Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin v. Federal Bank Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **ITA.No. 352 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 31/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 30-06-2003** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE-1.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) SRI.TERRY V.JAMES** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.38/2011, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.1287/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 2 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** ## **ITA.No. 38 of 2011** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 710/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-09-2010** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, COCHIN** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX** **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., H.O., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA-683101.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.872/2009, ITA.352/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009 & ITA.1287/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **ITA.No. 597 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 450/1999 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 4 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** ## **ITA.No. 755 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 246/2001 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **ITA.No. 769 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 491/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 6 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **ITA.No. 815 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 459/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX** **RESPONDENT/S:** **FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009 ITA.817/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 7 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **ITA.No. 817 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 654/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-08-2006** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED FEDERAL TOWERS, ALWAYE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 8 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **ITA.No. 872 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 26/2002 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 17-12-2004** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX** **RESPONDENT/S:** **M/S. FEDERAL BANK LTD. ALUVA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.1287/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 9 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **ITA.No. 1287 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 1110/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 11-10-2007** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS** **THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH ITA.872/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.352/2009 & ITA.38/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 10 ## **JUDGMENT** **[ITA 352/2009, ITA.597/2009, ITA.755/2009, ITA.769/2009, ITA.815/2009, ITA.817/2009, ITA.872/2009, ITA.1287/2009 & ITA.38/2011]** ## Vinod Chandran, J. Common questions arise in many of the appeals, but not in all. In such circumstances, we would first frame the questions of law arising in the appeals and then answer it, which would lead to the disposal of the appeals as such. The questions of law re-framed are as follows: I) Whether the bad debts written off, for nonrural branches claimed under clause (vii) of Section 36(1) has to be allowed only in excess of the provision made for rural branches under clause (viia) of Section 36(1) ? II) Whether depreciation or loss on revaluation of securities can be permitted on the basis of the market value or cost price, whichever is less, as stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India ? _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 11 - III) In determining the provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(viia), has the non-rural - branches to be determined on the basis of a revenue village and the population thereat ? - IV) Whether the interest accrued on securities, which are not yet matured has to be assessed as income for the year ? - V) Whether the expenditure for purchase of gifts given to shareholders, who participated in the annual general meeting can be considered as a permissible business expenditure under Section 37 ? - VI) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having not applied Section 14A for the assessment year 2004-05 ? VII) Whether the current investments written off can be claimed as loss for the assessment year in which it has been written off ? VIII) Whether the enhancement made by the First Appellate Authority under Section 14A could be sustained in view of the specific proviso _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 12 prohibiting enhancement before the assessment year 2001-02 ? IX) Whether the Tribunal was correct in having permitted the allowance of write off of an amount, which the assessee was entitled to, as dividend from another company, which was returned as income on receipt of a cheque, which subsequently got dishonoured ? 2. On the first question the issue has to be answered in favour of the assesee and against the Revenue, going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**[2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC), Catholic Syrian Bank**_ _**Ltd. v. C.I.T.**_ The Assessing Officer shall verify the computation, looking into whether there is any allowance granted for provision of bad debts in non- rural branches for the previous years. In which event alone, the allowance of written off of bad debts in non-rural branches will be confined to the excess allowed from the provision made, and deduction allowed, for non-rural branches. We make it clear that in making the computation, there can be no consideration of the _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 13 provision for bad debts for rural branches as granted under clause (viia) of Section 36(1). Hence, the first question in I.T.A.Nos.352, 769, 872 & 815 of 2009 and I.T.A.No.38/2011 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3. On depreciation or loss; the issue of revaluation of securities is covered by _**[2003] 264 ITR 545 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.**_ and _**[2011]**_ _**339 ITR 606 (Ker), C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.**_ This Court had held that revaluation of securities can be only on the basis of market value or cost price, whichever is lesser, as stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India. The Tribunal's order to that extent is upheld. Question No.II is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos.597 and 872 of 2009. 4. On the third question, the issue stands covered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In _**Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.**_ , this Court had held that the determination of non-rural branches shall be only with reference to the revenue villages and not solely on the _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 14 basis of the population. This Court specifically noticed the anomaly insofar as even wards in municipalities being included for identification of rural branches, when the identification is on the basis of the population alone in wards of the local authorities. We hence answer the third question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in I.T.A.Nos.597, 755, 769, 815, 817, 872 and 1287 of 2009. The dis-allowance made by the Assessing Officer to that extent has to be restored. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee has an alternative submission insofar as the assessee having written off the said debts and there being no requirement to find out whether those are rural branches or not. The contention is that the assessee could have claimed it under clause (viia) of Section 36(1). A similar contention was raised in assessee's own case in a batch of cases decided on 11.12.2018 in I.T.A.No.533/2009 and connected cases. We have found that such a question does not arise in the Revenue's appeal. The assessee had also not taken up _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 15 such a contention before any of the authorities. In such circumstances, the assessee cannot be permitted to take that contention at this stage, especially when there is no appeal filed by the assessee. We hence refuse to look into the said contention. 