Deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) allowed to sole developer for developing, operating & maintaining infrastructure facilities

ACIT Vs Ranjit Buildcon Limited (ITAT Ahmedabad)

ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee has established that they were the sole developer in the contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged u/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, deduction duly allowed.

Facts- The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction and filed its original return of income on 30.09.2008 thereby declaring income of Rs.11,38,18,730/- after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- u/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. AO observed that the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of Rs.6,38,87,090/- but the assessee did not fulfil the conditions laid down u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act for allowing the deduction. AO held that any person who execute the work contract entered into with undertaking or enterprises shall not be eligible for the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act and thus further concluded that the assessee company is not entered in BOT, BOOT &BOLT System, therefore, not entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and thus made disallowance of Rs.6,38,87,090/-.

CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by AO. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.

Conclusion- Held that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub-delegation of the work awarded to the assessee company. The maintaining of the said infrastructure in each of these 17 projects though deferred but the maintenance is more than 30 months that means almost more than two years and, therefore, the assessee has established that the assessee was the sole developer in the present contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. It is further seen that the CIT(A) has examined all these aspects and has given a categorical finding including all the projects involved and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A).

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD

All these nine appeals are filed by the Revenue against different orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2014-15 & 2016-17. Since all these appeals were heard together, therefore, as a matter of convenience, all these nine appeals are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.

2. The Revenue has raised identical grounds in all these appeals. As we are firstly taking up the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 i.e. ITA No.2116/Ahd/2013 and hence grounds raised in this appeal are reproduced as under:-

“1. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of deduction made by the AO of Rs.6,28,39,797/-under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

It is therefore prayed that the order of the learned CIT(Appels) may be set aside and that of the AO be restored to the above extent.”

3. The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Construction and filed its original return of income on 30.09.2008 thereby declaring income of Rs.11,38,18,730/- after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income on 31.10.2009 declaring total income of Rs.11,02,44,240/-. The same was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 31.03.2010. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19.08.2009 which was served upon the assessee on 26.08.2009. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act issued on 08.09.2010 which was served upon the assessee on 13.09.2010. Due to the change of the Assessing Officer again notice under Section 143(2) of the act was issued on 14.10.2010 and served upon the assessee on 26.10.2010. In response to notice under Section 143(2), Tax Consultant of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings from time to time and submitted the details as called for. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80IA(4) of Rs.6,38,87,090/- but the assessee did not fulfil the conditions laid down under Section 80IA(4) of the Act for allowing the deduction and, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide show cause notice dated 10.12.2010 called upon the assessee to explain why the claim for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act should not be disallowed. In response to the said notice, the assessee company furnished the reply dated 08.12.2010 and 20.12.2010. The assessee highlighted in the said reply that the assessee is doing the development of Infrastructure Faciality and, therefore, entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the assessee is dealing with the development work of Infrastructure Faciality and also given the details of the same which was carried out during the year. The assessee further submitted that project-wise accounts was not prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure Facility which was carried on by the assessee. The assessee further submitted that Section 80IA of the Act does not mention that separate project-wise accounts should be maintained to claim the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act. The assessee also submitted that the business of the assessee company is composite one wherein various Infrastructure Facility are carried out alongwith various non-infrastructure faciality and in fact the audit report in Form No.10CB has given all the details of 35 Infrastructure Facilities carried out during the year. The Assessing Officer after considering the assessee company’s reply observed that during the year under consideration, following work was done by the assessee company:

