Lease rentals earned by a developer of Software Technology Park should be treated as business income
Case Law Details
DCIT v. Golflink Software Park P Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) – The taxpayer was not only letting out its building for rent, but also carried on a complex commercial activity of setting up a software technology park in which various amenities and fit-outs have been provided. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision of CIT v. National Storage Pvt Ltd [1967] 66 ITR 596 (SC) . The Tribunal relying on the decision of Global Tech Park P Ltd held that, since the entire activity carried out in an organised manner to earn profit out of the investment made by the taxpayer, it should be treated as a commercial venture.
Accordingly, the rental income should be chargeable to tax as business income. where it has been distinguished the significance of leasing out a bare building and a building along with various amenities. The Tribunal distinguished the case of Shambhu Investment P Ltd where immovable property was insignificant, however, in the present case the taxpayer had developed 4.7 million square foot of IT park in a sprawling area of more than 55 acres by providing various amenities such as roads, street, lights, etc. Further letting out of a building in an IT park is incidental whereas in the case of Sambhu Investment such lettingout was predominant. The Tribunal held that letting out of building along with amenities and fit-outs amounted to complex commercial venture of the taxpayer and had to be taxed under the head ‘Profits or Gains of Business or Profession’. Since, the activities of the taxpayer constituted as business, interest, depreciation and other expenditure were incurred in the ordinary course of the business and were allowable as business expenditure.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’
BEFORE SHRI N BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIbENT ANb
SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, J.M.
|
ITA No. |
Asst. year |
Appellant |
Respondent |
| 40 and 41/
Bang/10 |
2005-06 &
2006-07 |
The DCIT, Circle-11(3), Bangalore | M/s Golflink Software Park P Ltd., 1st Floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore. |
| C.O.Nos.20
& 21/B/10 (In ITA Nos.40 & 41/B/10) |
2005-06 &
2006-07 |
M/s Golflink Software
Park P Ltd., 1st Floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore |
DCIT, Circle-11(3),
Bangalore |
| 52 & 53/
Bang/10
|
2005-06 &
2006-07
|
M/s Golflink Software
Park P Ltd., 1st Floor, Embassy Point, 150, Infantry Road, Bangalore ACIT, C.C.- 1(2), Bangalore. |
DCIT, Circle-11(3),
Bangalore |
Appellant by : Shri Harsha Prakash, CIT-II
Respondent by : Shri G Seetharaman, C.A.
ORDER
PER BENCH:
These six appeals preferred – (i) two appeals by the Revenue and (ii) two appeals as well as Cross Objections by the assessee company – are directed against the impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT (A)-I, Bangalore, in ITA No.269/bC-11(3)/CIT(A)-I/07-08 and in ITA No.204/AC11(3)/CIT(A)-I/08-09 dated: 12.10.2009 &13.10.2009 for the assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 respectively in the case of M/s.Golf Link Software Park (P) Ltd., Bangalore.
I. ITA NO.40/B/10 – AY 2005-06 – (By the Revenue):
2. Though the Revenue has raised seven grounds in its grounds of appeal in an extensive and illustrate manner, the cruxes of the issues are two-folds, namely:
TheLd. CIT(A) erred in:
(i) directing the AO to treat the assessee’s income from lease rentals under the head ‘business’ and to allow the expenditure and depreciation as claimed; &
(ii) deleting the addition being the STC6 on account of sale of the land to its sister concern.
II. ITA NO.41/B/10 – AY 2006-07 – (By the Revenue):
2.1. For this AY too, though the Revenue has raised six grounds in an illustrative manner as in the preceding AY, the essence of the issue is confined to a lone ground, namely:
(i) that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to treat the assessee ‘s income from lease rentals under the head ‘business’ and to allow the expenditure and depreciation as claimed
III. ITA NOs. 52 & 53/B/10-AYs 2005-06 & 06-07 (By the assessee):
3. The assessee company in its grounds of appeal for the AYs under
challenge has raised an identical lone issue that –
“The Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest of Rs. 35.96 lakhs and Rs. 53.57 lakhs respectively.”
