Girodhar G.Yadalam vs Commr.Of Wealth Tax

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 728 OF 2011

GIRIDHAR G. YADALAM .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & .....RESPONDENT(S) ANR.

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 730 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 732 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 733 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 734 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 737 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 738 OF 2011 Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by CIVIL APPEAL NO. 739 OF 2011 Suman Wadhwa Date: 2016.02.27 11:23:07 IST Reason: 2

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 742 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 743 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 744 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 745 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 747 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 750 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 752 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 753 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 755 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 757 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 758 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 759 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 761 OF 2011 3

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 762 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 768 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 774 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 777 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 778 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 779 OF 2011

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2011

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 19011 OF 2012 4

AND

SLP (CIVIL) NO. 19012 OF 2012

JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted in SLPs.

In these cases, we are concerned with the interpretation that is to

be accorded to the provisions of Explanation 1(b) to Section 2(ea)(v) of

the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This

Explanation defines 'Urban Land'. Urban land is exigible to wealth tax

under the aforesaid Act. However, the definition of 'urban land' in

explanation 1(b) excludes certain category of lands. As per Explanation

1(b) to Section 2(ea)(v), 'urban land' to mean land situate – but does not

includes:-

(i) land classified as 'agricultural land' in the records of the Government and

used for agricultural purposes or land on which construction of a building is

not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which

such land is situated; or

(ii) the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the

approval of the appropriate authority; or

(iii) any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a

period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him; or

(iv) any land held by the assessee as 'stock-in-trade' for a period of ten 5

years from the date of its acquisition.

2. To put it pithily, what calls for interpretation is clause (ii) above, namely,

what is the meaning that is to be attributed to the expression “the land

occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval

of the appropriate authority.”

3. In the context of these appeals the question is as to whether the land

would be excluded from the 'urban land' only when building is

completely constructed thereupon or it would be covered by the

aforesaid clause even if the building activity is started and the building is

not yet complete.

4. Civil Appeal No.728/2011 has arisen from the judgment of Karnataka

High Court which has been filed by the appellant/assessee (hereinafter

referred to as the 'assessee'). It has taken the view that from the plain

language of the aforesaid clause, the building has to be completely

erected on the land in order to get it covered by exclusion clause.

5. In the appeals which are filed by the Revenue, challenge is to the orders

passed by the Madras High Court which has taken a contrary view.

From this narration, it becomes clear that there is one common issue

and that was the reason for hearing of these appeals together.

6. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appeared for the assessee in the 6

lead matter i.e. Civil Appeal No.728/2011. For the sake of brevity we

would take note of the facts from this appeal:

Assessee herein is the HUF which is the co-owner of a land measuring

30,663.04 sq. metres, situated at Survey No.67/2, 67/3, 67/4 and 67/5 of

Adugodi Village and a portion of Survey No. 151 of Kornamangala

Village of Begur Hobli of Bangalore South Taluq, Bangalore District,

bearing City Survey No. CTS/2. The assessee entered into various

development agreements with one M/s. Prestige Estates Properties

Private Ltd. for construction of residential flats. The development

agreement was considered by the assessing officer in the course of

assessment proceedings. Assessee claimed that it had retained

ownership of the land until flats are fully constructed and possession of

the assessee's share was handed over to it. The development

agreement constituted only permissive possession according to the

assessee for the limited purpose of construction of flats. Assessee

contended that assessee continues to be the owner of the land for the

Financial Years 1995-96 and subsequent years till the sale of flats.

Notice under Section 17 of the Act was issued to the assessee and he

filed return of wealth of Rs.8,48,000/- on 20.08.2003. After considering

the contention to treat the property as urban land and brought it to tax

under an order dated 31.03.2005, an appeal was filed before the

Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The 7

appeal stood allowed in the light of an earlier order of the Tribunal.

Revenue thereafter filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal

following its decision in WTA No. 4-5/B/03 dated 22.03.2004 dismissed

the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Revenue took up the matter in

further appeals before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court has

upset the order of the ITAT holding that the assessee is not entitled to

the benefit of clause (ii) of Explanation 1(b) to Section 2(e)(a)(v) of the

Act, as the building had not been constructed and was still under

construction during the Assessment Year.