4. The Assessing Officer further observed that the work contract received as per Sl. Nos.1, 3 to 9, 12-14, 16, 20, 22-32 & 34-35 by M/s Ranjit Construction Company who was a separate entity and was assessed as a firm. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company was incorporated as Registered Company on 14.12.2006 under the name of “Ranjit Buildcom Limited” and started its business activities as company whereas the initial agreement was taken place between various Departments/Bodies etc. with Ranajit Construction Company which was a firm. The Assessing Officer held that the first condition of Section 80IA(4) clearly states that Enterprise should be owned by a Company and only a company can start developing, operating & maintaining any Infrastructure Project. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has parted on this front as three major work was completed as a firm. The Assessing Officer further observed that on verification of documents filed in respect of the 35 work contracts, the assessee has entered into agreement only in the capacity of a “Contractor” and contract receipt is not qualified for the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act as per the provisions of Section 80A(4)(i)of the Act. The income should be derived from the Enterprises/Undertaking for developing, operating & maintaining or developing, maintaining & operating the project. The Assessing Officer held that any person who execute the work contract entered into with undertaking or enterprises shall not be eligible for the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act and thus further concluded that the assessee company is not entered in BOT, BOOT &BOLT System, therefore, not entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and thus made disallowance of Rs.6,38,87,090/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.36,280/- as late remittance of Employees Contribution to the PF and disallowance of interest on Income Tax amounting to Rs.11,804/-.

5. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

6. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance of deduction made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.6,28,39,797/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee company was registered as company on 14.12.2006 and the documents related to the work contracts were entered by the firm. The Ld. DR further submitted that separate project-wise report was required under Sub-sclause-2 of Rule 18BBB of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company has entered into a contract agreement as a “Contractor” and earned income as “Contract Receipt” and, therefore, its income is not entitled for deductions under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that the TDS certificates issued by Tax deductor i.e. Municipal Corporation, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Salinity Control Division wherein the nature of work shown as contract and tax deducted under Section 194C of the Act which proves that the assessee company is a “Contractor” and not as a “Owner” of the project/enterprises. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee company has not entered into any agreement as a owner of the project/enterprises but entered into agreement as a work contractor in all 35 works done by the assessee company. The Ld. DR further submitted that the list of projects attached with form no.10CCB relevels that the assessee company has got the work by way of filing tender with various Departments of the Central/State Governments/Local Authorities/Boards etc. with the terms & conditions that work was assigned to the assessee to complete the work within the stipulated time i.e. 12 months only and thus the question of ownership of the company on enterprise is not established. The Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee has not fulfilled the first condition under Section 80IA(4) wherein the enterprise should be owned by a company. In assessee’s case, the work contract received was by M/s. Ranjit Construction Company who was a separate entity and was assessed as a firm and the present assessee company was incorporated as registered company on 14.12.2006 under the name of Ranjit Buildcon Limited. The Ld. DR further submitted that in these 35 work contracts the assessee company entered into an agreement only in the capacity of a Director under contract receipt is not qualified for the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that in the instant case, the assessee company has no right to operate and maintain infrastructure and, therefore, the deduction which is related to enterprise/undertaking for developing, operating & maintaining or developing, maintaining & operating the project will not come under the purview of Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act as the assessee company is dealing with work contrafact only. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has elaborately verified all the evidences brought on record and, therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in deleting the disallowance in respect of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act.

