DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, THANE, ASHAR IT PART, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE WEST V. MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, SANDOZBAUGH SO THANE

ITA 3325/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane as the appellant and Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited as the respondent. The primary issues under appeal were the deletion of an addition made under section 43B of the Income Tax Act concerning MVAT paid under protest, and the disallowance of deductions claimed under sections 80G and 35AC, as well as the addition of trait fees income. The Tribunal considered various precedents and statutory provisions, ultimately deciding to remand the issues for further examination by the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 37298 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Berger Paints (India) Ltd vs. CIT, Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd vs CIT, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs ACIT, Euro RSCG Advertising (P) Ltd vs ACIT, Dharampal Satyapal Sons (P.) Ltd vs CIT, United Glass MGF Co. Ltd vs CIT, JMS Mining Pvt Ltd vs PCIT, Kolkata, Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd vs Jt. CIT, Allegis Services (India) (P.) Ltd vs Asstt. CIT, FNF India (P.) Ltd vs Asstt. CIT, Naik Seafoods P. Ltd., Mumbai vs Pr. Cit-2, Mumbai, CIT vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd, Neon Solutions Pvt Ltd vs ITO, CIT vs Neon Solutions (P.) Ltd, Anaikar Trade and Estates (P) Ltd (No.2) vs CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANYOGITA NAGPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Business expenditure; Depreciation; Capital expenditure; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Charitable institution; CHAPTER IV; FORM 26AS; Ineligible deduction
• Section: 12A; 37; 43B; 37(1); 10(23C); 80G

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3325/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 CO No.154/M/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.3325/M/2024) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income tax, Circle-1, Thane Room No. 22, B-Wing, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West - 400604 Vs. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited Bayer House Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Sandozbaugh, S.O. Thane - 400607 PAN: AABCM0176B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi,CA Revenue by : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue, which arises from the appellate order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-1 Mumbai(henceforth „CIT(A)‟), with regard to the assessment order passed under section 143(3)/263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (in short „the Act‟) for the A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections contesting certain additions to the income. Since the main appeal and the Cross Objections are interlinked and heard together, they are being adjudicated together for the sake brevity. ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 2 We take up Revenue‟s ground first in, ITA No.3325/M/2024 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the tune of Rs.7,00,00,000/- as MVAT paid under protest by the assessee during the year. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee has paid MVAT of Rs.7,00,00,000/- under protest and is contesting the matter in appeal, hence, the liability is not yet finalized during the year, which may or may not crystalise in future; and there is no reasonable certainty in this respect. 3. Factual matrix of the case involve the case of the assessee which is engaged in the business of promoting, marketing and sub-licencing of Trait technology of seeds. It was observed by the AO that the assessee had paid Rs. 7 Cr. MVAT under protest and accordingly claimed deduction in computation of Income. The claim of deduction was liable to be disallowed as the liability had crystallized. According to him, there was no doubt that section 43B of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause and therefore overrides all other provision of the Act. However, that does not mean that all the payments made by the assessee even under protest shall be eligible for deduction on payment basis. One of the prerequisite for claiming deduction is crystallization of the liability. It is settled position in law that assessee shall be eligible for deduction only in respect of liability which have crystallized during the year. However, in respect of tax duty cess and other specified items, Income tax Act has laid down additional condition of allowing deduction only the year in which payment is being made. The fact that assessee has contested matter further in appeal reveals that there is no reasonable certainty of the liability. It may or may not crystallize. If assessee succeeds assessee would be eligible for refund of tax paid under protest. If view of above, claim of the assessee was rejected and amount of Rs. 7 cr. was added to the total income of the assessee. 4. In the appeal, the ld.CIT(A) observed that as per Section 43B of the Act, payments relating to tax, duty cess or fee can be claimed as u/s 43B deduction in the financial year in which liability is incurred subject to payment of the same being made within the due date for filing ROI. The appellant relied on ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 3 several decisions of the courts respectfully following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Berger Paints (India) Ltd vs. CIT 266 ITR 993 and the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd vs CIT 82 ITR 363. Respectfully following the decision of judicial authorities, the AO was directed to delete disallowance of MVAT payment. 