7. It is not in dispute that 'urban land' is to be included to calculate 'net

wealth' for the purpose of wealth tax under the Act. However, certain

lands are not to be treated as 'urban land' which are mentioned in

Explanation 1(b). But Section 2(e)(a) of the Act was inserted by the

Finance Act 1992 (Act No.18/1992) w.e.f. 01.04.1993. The purpose was

to exempt some of the lands from wealth tax with the objective of

stimulating investment in productive assets. It is in the context that the

land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the

approval of the appropriate authority is excluded from the definition of

urban land. On a plain reading of the said clause it becomes clear that in

order to avail the benefit, following conditions have to be satisfied:

(a) The land is occupied by any building;

(b) Such a building has been constructed; 8

(c) The construction is done with the approval of the appropriate authority;

8. Notwithstanding the aforesaid plain language, an endeavour of Mr.

Gopal Jain is to impress upon us to read the said clause to include even

that land where the construction of building activity has been started.

He, thus, wants that the words 'has been constructed' is to be read as 'is

being constructed'. His attempt to persuade us is predicated on the

following premise.

Mr. Jain argued that the clause added purposes interpretation i.e. the

objective for which this clause was added, namely, to stimulate

investment in productive assets, has to be kept in mind. In this behalf,

he argued that Explanation 1(b) has carved out exceptions/exemptions

based on the object and purpose of the amendment to the Wealth Tax

Act in 1992. These exceptions have to be construed in line with the

legislative intent at the time which Section 2(ea) was inserted, which

was to stimulate investment in productive and non-productive assets

and only specified assets were subject to wealth tax. On that premise,

he emphasised that in each of the aforesaid clauses this objective was

kept in the forefront. Qua Exception (I) he stressed that where land is

classified as 'agricultural' and used for agricultural purposes, it will not

fall within the definition of 'urban land' and is exempted from wealth tax.

Agricultural land, although vacant, if put to agricultural use (i.e.

productive) is exempt from wealth-tax. He argued that this exception is 9

with reference to land which is vacant for the reason that construction is

not permissible under any law. As the reason for non-construction of a

building cannot be attributed to the assessee, an exception has been

made on account of which it will not be considered as an asset and is

exempted from wealth tax.

9. Mr. Jain further argued that in this very hue, exception (ii) also needed to

be interpreted. His submission was that the word 'constructed' is used

in the context of exempting a land “occupied by any building which is

being constructed with the approval of appropriate authority”. With the

commencement of construction of a building, land ceases to be

identifiable as 'urban land' due to constructive utilization of vacant land.

When a building is under construction, it is

'work-in-progress'/construction activity is on-going but spills over.

However, the character of land has changed – it is being put to use and,

therefore, it ceases to be urban land during the period of conversion.

10. According to Mr. Jain, if a building is constructed and construction is

complete, the asset will go out of the definition of 'urban land' contained

in Section 2(ea)(v) read with Explanation 1(b) as it would fall under

Section 2(ea)(i) which covers buildings. Section 2(ea)(i) reads as

follows:

“(i) any building or land appurtenant thereto (hereinafter referred to as 'house'), whether used for residential or commercial purposes or for the purpose of maintaining 10

a guest house or otherwise including a farm house situated with twenty-five kilometers from local limits of any municipality (whether known as Municipality, Municipal Corporation or by any other name) or a Cantonment Board, but does not include--

(1) a house meant exclusively for residential purposes and which is allotted by a company to an employee or an officer or a director who is in whole-time employment, having a gross annual salary of less than ten lakh rupees;

(2) any house for residential or commercial purposes which forms part of stock-in-trade;

(3) any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him;

(4) any residential property that has been let-out for a minimum period of three hundred days in the previous year;

(5) any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes;”

11. Mr. Jain also submitted that the stand of the respondent that only

completed buildings are to be brought into the ambit of the word 'has

been constructed' is not tenable since completed buildings fall under a

different clause i.e. clause (ea)(i). According to him, if that is accepted

then in such cases, Section 2 (ea)(v) read with Explanation 1(b) would

not be required at all since a completed building is covered

independently in Section 2(ea)(i). He, thus, submitted that seen in this

context, the expression 'has been constructed' must be read as 'is being

constructed' in order to give effect to the legislative intent. He relied

upon the decision of this Court in the case of M. Nizamuden v. 11

Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Others1, wherein it is held that:

“It is well settled that if exception has been added to remedy the mischief or defect, it should be so construed that remedies the mischief and not in a manner which frustrates the very purpose. Purposive construction has often been employed to avoid a lacuna and to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. It is again a settled rule that if the language used is capable of bearing more than one construction and if construction is employed that results in absurdity or anomaly, such construction has to be rejected and preference should be given to such a construction that brings it into harmony with its purpose and avoids absurdity or anomaly as it may always be presumed that while employing a particular language in the provision absurdity or anomaly was never intended.”