7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee in fact has given detailed reply thereby stating that the assessee since the beginning was carrying on the business of infrastructure development such as construction of Dam, Bridges etc. and have maintained workwise accounts in its books of account. The work receipt of each work is credited to respective work account and expenses pertaining to each work are debited to respective work account. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee’s books of account are audited as per Companies Act and Income Tax Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is dealing with development of infrastructure and, therefore, the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The Ld. AR particularly pointed out that the assessee company is a limited company registered in India and the assessee fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the said Section for allowing the deduction. The Ld. AR summitted that the development of work of Infrastructure faciality is such that project-wise account cannot be prepared as there was more than one Infrastructure facility were carried on and there is no specific provisions under Section 80IA of the Act to maintain separate project-wise accounts. The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no bar in the provisions of Section 80IA of the Act that there should be no other income because income from Infrastructure faciality because the word used in gross total income and income from Infrastructure facility is to be computed under Income Tax Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee filed detailed working of income from Infrastructure Facility carried out by the assessee company during the year and whatever direct income and expenditure are there, the same was considered as such and in respect of indirect expenditure proportionate amounts were considered. The Ld. AR also pointed out the audit report in Form No.10CCB thereby stating that all the 35 Infrastructure facilities were done by the assessee during the present Assessment Year. In fact, the assessee submitted Annexure-A appended to the said audit report thereby giving details of list of 35 Infrastructure faciality alongwith copy of work order. In fact, the Assessing Officer at no point of time held that the assessee was not carrying out any Infrastructure facility either in developing or maintaining. The assessee entered into agreement with all the Government Authorities and Local Boards wherein the work order/letter of intent was issued as per the requirement of the Infrastructure Facility, its development and maintenance as envisaged in the tender documents which is the governing agreement between the Central Government/State Governments/Local Boards or any other Statutory Bodies for developing, maintaining and operating Infrastructure facilities. Though at the time of assessment proceedings the copy of agreement from the various Government Authorities were not supplied but the same was called upon from the Government Authority by the assessee and asked for the time before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings to file the same at the later stage. The Ld. AR further submitted that all the tender documents as well as the copy of work orders includes the risk and the penalty provisions which itself speaks that the assessee after developing and operating the infrastructure facility and when the same is completed still has to maintain such infrastructure facilities for further specific period which started from two years to 5 years in each of all these 35 infrastructure facilities and if it is not maintained and if there is any loophole in the infrastructure facility, the assessee company is responsible for the same and will be penalised as per the tender agreement as well as work contracts. In fact, there is penalty schedule mentioned in cases of lapses on the part of the assessee company. Thus, no other authority but the assessee himself has an obligation to not just develop the Infrastructure Facility or operate the infrastructure facility but also to maintain such infrastructure facility which itself shows that the assessee is fulfilling all the conditions as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act.

8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has taken cognisance of all the tender agreement as well as the work contract including the risk factor as envisaged upon the assessee company and thereafter given a detailed finding. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:-

1. Decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Montecarlo Construction Limited, ITA No.1892/Ahd/2013, order dated 28.06.2023.

2. Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) vs. Montecarlo Construction Limited, R/Tax Appeal No.786 of 2023 dated 19.12.2023.

3. Decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/s. N.C.C. – M.S.K.E.L. (JV) vs. ITO, ITA No.2476/Ahd/2010, order dated 29.01.2024

4. Decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetak Enterprises (P.) Limited (2009) 176 Taxman 217.

9. The above decisions categorically mention that when the assessee is developing the infrastructure facility that of maintaining at its own risk as well as when the accounts were also presented including all the projects of infrastructure facility, the assessee has fulfilled all the requirement as envisaged under Section 80IA of the Act and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Furthermore, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. N.C.C. – M.S.K.E.L. (J.V.) vs. ITO, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the assessee but in those cases where the risk factor of the maintenance of the infrastructure facility was not on the assessee therein and in fact the work contract is not covered the risk factor of the direct impact on the assessee therein, therefore, the said decision will not be applicable in the present assessee’s case. The assessee in the present case has categorically given all the 35 contracts including the tender agreement which was quoted by the CIT(A) in paragraph no.5.1 at page nos.5 & 6 of the order and categorically held that the 12 infrastructure facilities, defect liability period and maintenance was upon the assessee which varied from 6 months to 36 months as given in the Paper Book before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also, while looking into each of the project, has categorically mentioned that the assessee is a company which came into existence on conversion of partnership firm into Limited Company under Chapter-IX of the Companies Act, 1956 w.e.f. 13.12.2006. Prior to that, the partnership firm under the name and style of Ranjit Construction Company was carrying on the business of developer/construction etc. The company had converted from a firm into a company limited by shares by operation of law under Part-IX of the Companies Act, 1956 as going concern and continued the partnership business including all its assets, moveable and immovable, rights, debts and liabilities in connection therewith and had so converted before the commencement of the previous year has to be in question but not the year from 2007-08 onwards. The observation of the CIT(A) in respect of all the projects has categorially mentioned that out of 35 projects only 17 projects have been claimed to have been yielded profit and other projects according to the assessee have yielded loss. The loss has been reduced from the eligible profit, therefore, the same was not taken into account. The CIT(A) while describing agreements and its terms has categorically taken into account the specific projects thereby mentioning that the assessee was from the very beginning involved in developing, maintaining the infrastructure with Agencies of that of Central Government, State Government, Local Authorities etc. and the assessee held responsible for any damage or loss of the property for 59 months and defect liability period of 2 months specifically in some of the projects which envisage that the assessee is sole infrastructure developer in the present scenario in the projects where CIT(A) has observed so and there was no other third party involved in these projects for conducting the sub-delegation of the work awarded to the assessee company. The maintaining of the said infrastructure in each of these 17 projects though deferred but the maintenance is more than 30 months that means almost more than two years and, therefore, the assessee has established that the assessee was the sole developer in the present contracts which are related to the developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure facilities as envisaged under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. It is further seen that the CIT(A) has examined all these aspects and has given a categorical finding including all the projects involved and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A). Hence, appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.2116/Ahd/2013 for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed.

10. Now, coming to ITA No.2117/Ahd/2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10, here the assessee company filed return of income on 30.09.2009 thereby declaring income of Rs.3,32,17,300/- after claiming deduction of Rs.17,47,67,169/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. Here, the assessee carried out 27 work contracts related to Municipal Corporation, AUDA, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Rail Bridge wherein the similar factor aspect of developing and maintaining the infrastructure facilities was directly envisaged upon the assessee company and no third party was sub-delegated in respect of the work contract awarded to the assessee company. The details for the said contracts/work contracts as well as the agreements are as follows: A.Y. 2009-10 (Pages 4 & 5 – CIT(A)

Thus, the observation made by the CIT(A) after verifying all the tender documents and work contract has rightly allowed the assessee’s claim under Section 80IA(4) of the Act in respect of 18 projects. There is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A). Thus, appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.2117/Ahd/2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed.

11. Now coming to ITA No.2306/Ahd/2014 for Assessment Year 2007-08, here the assessee company filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring income of Rs.2,11,23,740/- after claiming deduction of Rs.81,45,754/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. Here there are 10 work contracts were involved with the Municipal Corporation, AUDA, Irrigation Department, Road & Building Division, Rail Bridge and the tender documents was verified by the CIT(A). The details for the said contracts/work contracts as well as the agreements are as follows: A.Y. 2007­08 (Pages 8 & 9 – CIT(A)

The CIT(A) has categorically, after taking cognisance of the risk factors, and the developer assessee’s involvement as a developer being not only developing the project and maintaining the same, has an obligation and risk involved upon the assessee. Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Thus, appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.2306/Ahd/2014 for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed.

12. Now coming to ITA No.2307/Ahd/2014 for Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee filed return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.1,95,24,660/- after claiming deduction of Rs.21,90,49,093/- and the project involved were that of 19 work contracts of the various Government Agencies involving risk and maintenance factor which was looked upon by the CIT(A) and has given finding that the assessee’s execution of work falls within the first category of developing of infrastructure facility including that of constructing/delivering and maintaining as well as security which is governed under Section 80IA of the Act and, therefore, all these work contracts are directly involved with the assessee and no third party involved as pointed out by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The details of 19 contract agreements are as follows:

RANJIT BUILDCON LTD. A.Y. 2010-11

ANNEXURE – A

After perusal of these work contract/agreements it is clearly set out that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.2307/Ahd/2014 for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed.

13. Now coming to ITA No.2308/Ahd/2014 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2011 thereby declaring income of Rs.17,19,43,640/- after claiming deduction of Rs.8,92,78,982/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and the work contract involved was 31 in number which are with the various Government Agencies and are developed and maintained by the assessee company and no third party was involved in the same. The details for the said contracts/work contracts as well as the agreements are as follows: A.Y. 2011-12 (Pages 23 to 26 – CIT(A)

The CIT(A) has categorically allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of all the 19 projects thereby stating that the assessee itself has carried out all the infrastructure facility thereby developing the same as well as maintaining the same and, therefore, the claim is genuine and valid. Thus, appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.2308/Ahd/2014 for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed.

14. Now coming to ITA No.3121/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee company filed its return of income on 14.10.2010 thereby declaring total income of Rs.40,49,470/- after claiming deduction of Rs.21,76,52,892/- for the projects related to developing infrastructure in respect of Central Government, State Government, Government Corporations and the same were 19 in number from the total of 27 projects. The details for the said contracts/work contracts as well as the agreements are as follows: A.Y. 2012-13 (Pages 6 to 9 – CIT(A)

The CIT(A) has given detailed finding related to all the 19 infrastructure facilities in consonance with the order of the Assessment Year 2011-12. After verifying all the documents including that of the 19 infrastructure projects which are reproduced in para no.4.2 thereby giving the details of projects which yielded the profit and the project which incurred the losses. The CIT(A) dealt with the issues in consonance with the earlier Assessment Year but after looking to the same, it appears that the assessee’s involvement as developer in the said infrastructure facilities was direct and maintenance and the risk factor was directly upon the assessee and the assessee was responsible solely for the same. Hence, the assessee is a developer in these works carried for different Government Agencies and, therefore, is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Thus, appeal filed by the Revenue being ITA No.3121/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2012-13 is dismissed.

14. Now coming to ITA No.1230/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee filed return of income on 07.10.2013 thereby declaring total income at Rs.5,56,92,800/-after claiming deduction of Rs.23,70,37,838/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act, under Section 80GGB of the Act amounting to Rs.65,00,000/- and Rs.25,500/- under Section 80G of the Act. The CIT(A) has categorically dealt with the infrastructure facility carried out by the assessee in respect of 30 projects including that of loss-making projects and profit earned projects and after following earlier Assessment Years, allowed the deduction. The details for the said contracts/work contracts as well as the agreements are as follows: A.Y. 2013-14 (Pages 6 to 8 – CIT(A)

From the perusal of the records and the tender agreements including work contract and letter of intent, it appears that the development of infrastructure facility including maintenance and risk factor in these contracts as well is directly upon the assessee and the whole sole responsibility is that of the assessee and no third party was involved. Hence, appeal of the Revenue being ITA No.1230/Ahd/2016 for the A.Y.2013-14 is dismissed.

16. Now, coming to ITA No.1620/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee filed return of income on 29.11.2014 thereby declaring total income at Rs.2,77,83,343/-after claiming deduction of Rs.22,78,73,567/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act and Rs.1,76,576/- under Section 80G of the Act. In this Assessment Year the project involved were that of 34 projects including that of projects which having earned profits and projects which have incurred losses. The details for the said contracts/work contracts as well as the agreements are as follows: A.Y. 2014-15 (Pages 5 to 7 – CIT(A)

The CIT(A) has decided the case relying upon earlier Assessment Years. After verifying the records, it appears that the infrastructure facility which yielded the profit has directly developed by the assessee company and also maintained thereafter including the risk factors. Thus, the assessee is a developer as envisaged under Section 80IA(4) of the Act and hence appeal of the Revenue being ITA No.1620/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 is dismissed.

17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act. In the present Assessment Year, the infrastructure facility projects involved were that of 38 in number which includes loss making projects as well as profit yielded projects. The details for the said contracts/work contracts as well as the agreements are as follows: A.Y. 2016-17 (Pages 5 to 7 – CIT(A)

(B) DETAILS OF TURNOVER AND NET PROFIT U/S.80IA IN RESPECT OF OLD WORK

(C) DETAILS OF TURNOVER AND NET LOSS U/S.80IA IN RESPECT OF OLD WORK

The CIT(A) has dealt with this issue in similar lines of Assessment Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 and no new distinguishing facts emerges in the present Assessment Year which has been pointed out by the Ld. DR. Hence, appeal of the Revenue being ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17 is dismissed.

18. In the combined result, all the nine appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 13^th day of August, 2024.