5. The ld.DR has contested the deletion of the impugned sum by the ld.CIT(A) holding that the amount was not eligible for deduction as it was not crystallized. Per contra, the ld AR of the assessee submitted that during the year under consideration, it claimed the deduction as 'any other amount allowable as deduction' in Schedule BP of the ITR filed. During the year, an item with the description \"Balance with Government Authorities - VAT\" amounting to Rs 15 cr. has been included under Schedule 10-Long Term Loans and advances. The same represents payment made by it towards MVAT under protest. Out of the said amount of Rs 15 cr., Rs 8 cr. was paid and claimed in previous year FY 2015-16 (and was reflected in the Balance sheet of FY 2015- 16 as well) and Rs 7 cr. has been paid in current year, i.e. FY 2016-17 under protest on account of MVAT liability crystallised in the current year. Further, the said amount of Rs 15 cr. has not been routed through the Profit and Loss Account. As payment of Rs 7 cr. is made in the current year, the assessee has claimed deduction of MVAT in accordance with the section 43B of the Act. As per Section 43B of the Act, payments relating to tax, duty, cess or fee can be claimed as a deduction in the financial year in which liability is incurred subject to payment of the same being made within the due date for filing ROI. In this regard, further reliance was placed upon the following decisions: The Supreme Court in case of Berger Paints (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 993 has held that deduction on payment basis should be allowed under section 43B of the Act irrespective of the previous year to which the corresponding liability related to. Also, reliance on this aspect was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 363 wherein it allowed deduction for sales tax demand as a business expense even in the absence of entries recording the demand as a liability in the books of account of the assessee. The Supreme Court held that ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 4 statutory liability for sales-tax incurred by issue of notice by the authorities is deductible notwithstanding the fact that the liability is disputed by the assessee and no provision for the same has been made in the accounts, which is maintained as per mercantile system. An assessee who follows the mercantile system of accounting is entitled to deduct from the profits and gains of the business such liability which had accrued during the period for which the profits and gains were being computed. Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights nor can the existence or absence of entries in the books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. The assessee who was maintaining accounts on the mercantile system was fully justified in claiming deduction of the liability to sales-tax which it was liable under the law to pay during the relevant accounting year. The liability remained intact even after the assessee had taken appeals to the higher authorities or Courts. Reliance is also placed on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of United Glass MGF Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 6447/2012), wherein the Supreme court upholding the order of tribunal and the high court held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 43B of the Act, of excess sales tax paid during the year. Further reliance can also be placed upon the following decisions wherein, excise duty paid under protest has been allowed as a deduction in the year in which payment has been made Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs ACIT (ITA Nos. 1927 and 2188/Del/2010).Accordingly, based on the above decisions, it claimed deduction of the tax paid in the year in such payment is being made i.e. in AY 2017-18 as per provisions of section 43B of the Act. 6. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. Apart from the cited decisions of Hon‟ble Supreme Court, we find that in the case of Maruti Suzuki in ITA No. 4081/4174 and plethora of other decisions in the same case, it has been consistently held by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi bench as below: 65. xxxxxxxxxx to the deletion of addition of Rs. 3 crores made by the Assessing Officer on account of Excise Duty paid under protest. ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 5 66. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Tribunal in A.Y 2009-10. The relevant findings read as under: \"35. Xxxxxxxxxxxx is in respect of Custom Duty and Excise Duty both paid under protest. Custom duty paid under protest represented the duties paid as per the additional demand raised by the statutory authorities, i.e. the Excise Department and the Customs Department. Though the assessee has disputed such additional demand and paid the amount under protest, in view of the demand being in the nature of a statutory liability, the same represented accrued/ crystallized liability. As per the mandate of section 43B of the Act, the aforesaid additional excise duty and custom duty so actually paid under protest was claimed as deduction on payment basis which has been disallowed by the assessing officer. The Assessing Officer, following the orders for preceding assessment years, disallowed the said claim on the ground that since the assessee was contesting these liabilities and there was no finality regarding the liabilities and that the same were not debited to the P&L A/c. 36. The Ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal has held in assessee's own case that, since the duty has been paid, deduction claimed under section 43B of the Act has to be allowed. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dharampal Satyapal Sons (P.) Ltd. 50 DTR 287 wherein 528 49 by the assessee against excise duty demand raised by excise authorities was allowable deduction as it was statutory liability which was allowable on payment basis under section 43B of the Act. Similarly, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Euro RSCG Advertising (P) Ltd v. ACIT [2013] 154 TTJ 389 (Mum) held that service tax liability alongwith the interest paid on the basis of the show cause notice issued by the service tax authorities, is allowable deduction under section 43B of the Act in the year in which the payment was made irrespective of the fact that such demand was paid under protest and the matter was subjudice before the authorities. The issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A.Y's 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001- 02, 2002-03 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 37. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 38. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal in Assessee's own case held as under: \"3.28. With regard to the disallowance of claim for deduction under section 43B of the Act for a sum of Rs. 92,431 /- being Customs Duty paid under protest, assessee submits that the Custom duty paid under protest represented the duties paid as per the additional demand raised by the statutory authorities, i.e. the Customs Department, and though they have disputed such additional demand and paid the amount under protest, in view of the demand being in the nature of a statutory liability, the same represented accrued/ crystallized liability. According to the assessee, as per the mandate of section 43B of the Act, the aforesaid additional custom duty so actually paid under protest was claimed as deduction on payment basis which has been disallowed by the assessing officer. However, the assessing officer disallowed the aforesaid following assessment order for the assessment year 2005-06. Ld. AR invited our attention to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Euro RSCG Advertising (P) Ltd v. 529 wherein it was held that wherein the service tax liability alongwith the interest was paid on the basis of show cause notice issued by the service tax authorities, the same was allowable under section 43B in the year in which the payment was made irrespective of the fact that such demand was paid under protest and the matter was subjudice before the authorities. He further submitted that in similar circumstances the Honhle Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Dharampal Satyapal Sons (P.) Ltd.: 50 DTR 287, held that the amount paid by the assessee against excise duty demand raised by excise authorities was allowable deduction as it was statutory liability which was allowable on payment basis under section 43B of the Act, and also submitted that in assessee's own case for A.Y's 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, coordinate Benches of this Tribunal have held that, since the duty is paid, deduction claimed u/s 43B of the Act has to be allowed. 3.29. This aspect of disallowance of claim for deduction under section 43B of the Act for the amount of Customs Duty paid under protest has been one of the subject of matters in assessee's own case for the AY 2006-07 and 2007- 08 successively, and for the AY 2006-07 vide para 5.5 of the order dated 24.8.2015, the following finding was returned by the Tribunal, \" Respectfully following the above cited decisions, we uphold the order of the ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition in toto. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. CO No.154/M/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.3325/M/2024) 7. Following grounds of appeal have been raised in the cross appeal 1. The AO erred in objecting to the specific direction of ld.CIT(A) allowing claim of the assessee u/s 43B of the Act. 2. Without prejudice, in the event of ground of the revenue allowed on above issue, then the impugned amount of Rs 7 cr. May be allowed in the year of crystallization of the liability/debit in the books of account. ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 6 3. On the facts and the circumstances, the ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 2,32,08,413/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80G of the Act. 4. On the facts and the circumstances, the ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 65,66,938/- claimed by the assessee u/s 35AC of the Act. 5. On the facts and the circumstances, the ld.CIT(A0 erred in upholding the addition of Rs 7,56,74,920/- claimed by the assessee in respect of Trait Fee 6. On the facts and the circumstances, the impugned order has been passed by the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Further during hearing the assessee filed an additional ground of appeal claiming without prejudice to ground no.5 above,if held against it,aseesee may be allowed deduction of Bad Debt u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. It has been claimed that the additional ground being purely legal in nature ought to be admitted in view of decisions in the cases of NTPC/Jute Corporation etc. 8. Since the addition of Rs 7 cr. relating to MODVAT has all already been decided dismissing Revenue appeal and deleting the additional made in para 6(supra), the ground no.1 and 2 are consequential and do not require any adjudication. 9. Ground no.3 –Dedcution u/s 80G According to the assessment order, details of the donation claimed under section 80G are as follows: Sr. No. Name of the Institution----- Amount of CSR Deduction allowable u/s 80G 1 Indian Society of Agribusiness 75,08,350 37,54,175 2 Indian Society of Agribusiness 1,30,59,975 65,29,988 3 Action for food production 55,48,500 27,74,250 4.Action for food production 84,00,000 42,00,000 5.Action for food production 84,00,000 42,00,000 6.Ahilyadevi Holkar Bahuuddeshiya 35,00,000 17,50,000 Total 4,64,16,825 2,32,08,413 ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 7 10. It is stated by the AO that the assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,32,08,413/- u/s 80G against a total contribution of Rs. 4,64,16,825/- made in FY 2016-17 out of CSR funds. It furnished copy of receipts, proof of eligibility u/s 80G and bank statement which shows the genuineness of transactions. Same has been confirmed by the relevant entities in response to notice u/s 133(6). The newly inserted Section 135 of the Companies Act mandates that every company fulfilling the threshold specified therein in terms of net worth or turnover or net profits shall ensure that the company spends, in every financial year, at least two per cent of the average net profits made during the three immediately preceding financial years, in pursuance of its Corporate Social Responsibility Policy. It is also specified that the Company shall give preference to the local area and areas around it where it operates, for spending the amount earmarked for Corporate Social Responsibility activities. Thus the said amount has not been paid by the assessee voluntarily to become eligible for entity specified under Section 80G of the Act. But the same has been paid by the assessee as a mandatory requirement as per Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 to spend certain amount for specified activities as per law. The expression “shall ensure” used in Section 135(5) of the Companies Act 2013 clearly implies that there is a mandate to spend 2% of average net profits of the preceding three years on CSR activity. Thus, the required-to-spend amount is perceived by the legislature to be mandatory in nature and not voluntary. The assessee could also have very well made payment to an entity not covered by Section 80G or it could have directly incurred the expenditure for the specified purpose, but it chose to spend only in those areas where it could claim deduction u/s 80G of the Act. Therefore, the sum paid by the assessee could not be considered as a „donation‟ for the purpose of Section 80G of the Act as the element of charity is missing in it. The main characteristic of charity is that it is purely voluntary and there is no legal obligation to make that contribution. The amounts spent on CSR activities, even though is contributed to the areas where 80G deduction is available, but the same lacks voluntary character and partakes the nature of an obligation to be fulfilled, a necessary requirement ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 8 imposed by law in accordance with Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. By keeping the donation in CSR category, the assessee had adopted a tricky move. On one side, it wants to show that it has completed the mandatory requirement u/s 135 of the company law whereas on the other hand, it illegally and wrongly says it as a donation. One payment cannot be simultaneously kept in two different heads – CSR & Donation. If it is donation, it can‟t be CSR. By keeping the donation under CSR head, assessee has shown its cleverness to fulfill the legal and mandatory requirement under the company law. The payment is of course on account of CSR because it is mandatory for the assessee and further CSR being not business related expenditure, is outrightly disallowable. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramnath And Co. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax has categorically held that the exemption statutes have to be interpreted strictly and in case of ambiguity, it must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue. Mandatory expenditure made on account of CSR activity loses the character of Donation. Section 80G provides for “Deduction in respect of donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc”. It is not disputed that the assessee has paid Rs. 4,64,16,825/- in FY 2016-17 to the organizations eligible u/s 80G. But underlying nature of such payment is CSR expense and not donation. In view of above discussion, claim of deduction u/s 80G amounting to Rs. 2,32,08,413/- was disallowed and added back to its total income for AY 2017-18. 11. The ld.CIT(A) observed that the claim u/s 80G amounting to 2,32,08,413/- was rightly disallowed since the same has been mandatorily spent within the threshold limits specified and not in the specified local areas and surrounding areas where the Companies operates as per the Companies Act. Therefore, it can‟t be a voluntarily donation for the purpose of Section 80G. Accordingly ground of appeal was dismissed. 12. Before us, the ld.AR contested the said orders. He has drawn attentions to its replies made before the authorities below. The company made donation of Rs. 2,32,08,413/- to the fund/institute covered under section 80G(2)(a)(iv) ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 9 of the act. During the year it gave donation of Rs.4,64,16,825/- to various societies, foundation and trusts approved under section 80G of the Act. Hence, 50% of the contribution made to such societies/ trusts was claimed as a deduction under section 80G of the Act. Under the Income-tax Act, only if payment made towards CSR falls under section 37 of the Act, it would be hit by explanation and would not be eligible for deduction. However as far as donation given to eligible trust is considered it would still qualify as deduction u/s 80G even if contribution is out of CSR funds. It is stated that Explanatory Memorandum to Finance Bill 2014 and CBDT Circular No. 1/2015 dated 21 January 2015, support that CSR expenditure is viewed as 'application of income'. Donations are also generally application of income and if the intent was to deny deduction u/s. 80-G of the Act, appropriate amendments in lines of section 37(1) of the Act would have been made to section 80G of the Act. The above Explanatory Memorandum and Circular also indicate that the Government is not averse to tax benefits for CSR expenditure. This is supported by the fact that it is specifically clarified that CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to 36 of the Act shall be allowed as deduction subject to fulfillment of conditions, if any, specified therein. Thus, even if the expenditure is 'application of income', it will still qualify as business income deduction (eg. 35AC, 35(1)(iia), etc).As per the amendment made to section 80G of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015, a donation to \"Swachh Bharat Kosh\" and \"Clean Ganga Fund\" is allowed a deduction under section 80G of the Act. However, if such donation is made in pursuance of Corporate Social Responsibility under section 135(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 the Assessee is not entitled to a deduction under section 80G of the Act. Further, there is no express intent to deny deduction under Chapter VI A of the Act for payment made to charitable trust which qualify for deduction under section 80G of the Act. In view of the above submission, it is submitted that donation to various societies, foundation and trusts approved under section 80G of the Act would qualify as a deduction under section 80G of the Act. As per Rule 4 of the Companies Rules CSR activities can be undertaken by Company itself or through donation to registered trust u/s 12A or 10(23C) etc. Thus, it is very ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 10 clear that there is no restriction on undertaking CSR activities under the Companies Act through donation made to the trust which qualifies for deduction u/s 80G of the act. Further, we would like to reproduce the relevant extract of section 37 of the act, to explain the basis of the claim made u/s 80G of the act, as under: \"Section 37 of the act Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\"... ...Explanation 2. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of subsection (1), any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession\". Based on the above, we would like to submit as under: As per the plain reading of Explanation to 2 to section 37(1) of the act, any expenditure incurred towards CSR activities as referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not allowed as 'business expenditure'. The embargo created by this provision was to deny deduction for CSR expenses incurred by companies, as and by way of regular business expenditure while computing income under the head \"Income from Business and Profession\". Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the act which denies deduction for CSR expenses by way of business expenditure is applicable only to the extent of computing 'Business Income' under Chapter IV-D of the act. It could not be extended or imported to CSR contribution which was otherwise eligible for deduction under any other provision or Chapter of the act. In the year under consideration, the Company had suo-motto disallowed and added back the CSR expenses (donation) while computing its business income. 12.1 It is further submitted that to substantiate the claim of deduction u/s 80G of the act, we would like to reproduce the relevant extract of section 80G of the acts, as under: ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 11 \"Section 80G of the act Deduction in respect of donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc. (1) In computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, (ii) in any other case, an amount equal to fifty per cent of the aggregate of the sums specified in subsection (2)... ...