3.1. Subsequently, the assessee company in its Cross Objections [C.O Nos.20 & 21/B/10 for the AYS 2005-06 & 2006-07] raised the identical issues which have already been figured in its appeals [ITA Nos. 52 & 53/10 for the AYs 2005-06 & 06-07] cited supra.
3.2 Since the assessee~s grievances for the AYs 2005-06 & 06-07 have already been raised in its appeals cited supra, subsequent submission of Cross Objections had become superfluous and, accordingly, they have been treated as redundant.
4. As the issues agitated by the rival parties in these appeals pertaining to the same assessee and rather inter-linked, for the sake of convenience and clarity, they were heard, considered and disposed off in this common order.
5. Before considering the grievances of either party, it was noticed that the appeals preferred by the assessee company for both the AYs under consideration were barred by limitation. The assessee company, in its identical petitions for condonation of delay, submitted that it had engaged the services of the Chartered Accountant based at Chennai to prepare the appeals for both the AYs under dispute and, accordingly, the relevant papers mailed to the assessee for signatures and subsequent filing before this Bench, were lost in transit and the CA was required to prepare fresh set of papers for signature which caused delays of 11 and 1 day(s) respectively in preferring these appeals before this Bench. Since the delays were unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee, it was passionately pleadedthat the delays caused be condoned.
5.1. The Ld. b.R present was heard. After due consideration of the submission of the Ld. A R and also the reasons contained in the petitions, we are of the considered view that the assessee was prevented by a reasonable cause in not preferring the appeals within the stipulated time frame. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the Registry was directed to place the appeal papers on record.
Let us now address to the grievance of the Revenue.
I. ITA NO.40 & 41/B/10 – AY 2005-06 & 06-07- (By the Revenue):
6. Briefly stated, the assessee company – Golf Link Software Park (P) Limited – (‘the assessee’ in short henceforth) was in real estate development business. For the AYs under dispute, the assessee had furnished its returns of income, admitting income at Rs.Nil and a loss of Rs.33.19 crores respectively which were initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and, subsequently, taken up for scrutiny. buring the period under consideration, the assessee had received rents from different concerns by providing space, other fit-outs and equipments in the software Technology Park constructed by it in Golf Area of Bangalore. The income shown by the assessee as ‘income from business’ was, however, treated by the AOs as ‘income from house property’ and ‘Other Sources’ for the reasons recorded in their respective impugned assessment orders which are under challenge. Besides, for the AY 2005-06, the AO had also computed STCG on sale of land inside the tech. park by the assessee to one of its sister concerns.
7. Aggrieved, the assessee took up the issues before the Ld. CIT (A) for redressal.
Receipt from rent of space and fit-outs etc.
It was the case of the assessee that –
– the assessee had developed a technology park in an area of about 55 acres which being an approved tech park under SPI scheme houses many software companies; that apart from providing building, it had to provide various facilities and amenities to have the status of a software technology park; that the facilities provided in the park were:
Fit-outs, central air conditioning, generator back up, street lighting, food courts, roads, drainage, gardens, security, water facilities, sewerage and water treatment plant, electricity etc.,
– that the income derived in the above circumstances by exploiting the assets by letting out the space in the STP cannot be considered as rental income assessable u/s 22 of the Act, this was because the activity carried on by the assessee was not a simple case of letting out buildings for rent; that it involves carrying on a complex commercial activity of setting up a software technology park in which various amenities and fit-outs provided which were designed to enable the user of the buildings and commence its specialized business;
– relies on the case law: National Storage Pvt. Ltd. 66 ITR 596 (SC);
– that it can, therefore, be contended that the STP developed by the assessee involves construction of a specialized building, providing of fit-outs along with host of common facilities that results in carrying on a complex commercial activity; that there is a distinction between letting out building with furniture and customary fittings as opposed to letting out a building with various equipments and amenities that bring into existence a STP where the clients of the assessee can enter upon the facility and use the same for their businesses; therefore the amounts paid by the clients of the assessee for user of the STP would be in the nature of a complex commercial activity assessable under the head ‘business8;
