finance cost was debited in the head office account and other taxable units, it also resulted in artificial increase in the exempted profits claimed under section 10 AA of the Act. He therefore confirmed this disallowance also.

23. Similar arguments are advanced before us by the Ld. AR. There does not seem to be anything illegality or irregularity in the observations of the authorities below as to certain expenses relating to the key man insurance, basic salary of Directors, audit fees, tax audit fees and certification, taxation matters and Directors meeting fee etc. No doubt the Directors do not work for head office alone. The fact that they also oversee the work of the exempt unit, makes it obligation on the part of the exempt unit to contribute to such expenditure. So also, in respect of the other expenditure, other than the one which was separately accounted for in the books of NSEZ. However, it seems the authorities below missed to notice the contention of the assessee that the expenses relating to transit goods insurance and Diwali expenses in respect of NSEZ were separately claimed in the books of NSEZ and therefore, the question of allocation of such expenses does not arise. This fact needs to be verified.

24. It is further submitted before us in respect of the interest component that at the end of the every year, as observed by the authorities below, the profit of the exempt unit also is transferred to the head office and head office holds it on behalf of the exempt unit out of which the exempt unit draws the amounts for its operations and therefore, the exempt unit owing any amount to the head office so as to necessitate the contribution in the interest expenses incurred by the head office. As a matter of fact, the authorities below noted that at the end of the year the profit of the unit is also transferred to the head office. In such case, the funding of the exempt unit by the head office by incurring interest expense does not arise. Since the learned Assessing Officer did not consider this aspect, it is now necessary for us to direct him to do so.

25. On ground No. 3, we accordingly hold that no portion of common expenditure is allocable to the NSEZ in respect of such expenditure as was entered by the NSEZ in its own books of accounts. Further, the learned Assessing Officer shall verify whether the head office is holding the profit of the NSEZ which is transferred to it at the end of every year out of which certain funds are provided to the NSEZ for its operations. If it be so, no portion of interest expense incurred by the head office is allocable to the NSEZ to the extent of the funds which are not provided to the NSEZ by the head office by incurring interest expenditure. For this purpose and to this extent, we set aside the impugned order and remand issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer.

31. Before us, both the parties have admitted that the facts in the case under consideration are identical to that of A.Y. 2014-15. We therefore following the order of Co-ordinate Bench for A.Y. 2014-15 and with similar directions restore the issue back to the file of AO and direct him to re-compute the exemption under 10AA of the Act in accordance with law. Assessee shall be free to file such documents, explanations, submissions as it deems fit in respect of the claim and AO shall also be free to call for such information and explanations as he deems fit to adjudicate the claim of the assessee. Needless to state that AO shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to promptly furnish the required details called for by the authorities. Thus this ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

32. In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.

33. As far as ITA Nos. 2907/Del/2018, 6014/Del/2019 & 82/Del/2022 for A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are concerned, before us, Learned AR has submitted that the issue raised in the appeals for A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are identical to that of A.Y. 2013-14. We have hereinabove while deciding the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 partly allowed the appeal. We for similar reasons also partly allow the appeals of assessee for A.Ys. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 with similar directions. Thus the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

34. In the combined result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.