(2) The sums referred to in subsection (1) shall be the following, namely: (a)any sums paid by the assessee in the previous year as donations to... ….(iiihk) the Swachh Bharat Kosh, set up by the Central Government, other than the sum spent by the assessee in pursuance of Corporate Social Responsibility under subsection (5) of section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); or (iiihl) the Clean Ganga Fund, set up by the Central Government, where such assessee is a resident and such sum is other than the sum spent by the assessee in pursuance of Corporate Social Responsibility under subsection (5) of section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); ... ...(iv). Any other fund or any institution to which section applies; or (3) ............... (4)................ (5) This Section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in Sub clause (iv) of clause (a) of Subsection (2), only if it is established in India for a charitable purpose and if it fulfills the following condition namely…\". 12.2 Based on the above, it was submitted that as per section 80G of the act, deduction has to be made in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the said section. Further, an amount of 50% of the aggregate of the sums, donated to any other fund or any institution to which Section 80G(2)(a)(iv) of the act applies, is allowed as expenditure even if the Company includes the expenditure as CSR expenditure/donation. This is because there is no prohibition or restriction placed by the Parliament in the act on such a donation even if shown as CSR expenditure. Further it is submitted that the legislature has specifically put certain restrictions in section 80G of the act for deduction in respect of two donations i.e. CSR expenditure related to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund which is explained as under: If the company spends only the mandatory CSR expenditure, which includes the amount of donation to Swach Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund (referred to in section 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) and (iiihl) of the act, then deduction under section 80G of the act was not allowable. However, where the company gave donation to these two projects over and above the mandatory CSR expenditure, then the excess sum donated to Swach Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund would be eligible for deduction under section 80G of the act. The restriction in respect of expenditure made by the taxpayer to any other fund or institution as referred to in section 80G(2)(a)(iv) of the act had not been placed by the legislature. And hence, in absence of such kind of/ any restriction like in the case of donation to Swach Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund, donation to ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 12 any fund referred to in section 80G(2)(a)(iv) of the act is allowable even though it is related to CSR expenditure. 12.3 Further, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ('MCA') has issued Frequently Asked Questions ('FAQ') through General circular no. 01/2016 dated January 12, 2016 (FAQ No. 6) has clarified that as follows: Question No. 6: What tax benefits can be availed under CSR? Answer: No specific tax exemptions have been extended to CSR expenditure per se. The Finance Act, 2014 also clarifies that expenditure on CSR does not form part of business expenditure. While no specific tax exemptions have been extended to expenditure incurred on CSR, spending on several activities like Prime Minister's Relief Fund, scientific research, rural development projects, skill development projects, agriculture extension projects etc, which fund place in Schedule VII, already enjoys exemptions under different sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This clarification issued by one arm of the Government, supports the view that deduction under section 80G is allowable on such contributions. 12.4 In the case under consideration, since the Company satisfies the condition under section 80G of the act, the Company's claim for deduction of CSR expenses/donation under 80G should be allowed. In this connection, reliance was placed on following decisions: JMS Mining Pvt Ltd v. PCIT, Kolkata [2021] 130 taxmann.com 118 (Kolkata-Trib) Goldman Sachs Services (P.) Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2020] 117 taxmann.com 535 Allegis Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1693 (Bang.) of 2019] FNF India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1565 (Bang.) of 2019] Naik Seafoods P. Ltd., Mumbai vs Pr. Cit-2, Mumbai [ITA NO. 490/MUM/2021. 13. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts of the case.Rival submissions. The ld.DR has relied on orders of authorities below based on the amended provisions of section 37 and also section 135 of the Companies Act. We have also perused relevant provisions of the Act and legal position emerging from the cited decisions (supra).The CSR expenses which are required to be mandatorily incurred by the assessee-company as per section 135 of the Companies Act are not entitled to deduction under section ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 13 37(1) for assessment year 2015-16 by virtue of the fetter placed by Explanation 2 to section 37(1), which was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014. A plain reading of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) shows that any expenditure incurred towards CSR activities as referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be allowed as 'business expenditure' and shall be deemed to have not been incurred for purpose of business. The embargo created by Explanation 2 inserted in section 37 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 was to deny deduction for CSR expenses incurred by companies, as and by way of regular business expenditure while computing 'income under the head business'. 