– that the tenants do not pay any rent to the common areas such as roads, parks, street lighting, common drainage facilities, food courts, generators, water treatment plants etc., however, these facilities were to be provided compulsorily to engulf the status of techpark;
– that the entire operations were to be viewed as commercial venture; that the object and business of the assessee is to do the business of tech park development operations and, therefore, the income earned there-from was to be taxed under the head ‘business income8;
– that the tech park development was covered by 60I under Industrial policy and promotion; that the government envisaged that the development of tech park was similar to the industrial activity and not mere construction of buildings, thus, the 6ovt. recognizes that the activity undertaken was complex operations and not mere construction of buildings;
– relies on the case laws:
(a) Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills 26 ITR 765 (SC);
(b) PFH Mall and retail Management Ltd. v. ITO – (2008) 110 ITO 337 (Kol)
(c) Harvinder Pal Mehta v. OCIT 177Taxman – IT14T, Mumbai
(d) ITO v. Tejmalbhai f Co., (2006) 100TTJ(Rajkot) 898
(e) Sri Balaji Enterprises v. CIT 225 ITR 471 (Kar);
(f) 6lobal Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. v. 14CIT 119 TTJ(Bang) 421
7.1. After analyzing the rival submissions and also placing strong reliance on the finding of the Hon’ble Bench in the case of Global Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, the Ld. CIT (A) was of the considered view that the receipt from rent for space and fit-outs be taxed under the head ‘income from business’ and the claim of expenditure made thereon be allowed.
8. bisenchanted with the finding of the Ld. CIT (A), the Revenue has come up with present appeals. It was the case of the Revenue that –
– the ZT (A) had erred in allowing the claim of the assessee company that its income from leasing out of space and fitoutslamenities was taxable under the head ‘business’ in stead of bifurcating the income from leasing out of space as ‘income from house property’ and income from fitouts/amenities as ‘income from Other Sources’ without appreciating the facts and circumstances stated in the relevant assessment order;
– he had also erred in directing the AO to treat the assessee ‘s income from lease rentals under the head ‘business’ and to allow its claim of expenditure including depreciation on the building; f
– that he had further erred in arriving at a finding without appreciating that as per the relevant lease agreements, the leasing out of space was independent of the leasing out of fit-outslamenities etc.,
8.1. The Ld. A R, on the other hand, was very fervent in his urge that the stand of the Ld. CIT (A) had the backing of various judicial precedents and, therefore, pleaded that no intervention of this Bench is required at this stage.
9. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the relevant records and also the relevant case laws on which either party had placed their strong reliance.
9.1. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had developed a technology park wherein a number of elite I.T companies have been housed. It was also a fact that the assessee had not merely let-out its buildings for rent, but also carried on a complex commercial activity of setting up a software technology park in which various amenities and fit-outs have been provided.
9.2. In this connection we recall the ruling of the highest ,judiciary of the land in distinguishing the significance of merely letting out a bare building and a building braced up with various amenities in the case of CIT, Bombay City 1 v. National Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in 66 ITR 596 (SC) wherein after analyzing the issue at length, the Hon’ble Court had visualized that –
<In our view, the High Court was right in holding that the assessee was carrying on an adventure or concern in the nature of trade. The assessee not only constructed vaults of special design and special doors and electric fittings, but it also rendered other services to the vault-holders. It installed fire alarm and was incurring expenditure for the maintenance of fire alarm by paying charges to the municipality. Two railway booking offices were opened in the premises for the dispatch and receipt of film parcels. This, it appears to us, is a valuable service. It also maintained a regular staff consisting of a secretary, a peon, a watchman and a sweeper, and apart from that it paid for the entire staff of the Indian Motion Picture Distributors’ Association an amount of Rs. 8CC per month for services rendered to the licensees. These vaults could only be used for the specific purpose of storing of films and other activities connected with the examination, repairs, cleaning, waxing and rewinding of the films.”
9.2.1. Further, an identical issue to that of the present one had cropped up before the earlier Hon’ble Bangalore Bench in the case of Global Tech Park (P) Ltd. v. ACIT – reported in (2008) 119 TTJ (Bang) 421 – wherein it was observed that –
“The assessee having been incorporated with the sole intention of developing Technology Park for which it obtained leasehold land from ICIOC and also obtained loan from bank for constructing superstructure thereon, it could not be considered as having made investment in a property for earning rental income only. The lease of the property was shown as part of the business activity, thus, the income received there from cannot be said as income received as a land owner but as a trader……………….The activity was done by the assessee as a business venture and was in accordance with the main object of the company. The intention of any prudent businessman is to earn;profit at a maximum level and investment made in the business never lost its main intention for which it was incorporated………………………….The assessee is providing ward and watch, maintenance of common area, maintenance of light in the common area, supply of water, providing lift, installation of electric transformer, power to the lessees, providing generator, over-head water tanks, maintenance of drainage etc., This clearly establishes that the entire activity is in organized manner to earn profit out of investment made by the assessee as a commercial venture. In view thereof, the AO is directed to assess the rental income as from business…..”
9.2.2. As the issue before the earlier Bench was similar to that of the present case wherein the Hon’ble Bench took cognizance of the fact that KThe assessee is providing ward and watch, maintenance of common area, maintenance of light in the common area, supply of water, providing lift, installation of electric transformer, power to the lessees, providing generator, over-head water tanks, maintenance of drainage etc., This clearly establishes that the entire activity is in organized manner to earn profit out of investment made by the assessee as a commercial venture’ and, accordingly, arrived at a conclusion that the rental receipts of the assessee is to be assessed as ‘business income’. In conformity with the finding of the earlier Bench as well as ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in arriving at such a conclusion. It is ordered accordingly.
9.2.3. Before parting with the issue, we would like to emphasis that we have duly perused the case laws on which the Revenue had placed its strong reliance, chiefly, in the case of CIT v. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex and industries Pvt. Ltd. [262 ITR 517 (Kar)]. In that case, the issue, in brief, was that the assessee was a Private Limited Company and one of its directors had taken certain extent of lands situated at Bangalore on a longterm lease of 36 years under a registered lease-deed and executed a registered deed of transfer in favour of the assessee-company transferring his leasehold rights. Subsequently, the assessee-company built a commercial complex on the said land and allotted the same to various parties and earned income there-from.
For the year 1985-86 and 86-87, the assessee filed its returns of income showing losses for which the AO completed the assessments making minor adjustments in computing the losses. The CIT initiated suo motto proceedings u/s 263 and after such proceedings directed the AO to make fresh assessments computing the income from rentals received from the commercial complex under the head “Income from house property.”
On an appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the income derived by the assessee could have been assessed only as income from business and not under the head “Income from house property”. According to the Tribunal, since the land over which the property had been built is a leasehold land, the assessee cannot be treated as the owner of the land which is a condition precedent for treating the income as income from house property under section 22 of the Act.
The Hon’ble Court, taking cue from the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 625, had held that the income derived by the company from shops and stalls is income received from property and falls under the specific head described in section 9.
9.2.4. We would like to point out that the case law relied on by the Revenue is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the issue on hand in the sense that the present assessee, apart from providing bare building, had also provided various amenities such as fit-outs, central air conditioning, generator back ups, street lights, roads, drainage facilities, garden, security, water facilities, sewerage and water treatment plant, sub-station for electricity, water treatment plant etc., which were not made available to the tenants in the case Bhoopalam Commercial Complex case cited supra.
9.3. In the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC), the issue, in brief, was that the assessee owned an immovable property, a portion of which was in its possession and let out the rest to be used as ‘table space’ to occupants with furniture and fixtures and lights and air conditioners. The assessee provided services like watch and ward staff, electricity, water and other common amenities. The monthly rent payable was inclusive of all charges. The assessee had also recovered by way of security from the occupants. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta [249 ITR 47 (Cal)] held that the income from the property was assessable in the hands of the assessee as income from house property. When the issue came up on appeal before the Hon’ble Highest Judiciary of the land, the appeal was dismissed, holding that there was no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court.
9.3.1. We would like to point out that the issue before the Hon’ble High Court was that the occupants were allowed to use a portion of property as ‘table space’ with furniture and fixtures, lights, air-conditioners etc., and the monthly rent payable was inclusive of all charges whereas the issue on hand is entirely on different footing, namely, the assessee had developed about 4.7 million square foot of a technology park in a sprawling area of more than 55 acres by providing various amenities such as roads, street lights, drainage facilities, gardens, high connectivity facilities such as telecommunication towers, sewerage and water treatment tanks, water treatment plants to attain the status of a Soft-ware Technology Park whereas in the case of Shambhu Investment P. Ltd., the immovable was a tiny property and the so called amenities provided to the occupants only as against the amenities provided in a STP to feed a special purpose. Letting out of a building in a STP is incidental whereas the fact in the case of Sambhu Investment was rather predominant and, thus, Sambhu Investment case cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be equated with that of the present assessee.
9.4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the issue, we are, therefore, of the firm view that the case laws on which the Revenue placed reliance cannot come to its rescue.
10. The other grievance of the Revenue pertaining to the AY 2005- 06 being that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made on account of STCG on sale of the land to the assessee~s sister concern.
10.1. The issue, in brief, was that the assessee had sold 82152 sft of land in the Tech Park for Rs.389.52/sft to its sister concern – M/s. Mb Properties Pvt. Ltd. On being queried as to why Rs.1193/sft being market value of the land should not be adopted in the case of Mb Properties Pvt. Ltd, the assessee, among others, contented that –
– the assessee could not able to raise further funds as the financial institution had exceeded their exposure which resulted in some portion of property of the assessee becoming idle from the point of view of raising money. This had resulted in disposing off of the property under distress sale that too to its group concern which could profitably put the property to use;
– that the sale was made at a price more than the guidelines value of the property; that the a piece of land was sold to its sister concern which never parted with the property and that the sale was at arms length within the parameters of law.
10.1.1. Brushing aside the assessee’s fervent request, the AO went ahead in working out the STCG by adopting the value of the said property at Rs.1193/sft.
10.2. Aggrieved by the AO’s stand, the assessee carried the issue before the Ld. CIT (A) for relief. While doing so, it was contended that –
– the assessee had sold a piece of land to B.E. Properties Pvt. Ltd. – a sister concern -at the rate of Rs. 389.52/sft. and another land was sold to a third party for Rs. 1193/sft.;
– that the fact that the sale to a third party was at a price which was much higher than the rate adopted for the purpose of stamp duty prescribed by the State 6ovt.; that such exceptional price cannot be adopted as standard price; that the AO had not brought on record any documentary evidence to prove that there was suppression of sale consideration;
– that the sale price of Rs. 389.52/sft was higher than the value determined for the purpose of stamp duty and, thus, the provisions of s.50C stands complied with; f
– that the law has provided for the arms length transaction rules wherever it has deemed it necessary. 5. 50 providing for adoption of the guideline value as the consideration for transfer of a capital asset, s. 80IA (B) requiring adoption of market value of goods in place of the actual sale price in the cases of certain specified sales, and the transfer pricing rules, are some of the examples which give the AO the right to adopt a fair value. In this case, first, the transaction was at a fair value and secondly, the AO does not have power to substitute the value for the actual sale price in the absence of any evidence of understatement of the value.
10.2.1. Taking cognizance of the assessee~s submission, the Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition.
10.2.2. It was the case of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT (A) had failed to analyze the issue before coming to such a conclusion.
10.2.3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR was emphatic in his resolve that the issue in question has been duly examined by the Ld. CIT (A) and, thus, it was pleaded that there was no infirmity in the finding of the first appellate authority which requires review at this stage.