12. Taking his argument further, Mr. Jain submitted that likewise, exception

(iii) is with reference to 'unused land' held by the assessee for industrial

purposes. The exemption from wealth tax for such land is for a period of

two years from the date of its acquisition by the assessee. After two

years, such land, if unused is amenable to wealth tax. However, if an

assessee starts construction of either a factory or any building for

industrial purpose within a period of two years and construction spills

over beyond the exempted period, the exemption would still continue

irrespective of whether the construction is completed within two years.

Similarly, land held as 'stock-in-trade' is exempt from wealth tax for a

period of ten years since, though vacant, it is held for business

1

(2010) 4 SCC 240 12

purposes.

13. Learned senior counsel also extensively read the judgment of the Kerala

High Court wherein the interpretation suggested by him has been

accepted and the benefit of exemption from wealth tax in respect of such

a land where the building is still under construction has been extended.

14. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue

emphatically countered the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Jain. He

submitted that the cardinal principle of interpreting taxing statute was to

give literal construction to the language used therein. He further

submitted that the provision in question was in the nature of 'exemption

provision' where again strict interpretation is to be accorded and onus is

upon the assessee to show that he falls within the four corners of the

exempted clause. He also submitted that when the language of the

statute was unambiguous and clear, question of giving purposive

interpretation does not arise in the matters pertaining to taxing statutes.

15. After giving our due consideration to the submissions of the learned

counsel for both the parties and after going through the judgments of

different High Courts, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the

High Court of Karnataka in its judgment dated 21.03.2007 is the correct

view in law and the contrary view taken by the Kerala and Madras High

Courts is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

13

16. We have already pointed out that on the plain language of the provision

in question, the benefit of the said clause would be applicable only in

respect of the building 'which has been constructed'. The expression

'has been constructed' obviously cannot include within its sweep a

building which is not fully constructed or in the process of construction.

The opening words of clause (ii) also become important in this behalf,

where it is stated that 'the land occupied by any building'. The land

cannot be treated to be occupied by a building where it is still under

construction. If the contention of Mr. Jain is accepted, an assessee

would become entitled to the benefit of the said clause, at that very

moment, the commencement of construction even with construction the

moment one brick is laid. It would be too far fetch, in such a situation, to

say that the land stands occupied by a building that has been

constructed thereon. Even Mr. Jain was candid in accepting that when

the construction of building is still going on and is not completed, literally

speaking, it cannot be said that the building 'has been constructed'. It is

for this reason that he wanted us to give the benefit of this provision

even in such cases by reading the expression to mean the same as 'is

being constructed'. His submission was that the moment construction

starts the urban land is put to 'productive use' and that entitles the land

from exemption of wealth-tax. This argument of giving so called

purposive interpretation has to be rejected for more than one reasons. 14

These are:

(i) In taxing statute, it is the plain language of the provision that has to be

preferred where language is plain and is capable of one definite

meaning.

(ii) Strict interpretation to the exemption provision is to be accorded, which

is the case at hand.

(iii) The purposive interpretation can be given only when there is some

ambiguity in the language of the statutory provision or it leads to absurd

results. We do not find it to be so in the present case.

17. No doubt, the purpose and objective of introducing Section 2(e)(a) in the

Act was to stimulate productive assets. However, the event when such

a provision is to be attracted is also mentioned in Explanation 1(b) itself

carving out those situations when the land is not to be treated urban

land. The Legislature in its wisdom conferred the benefit of exemption in

respect of urban vacant land only when the building is fully constructed

and not when the construction activity has merely started. On the

contrary, if the argument of the assessee is accepted, that would lead to

absurd results in certain cases. For example, what would be the

position if the construction of the building starts but the said construction

is abandoned mid way? If we accept the argument of the assessee, in

such a case, assessee would be given the exemption from payment of

wealth tax in the initial years and the same benefit would be denied in 15

the year when it is found that construction was abandoned and,

therefore, not complete. It would result in granting of benefit in the

previous year(s), though that was not admissible. Such a situation

cannot be countenanced. Presumably, because of this reason, the

Legislature wanted to treat only that land to be excluded from the

definition of 'urban land' at the stage when the building has been fully

constructed on the said land.