13.1 So, it can be clearly seen that this Explanation 2 to section 37(1) which denies deduction for CSR expenses by way of business expenditure is applicable only to the extent of computing 'business income' under Chapter IV-D. The said Explanation cannot be extended or imported to CSR contributions which are otherwise eligible for deduction under any other provision or Chapter, so as to say donations made by charitable trust registered under section 80G.Parliament has expressed its intention clearly by bringing in restriction in respect of expenditure classified by an assessee company while claiming deduction under section 80G i.e. CSR expenditure related to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. And if the Parliament desired, it could have been made such kind of restriction or any restriction like in the case of donation to Swachh Bharat Kosh & Clean Ganga Fund. So the assertion of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and therefore cannot be accepted. It can be safely inferred that when the Legislature in particular has provided for only the above referred two specific exceptions in section 80G, then it is the implied intent of the Legislature to permit deduction under section 80G in respect of CSR contributions made to funds/organizations referred to in all other sub-clauses of section 80G [other than (iiihk) and (iiihl)] of the Act. 13.2 It may be stated here that in the case Allegis Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [IT Appeal No. 1693 (Bang.) of 2019] exactly similar issue has been adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT,Bangalore. The relevant part as extracted is reproduced as below: ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 14 “We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 10. Section 135 of Companies Act, 2013 requires companies with CSR obligations, with effect from 01/04/2014. Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 inserted new Explanation 2 to sub- section (1) of section 37, so as to clarify that for purposes of sub- section (1) of section 37, any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purposes of the business or profession. 11. This amendment will take effect from 1/04/2015 and will, accordingly, apply to assessment year 2015-16 and subsequent years. 12. Thus, CSR expenditure is to be disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head 'Income form Business and Profession'. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: \"The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that deduction for any expenditure, which is not mentioned specifically in section 30 to section 36 of the Act, shall be allowed if the same is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business or profession. As the CSR expenditure (being an application of income) is not incurred for the purposes of carrying on business, such expenditure cannot be allowed under the existing provisions of section 37 of the Income-tax Act. A. Y : 2016 - 17 Therefore, in order to provide certainty on this issue, it is proposed to clarify that for the purposes of section 37(1) any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities relating to corporate social responsibility referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business and, hence, shall not be allowed as deduction under section 37. However, the CSR expenditure which is of the nature described in section 30 to section 36 of the Act shall be allowed deduction under those sections subject to fulfilment of conditions, if any, specified therein.\" 13. From the above it is clear that under Income tax Act, certain provisions explicitly state that deductions for expenditure would be allowed while computing income under the head, 'Income from Business and Profession\" to those, who pursue corporate social responsibility projects under following sections. • Section 30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance premiums. • Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture • Section 32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets like building, machinery, plant, furniture and also on intangible assets like know-how, patents, trademarks, licenses. • Section 33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. • Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate. • Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/research institutions or A. Y : 2016 - 17 company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. • Section 35CCD provides deduction for skill development projects, which constitute the flagship mission of the present Government. • Section 36 provides deduction regarding insurance premium on stock, health of employees, loans or commission for employees, interest on borrowed capital, employer contribution to provident fund, gratuity and payment of security transaction tax. Income Tax Act, under section 80G, forming part of Chapter VIA, provides for deductions for computing taxable income as under: ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 15 • Section 80G(2) provides for sums expended by an assessee as donations against which deduction is available. a) Certain donations, give 100% deduction, without any qualifying limit like Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, National Defence Fund, National Illness Assistance Fund etc., specified under section 80G(1)(i) b) Donations with 50% deduction are also available under Section 80G for all those sums that do not fall under section 80G(1)(i). Under Section 80G(2) (iiihk) and (iiihl) there are specific exclusion of certain payments, that are part of CSR responsibility, not eligible for deduction u/s80G. 14. In our view, expenditure incurred under section 30 to 36 are claimed while computing income under the head, 'Income form Business and Profession\", where as monies spent under section 80G are claimed while computing \"Total Taxable income\" in the Ahands of assessee. The point of claim under these provisions are different. 15. Further, intention of legislature is very clear and unambiguous, since expenditure incurred under section 30 to 36 are excluded from Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, they are specifically excluded in clarification issued. There is no restriction on an expenditure being claimed under above sections to be exempt, as long as it satisfies necessary conditions under section 30 to 36 of the Act, for computing income under the head, \"Income from Business and Profession\". 16. For claiming benefit under section 80G, deductions are considered at the stage of computing \"Total taxable income\". Even if any payments under section 80G forms part of CSR payments( keeping in mind ineligible deduction expressly provided u/s.80G), the same would already stand excluded while computing, Income under the head, \"Income form Business and Profession\". The effect of such disallowance would lead to increase in Business income. Thereafter benefit accruing to assessee under Chapter VIA for computing \"Total Taxable Income\" cannot be denied to assessee, subject to fulfillment of necessary conditions therein. 