10.3. We have duly considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant records.
10.3.1. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had parted with a piece of land to its sister concern for a sale consideration of Rs.389.52/sft. which, according to the assessee, was more than the guideline rate prescribed by the State Government. Another salient feature in this transaction was that the assessee had sold the said piece of land to its sister concern only and when the assessee had an occasion to sell another piece of land to a third party – M/s.Mac Charles Pvt. Ltd. – wherein the sale value was adopted at Rs.1193/sft which significantly exhibits the fair-play on the part of the assessee. On the other hand, the Revenue had not brought any credible documentary evidence to even remotely suggest that the assessee had, in fact, attempted to suppress the sale consideration on this transaction.
10.3.2. In view of the above facts, there was no ,justification on the part of the AO to bring to tax STCG of Rs.6.34 crores without any adequacy of documentary evidence on this score. It is ordered accordingly.
We shall now take up the issues raised by the assessee for consideration.
ITA NOs. 52 & 53/B/10 – AYs 2005-06 & 06-07 (By the assessee):
11. A lone ground raised by the assessee for the both the AYs under challenge is that the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of interest of Rs. 35.96 lakhs and Rs. 53.57 lakhs respectively.
11.1. buring the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee had advanced to its sister concern substantial amounts of Rs.47.95 crores & Rs.71.43 crores out of loans of Rs.500.36 crores and 672.63 crores availed from HbFC Bank for the AYs.2005.06 and 2006.07 respectively. On being queried, it was revealed that the same was advanced for a property owned by bynasty bevelopers Pvt. Ltd., and since no corroborative evidence was produced, the Ld. AOs went ahead in disallowing proportionate portion of interests for the AYs under consideration for the reasons recorded in their impugned orders.
11.2. On appeals before the Ld. CIT (A), it was contended that during the course of business had given advances to bynasty bevelopers Pvt. Ltd., that the Ld. AOs held that the genuine business advance given for acquiring lands as diversion of funds from loan funds and, accordingly, disallowed
Rs.35.96 lakhs and Rs.59.57 lakhs for the AYs. 2005-06 and 06-07 respectively, that the assessee had made advances to bbPL with an intention to acquire real estate and to earn profit from the venture on total commercial understanding and that the advances were made in the course of business and for the purposes of business. Strong reliance was placed on the following case laws:
(i) S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)
(ii) C.T. Desai v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 240 (Kar);
(iii) ,$fadav Prasad Jatia v. CIT(1979) 188 ITR 200 (SC)
(iv) CIT v. Chandulal Keshavlal f Co. (1960) 38 ITR 601 (SC)
11.3. After taking into account the submission of the assessee coupled
with various case laws cited supra, the Ld. CIT (A) had observed thus –
“10. The above shows that no new argument or fact has been brought on record to enable me to delete the addition.
11. In fact, I find the appellant has harped on the legal issues more instead of giving the details of land owned by DDPL for which interest free advance was given to it. In the absence of such details, I find the appellant has no cause to grieve for the justified disallowance made by the A~J.=
11.4. buring the course of hearing before this Bench, when it was pointed out that the assessee had declared total income of Re.Nil and (-) Rs.33.19 crores for the AYs 2005-06 & 06-07 respectively and if the issues were to be decided in its favour, the losses admitted by the assessee to be enhanced by Rs.35.96 lakhs and Rs.53.57 lakhs and such losses cannot be carried forward for set off against the income of the assessee in the later year(s) since the assessee had already availed the benefit of s.80IA of the Act in the subsequent years, the Ld. A R had readily and fairly conceded the observation of the Bench. The Ld. AR agreed that he had no objection of this Bench’s view to treat the issue raised by the assessee for both the AYs under challenge as redundant and no useful purpose would be served by deciding the issue on merits.
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that th issues raised by the assessee do not require any adjudication at this stag which has been duly acknowledged by the Ld. A R referred above.
12. In the result:-
(i) the Revenue’s appeals for the AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 are dismissed;
(ii) The assessee’s appeals for the AYs. 2005-06 & 2006-07 are dismissed; &
(iii) The assessee’s Cross Objections for the AYs. 2005-06 & 2006- 07 are dismissed as superfluous.
The order pronounced on Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2011 at Bangalore.