18. We do not agree with the submission of Mr. Jain that the situation when

building is fully constructed has been covered by Section 2(e)(a)(v) read

with Explanation 1(b) as it would fall under Section 2(e)(a)(i). We have

already reproduced the aforesaid Section and find that it deals with

altogether different situations. As pointed out above, Explanation (1)

thereof excludes certain categories of 'Urban Land' and we are

concerned herewith clause (ii) of this Explanation. By 1992 amendment,

Section 2(e)(a) was added which contains the definition of 'asset'.

Clause (v) thereof includes urban land. Thus, urban land is to be

included as an 'asset' for the purpose of giving extended meaning to it.

Urban Land is defined in Explanation 1 Clause (b) to Section 2(e)(a).

19. The Kerala High Court as well as Madras High Court have been

influenced by the arguments premised on purposeful construction which

was the argument of Mr. Jain and has not been accepted by us. 16

20. The appeals of the assessee are accordingly dismissed and those

appeals which are preferred by the Department against the judgment of

the High Court of Madras are hereby allowed. The parties are left to

bear their own costs.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 24, 2015.

17

REVISED

ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 728/2011

GIRODHAR G.YADALAM Appellant(s)

VERSUS

COMMR.OF WEALTH TAX & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH C.A. No. 729/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 730/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 731/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 732/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 733/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 734/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 735/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 736/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 737/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 738/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 739/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 741/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 742/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 743/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 744/2011 18

(With Office Report) C.A. No. 745/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 746/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 747/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 748/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 749/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 750/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 751/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 752/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 753/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 754/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 755/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 756/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 757/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 758/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 759/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 760/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 761/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 762/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 763/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 764/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 765/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 766/2011 (With Office Report) 19

C.A. No. 767/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 768/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 769/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 770/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 771/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 772/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 773/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 774/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 775/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 776/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 777/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 778/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 779/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 780/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 1857/2016 SLP(C) No. 19011/2012 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 1860/2016 SLP(C) No. 19012/2012 (With Office Report)

Date : 24/07/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Gopal Jain,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Chinmayee Chandra,Adv.

Ms. Khushboo Bari,Adv.

Mrs. Nandini Gore,Adv.

20

Mr. Gopal Jain,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Nandini Gore,Adv.

Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar,Adv.

Ms. Trishula Kulkarni,Adv.

Ms. Khushboo Bari,Adv.

M/s. Karanjawala & Co.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv.

Mr. S.A.Haseeb,Adv.

Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.

Ms. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv.

Mr. Vikash Malhotra,Adv.

Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi,Adv.

Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following J U D G M E N T

Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed by the Department against the judgments of the High Court of Madras are hereby allowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

(SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file. 21

ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 728/2011

GIRODHAR G.YADALAM Appellant(s)

VERSUS

COMMR.OF WEALTH TAX & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH C.A. No. 729/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 730/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 731/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 732/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 733/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 734/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 735/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 736/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 737/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 738/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 739/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 741/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 742/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 743/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 744/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 745/2011 22

(With Office Report) C.A. No. 746/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 747/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 748/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 749/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 750/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 751/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 752/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 753/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 754/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 755/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 756/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 757/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 758/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 759/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 760/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 761/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 762/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 763/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 764/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 765/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 766/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 767/2011 (With Office Report) 23

C.A. No. 768/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 769/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 770/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 771/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 772/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 773/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 774/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 775/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 776/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 777/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 778/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 779/2011 (With Office Report) C.A. No. 780/2011 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19011/2012 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 19012/2012 (With Office Report)

Date : 24/07/2015 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Gopal Jain,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Chinmayee Chandra,Adv. Ms. Khushboo Bari,Adv.

Mrs. Nandini Gore,Adv.

24 Mr. Gopal Jain,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Nandini Gore,Adv.

Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar,Adv.

Ms. Trishula Kulkarni,Adv. Ms. Khushboo Bari,Adv.

M/s. Karanjawala & Co.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv.

Mr. S.A.Haseeb,Adv.

Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.

Ms. Sadhna Sandhu,Adv.

Mr. Vikash Malhotra,Adv.

Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

Mr. Abhijat P. Medh,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following J U D G M E N T

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed and the appeals filed by the Department against the judgments of the High Court of Kerala and Madras are hereby allowed. SLPs also stand disposed of, likewise. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

(SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.