17. We therefore do not agree with arguments advanced by Ld.Sr.DR. 18. In present facts of case, Ld.AR submitted that all payments forming part of CSR does not form part of profit and loss account for computing Income under the head, \"Income from Business and Profession\". It has been submitted that some payments forming part of CSR were claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act, for computing \"Total taxable income\", which has been disallowed by authorities below. In our view, assessee cannot be denied the benefit of claim under Chapter VI A, which is considered for computing 'Total Taxable Income\". If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G of the Act. We also note that authorities below have not verified nature of payments qualifying exemption under section 80G of the Act and quantum of eligibility as per section 80G(1) of the Act. 20. Under such circumstances, we are remitting the issue back to Ld.AO for verifying conditions necessary to claim deduction under section 80G of the Act. Assessee is directed to file all requisite details in order to substantiate its calim before Ld.AO. Ld.AO is then directed to grant deduction to the extent of eligibility. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.” 13.3 Since the facts and circumstances in the present case is similar to that of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Allegis Services (India) Ltd. (supra), taking a consistent view, we remit the issue back to the file of the ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 16 Assessing Officer with similar directions as contained in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and for decision afresh in accordance with law on due verification of the claim of deduction u/s 80G of the Act. 14. Ground no.4-Deduction claimed u/s 35AC of the act of Rs. 2,47,50,500/-. As per the assessment order, details of the donation claimed under section 35AC are as follows: Sr. No. Name of the Institution Amount of CSR incurred Deduction allowable u/s 35AC 1 ISKCON food relief foundation 45,00,000 45,00,000 2 The Akshayapatra foundation 65,66,938 65,66,938 3 The Akshayapatra foundation 39,24,188 39,24,188 4 The Akshayapatra foundation 31,91,937 31,91,937 5 The Akshayapatra foundation 65,66,937 65,66,937 Total 2,47,50,000 2,47,50,000 14.1 According to the AO with respect to claim of deduction of Rs. 65,66,938/- of donation given to the Akshayapatra foundation, neither the assessee submitted copy of expenditure certificate and donation receipt nor the same amount was reflected in the bank statement submitted by the assessee. Further, it has been observed that the payment made to Akshayapatra Foundation of Rs. 65,66,938/- was not eligible for deduction under section 35AC of the Act in AY 2017-18 as the said payment was made on 06.04.2017 and the receipt was issued on 07.06.2017. As the expenditure was not incurred by the assessee in AY 2017-18, the claim of deduction cannot be allowed u/s 35AC. Therefore, deduction claimed u/s 35AC to the tune of Rs. 65,66,938/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee in AY 2017-18. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition. ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 17 15. Ground 5: Addition in respect of Trait fees amounting to Rs. 7,56,74,920/-. 15.1 It was noticed by the AO that in the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2017, income from Trait fees aggregating to Rs. 130.54 cr. was credited to the Profit and Loss Account. However, in 26AS and AIR for AY 2017-18, Trait fees aggregating to Rs. 238.48 cr. was reported on which tax has been deducted at source. Above income though disclosed in form 26AS was excluded from the total income on the ground that it did not accrue during the year on account of uncertainty of recovery. The main thrust of the argument of the assessee was that there was no reasonable certainty of receiving the trait fees income. Accordingly, income of 7,56,74,920/- was not offered to tax. However, the AO observed that it was not understandable how there can be uncertainty of receiving trait fees when the payer parties had already deducted and deposited tax into treasury of the Government and as a result of which said transactions are reflected in 26AS. Had there been any uncertainty of making payment why would payer parties deduct and deposit TDS. Assessee company has not submitted any documentary evidences or letters of the third parties to demonstrate that payers had denied liability to make payment for trait fees to the assessee company during the FY 16-17. In my view the fact that payer parties have deducted and deposited TDS demonstrates that payer parties are willing to make payment and there is more than reasonable certainty to receive the payment. Under mercantile system of accounting it is not necessary that income should be received in the same financial year. If parties delay making payment of the amount as per terms of the agreement assessee company has right to charge interest. Further on perusal of the settlement agreement in case of Sri Ram Sri Rama Agri Genetics (India) Pvt Ltd which is available on record it was clearly evident that party has admitted claim for trait fees due for FY 2016-17. Also in the return of income assessee company has already claimed credit of TDS. Thus the assessee can‟t take dual stand of not offering income and claiming benefit of TDS credit in the return of income on the other hand. Accordingly, addition of Rs 7,56,74,920/-was ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 18 added to the total income of assessee in AY 2017-18. Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition made. 16. Before us, the ld.AR has submitted that merely because the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting it does not mean that the income has accrued to the assessee pursuant to credit reported by sub-licensee in Form 26AS of MMBIPL. Where the ability to assess the ultimate collection with reasonable certainty is lacking at the time of raising any claim, e.g., for escalation of price, export Incentives, Interest etc., revenue recognition is postponed to the extent of uncertainty involved. In such cases, it may be appropriate to recognise revenue only when it is reasonably certain that the ultimate collection will be made. Where there is no uncertainty as to ultimate collection, revenue is recognised at the time of sale or rendering of service even though payments are made by instalments. When the uncertainty relating to collectability arises subsequent to the time of sale or the rendering of the service, it is more appropriate to make a separate provision to reflect the uncertainly rather than to adjust the amount of revenue originally recorded. Key Principles emanating from the above are as under: 