6. The fourth question also stands covered in favour of the assessee as per the decision of this Court in _**[2008] 301 ITR 188 (Ker.), C.I.T. v. Federal**_ _**Bank Ltd.**_ The S.L.P. from the aforesaid decision numbered as S.L.P.(CC) No.17071/2008 also stands dismissed. Hence, this question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.Nos.769, 815, 817 and 1287 of 2009. 7. On the fifth question, another Division Bench of this Court had in judgment dated 04.02.2008 in I.T.A.No.191/2001, _**Federal Bank Ltd. v. C.I.T.**_ found the same to be permissible allowance as business expenditure under Section 37. S.L.P.(C) No.2070/2009 from the aforesaid judgment also stands dismissed. We, hence, answer the said question in I.T.A.No.352/2009 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 16 8. The sixth question deals with Section 14A and the application of the same in the assessment year 2004-05. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**[2018] 401 ITR 445 (SC), C.I.T. v. ESSAR Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd.,**_ had found that the provision can be made applicable only from the assessment year 2007-08. Hence, for the assessment year 2004-05, Section 14A has no application. Hence, the said question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.815/2009. 9. On current investments written off, this Court in I.T.A.No.411/2009 ( _**C.I.T. v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.**_ ) followed the decision in _**Nedungadi Bank Ltd.**_ and _**[1999]**_ _**240 ITR 355 (SC), United Commercial Bank, Calcutta v.**_ _**C.I.T., WB-II, Calcutta**_ to rule in favour of the assessee. The question hence is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.815/2009. 10. The enhancement made by the C.I.T. (Appeals) is the issue raised as question No.VIII. The issue has to be answered in favour of the assessee in view of the _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 17 prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 14A, as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**ESSAR Teleholdings Pvt.Ltd.**_ The prohibition is specific and there can be no application of Section 14A also in the assessment year 1998-99 in which the enhancement was attempted by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.872/2009. 11. The last question arising in the assessment year 1998-99 is on the dividend received by cheque, later written off for reason of the cheque being dishonoured. In the previous assessment year, the assessee had returned as income the dividend received from another company, when the cheque on that count was received. However, later the cheque presented got dishonoured. The assessee hence wrote off the said amount due to it as dividend and claimed for allowance under Section 36(1). The Tribunal allowed the same. We do not find any infirmity in the allowance, since if at all the assessee gets the dividend in a later year, it could be treated as income in that year. The write _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 18 off on the ground of dishonour of cheque cannot at all be disputed and is evident from the books of accounts. We, hence, answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in I.T.A.No.872/2009. Hence, I.T.A.Nos.597, 755, 769, 815, 817, 872, 1287 of 2009 are partly allowed on the third question alone. I.T.A.Nos.352/2009 and 38/2011 are rejected. No costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** ## **Sd/-** **ASHOK MENON** _dkr_ **JUDGE** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 19 ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 352/2009** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE-A**|**COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.**| |---|---| ||**143(3) DATED 27/3/1996 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASST. YEAR**| ||**1993-94.**| |**ANNEXURE-B**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/11/1996 OF THE**| ||**COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).**| |**ANNEXURE-C**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/6/2003 OF THE**| ||**INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.**| ||**35, 36 AND 37/COCH/2000 AND ITA NO.**| ||**31/COCH/2000.**| ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 38/2011** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE-A**|**COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER 143(3) DATED**| |---|---| ||**29/11/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07.**| |**ANNEXURE-B**|**COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/3/2008 AND 9/4/2008**| ||**OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX**| ||**(APPEALS).**| |**ANNEXURE-C**|**COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/9/2010 OF THE**| ||**INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH**| ||**IN ITA NO.718/COCH/2008**| |**ANNEXURE-D**|**COPY OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER DATED**| ||**16/1/2008 IN ITA NO. 73 OF 2008.**| _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 20 ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 597/2009** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A** **COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19/3/1997 U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.** **ANNEXURE-B** **COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/8/1999 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).** **ANNEXURE-C** **COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 450/COCH/1999 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.** ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 755/2009** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31/8/2000 U/S. 143(3)R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.** **ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/3/2001 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)** **ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 246/COCH/01 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1994-95.** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 21 ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 769/2009** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 19.2.2003 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001-02.** **ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).** **ANNEXURE C** **COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO.491/(COCH)/2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001-02.** ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 815/2009** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 16/12/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05.** **ANNEXURE-B COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/5/2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/1/2008 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO. 459/COCH/2006.** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 22 ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 817/2009** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 23/11/2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04** **ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/1/2005 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).** **ANNEXURE-C** **COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/8/2006 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO. 654/(COCH)/2005 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2003-04.** ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 872/2009** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2001 U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99.** **ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2001 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).** **ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2004 OF THE INCOME TAX APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN ITA NO.26/COCH/2002 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1998-99.** _ITA 352/2009 & connected cases_ 23 ## **APPENDIX OF ITA 1287/2009** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A COPY OF ORDER U/S. 143 (3) DATED 26.3.2004 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03.** **ANNEXURE B COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.7.2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2007 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH IN ITA NO.1110/COCH/2004.**