1.There must exist reasonable certainly of ultimate collection to recognize the revenue and 2.where the uncertainly of ultimate collection exists the recognition of revenue should be postponed till the collection becomes certain. this regard, reliance is being placed on the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (2011) 196 TAXMAN 169( Delhi) wherein it was held that where the recovery of the interest is uncertain the same does not accrue. The relevant extract of the ruling is reproduced below for kind perusal. Further, reliance is being placed on the ruling of the Jurisdiction Tribunal in the case of Neon Solutions Pvt Ltd vs ITO ITA No 5032/Mum/2011 (Mumbai) wherein s1m1lar views were held. Further, the above ruling of the Mumbai ITAT was upheld by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Neon Solutions (P.) Ltd (2017) 81 taxmann.com 267. As per ledger accounts of the following parties for the subsequent financial years from which it is clearly evident that as on date of our submission there are outstanding receivables over due from parties for earlier financial years 1. Amar Biotech ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 19 Ltd 2. lndo American Hybird Seeds (India) Pvt Ltd 3. Green Gold Seeds Limited 4. Sri Rama Agri Genetics (India) Pvt Ltd. As can be seen from the said agreement the sub licensee has not made payment towards trait fees pertaining to FY 2015-16. This is a substantive evidence to prove that no reasonable certainly existed during FY 2016-17 for MMBIPL on realization of outstanding receivables and hence no income for FY 2016-17 has been recognized in books and offered for tax. The fact that parties had failed to make payment even in the subsequent financial years also strengthens the claim that there was no reasonable certainty of receiving the royalty income in the year under consideration. Further its stand taken is also in consonance with ICD IV. In view of the above submission, income of Rs. 7.56 crores should not be added to total income. Without prejudice to its submissions, it was claimed that in case income is included in the total income, the same ought to be allowed as deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as there is no reasonable certainty of receiving income even in subsequent financial years. 17. We have carefully considered the facts of the case. During appeal, the assessee in support of ground no.4 and 5 relating to deduction u/s 35AC and Trait fee has made written request under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules 1963, for submission of certain additional evidences which remained to be filed before authorities below. Reliance has been placed on certain case laws in support of the claim requesting that in the interest of justice and to decide the appeal on merits, the same may be allowed to submit to support its claim raised in Cross objection. i) With regard to denial of deduction u/s 35AC of Rs 65,66,398/- it is submitted that the assessee wanted to submit certain documents /information to effectively rebut the deduction disallowed i.e copy of purchase order issued by Akshyapatra Foundation. ii) In respect of ground relating to addition made w.r.t. Trait fees in order to rebut the addition effectively the certain additional evidence i.e. copy of correspondence between assessee and its vendors whereby vendors ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 20 disputed trait fees charged by it in lieu of state laws regulating the amount and requested for refund of excess fees paid. Copy of Settlement agreements with vendors. 17.1 As per the provisions contained in Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal. The provisions contained in the said rule are pari materia with the Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which also does not allow the party to the appeal to adduce any additional evidence unless and until such exceptional circumstances are set out. Here the assessee had moved an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence. In the instant case, the assessee could not furnish these documents before the lower authorities. In our opinion, the mistake of the assessee was not deliberate or with malafide intention, therefore the new evidence now furnished as additional evidence shall be admitted by us keeping in view the principles of natural justice, but at the same time, opportunity is to be given for rebuttal to another party. 17.2 As regards to the admission of the additional evidence, the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of Anaikar Trade and Estates (P) Ltd (No.2) vs. CIT, 186 ITR 313 has held as under: “The Tribunal has discretion to allow the production of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 if the Tribunal requires any document to be produced or affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, it may allow the document to be produced or the affidavits to be filed. Even if there was a failure to produce the documents before the ITO and the A.A.C, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction in the interests of justice to allow the production of such vital documents.” 17.3 In the present case also, the documents furnished by the assessee are vital which go to the root of the present controversy, so these are to be admitted in the interest of natural justice but these documents are required to be examined and considered at the level of the AO. We, therefore, set aside the ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 21 impugned order and remand the present issue back to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17.4 In view of the above, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the issues raised in ground nos. 4 and 5 above, are remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. The Additional ground relating to alternative claim u/s 36(1)(vii) is inconsequential as the main ground relating to Trait fees has already been set aside to the AO. 19. Ground no.6 relating to inadequate opportunity of hearing accorded during appeal proceedings by the authorities has not been pressed during hearing of appeal before us. Accordingly, the ground being not pressed, is treated as dismissed. 20. In the result, the Cross appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2024. Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 29.11.2024 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT ITA No.3325/M/2024 & CO No.154/M/2024 Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Limited 22 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहािक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आिकर अिीलीि अयिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "