S.B. & T INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 11(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1054/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1999 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: DR P DANIEL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Rule of consistency; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -KBENCH MUMBAI , ,, , , , , , , ,, , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAKTIJIT DEY,JUDICIAL MEMBER / ITA NO.1054/MUM/2015 : /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 M/S. S.B.& T INTERNATIONAL LTD. 9, YUSUF BUILDING, ROOM NO.15 1 ST FLOOR, A.R. STREET, PYDHONIE MUMBAI-400 003. PAN:AAACS 7275 C VS. DCIT-CIRCLE-11(2)(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI. / ITA NO.1152/MUM/2015 : /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 DCIT-CIRCLE-11(2)(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN ,MUMBAI. VS. M/S. S.B. & T INTERNATIONAL LTD. MUMBAI-400 003.. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI N.K. CHAND -CIT ASSESSEE BY: DR. P. DANIEL / DATE OF HEARING: 04.10.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.11.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA A.M. - CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) , DATED 29/12/2014, PASSED U/S. 143(3)R.W.S.144C (5)OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP),THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.THE AO HAS CHALLENGED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFAC TURING OF STUDDED JEWELLERY AND TRADING OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMOND, FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 11/10/2010, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 99.60 LAKHS.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS (IT.S). HE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER(TPO) TO DETERMINE THE ALP OF SUCH TRANSACTI ONS.VIDE HIS ORDER,DATED 08/01/2014,THE TPO MADE AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 2.48 CRORES IN RELATION TO THE IT.S. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO PASSED A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER.THE ASSESSEE FIL ED ITS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS.THE AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT,AS DIRECTED BY THE DRP AND DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3.6 0 CRORES 2.1. FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS. 1.91 CRORES IN ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP).DURING THE TP PROCEEDINGS,THE TPO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED LOAN IN FOREIGN CURRENCY TO ITS AE BASED IN MAURITIUS NAMEL Y S B &T HOLDINGS LTD.(SBT HL) AS PER 1054 & 1152/M/15-SB&T INTL. LTD. 2 THE LOAN-AGREEMENT, DATED 01/12/2004, THAT THE TERM S OF LOAN AGREEMENT WERE REVISED ON 01/04/2008, THAT AS PER THE REVISED TERMS NO INTERE ST WAS PAYABLE ON THE LOAN EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE, THAT THE LOAN WAS REPAYABLE ON DEMAND, THAT IT HAD NOT REPORTED THE LOANS ADVANCED AS IT IN THE FORM 3CEB. HE HELD THAT PROVI SION OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO A NON- RESIDENT AE WAS AGAINST THE ARMS LENGTH PRINCIPLE, THAT IN AN UNCONTROLLED SITUATION, AND INDEPENDENT PARTY WOULD NOT HAVE PLACED THOSE DEPOS ITS WITH ANY THIRD-PARTY WITHOUT CHARGING AND INTEREST, THAT LIBOR COULD NOT BE CONS IDERED IS COMPARABLE INTEREST RATE FOR BENCHMARKING THE TRANSACTION IS THE LOAN WAS PROVID ED IN INDIAN CURRENCY, THAT THE INTERNAL COST OF BORROWING OF THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT AT 12. 56%. HE ADOPTED THE SAID RATE AS AN INTERNAL COMPARABLE FOR BENCHMARKING THE IT. AN ADD ITIONAL RATE OF 3% TO COVER RISK WAS ALSO ADOPTED BY HIM. FINALLY,AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2.48 CR ORES WAS PROPOSED. AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER OF THE TPO,THE AO INCLUDED THE UPWARD ADJUSTM ENT OF RS.2,48,34,277/- IN HIS DRAFT ORDER. 2.2. BEFORE THE DRP,THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE TPO HAD ERRED IN COMPARING THE INTEREST RATE ON LOANS EVEN IN INDIAN CURRENCY IN INDIA WITH LOAN S GIVEN TO AN OVERSEAS ENTITY IN FOREIGN CURRENCY IN MAURITIUS, THAT INTEREST RATE VARIED FR OM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY DUE TO GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE IN PRICING AND COST, LOAN GIVEN IN INDIA COULD NOT BE COMPARED WITH A LOAN GIVEN IN MAURITIUS, THAT THE TPO WAS NOT RIGHT IN LAW TO BEN CHMARK THE LOAN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS OVERSEAS AE WITH THE ASSESSEE IS INTERNAL CO ST OF BORROWING, THAT THE LOAN EXTENDED TO THE AE WAS IN US DOLLARS, THAT USD LIBOR WOULD BE T HE MOST APPROPRIATE RATE FOR BENCHMARKING THE IT OF PROVISION OF LOAN, THAT THE TPO HAD WRONGLY MADE AN ADOPTED ADDITION OF 3% TO THE ALP RATE OF INTEREST. IT RELI ED UPON THE CASE OF COTTON NATURALS (I) PRIVATE LTD. (ITA/5855/DEL/2012). 2.3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TPO AND THE AO THE DRP HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES BORROWINGS FROM THE BANK HAD INCREASED FROM RS. 12.78 CRORES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR TWO RS. 2 3.56 CRORES AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THAT INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.4.01 CRORES WAS APPEARIN G IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT IT WAS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF LENDING , THAT THE LOAN HAD BEEN OUTSTANDING AS INTEREST-FREE LOAN FOR LAST TWO YEARS WITHOUT ANY P AYMENT OF INTEREST,THAT FOR THE TP PURPOSES IT HAD TO BE SEEN HOW AND WHAT AND INDEPENDENT ENTERPR ISE WOULD PRICE THE TRANSACTION IF IT WAS WITH AN UNRELATED PARTY, THAT AN INDEPENDENT PARTY WOULD CERTAINLY NOT ADVANCE INTEREST-FREE LOAN WHILE INCURRING INTEREST COST ON BORROWINGS, T HAT IF THE SAID PRINCIPLE WAS ACCEPTED IT 1054 & 1152/M/15-SB&T INTL. LTD. 3 WOULD RESULT IN INCURRING A LOSS BY THE DOMESTIC EN TITY, THAT IT WOULD BE A CLEAR CASE OF PROFIT SHIFTING AND EROSION TAX BASE, THAT TPO/AO WERE JUS TIFIED IN MAKING THE ADJUSTMENT. 2.4 .AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT THAT LIBOR PLUS SERVICE MA RGIN MUST BE CONSIDERED AS CUP IN CONTRAST TO LOCAL LENDING/BORROWING RATES,THAT THE DRP HELD THAT THE TESTED ENTITY WAS THE INDIAN COMPANY, THAT THE AE WAS BORROWING IN EFFECT IN RUPEES THOUGH IT NEEDED IT ABROAD, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BORROWED IN FOREIGN CURRE NCY OUTSIDE INDIA,THAT THE AE HAD BORROWED FROM INDIAN PARENT WHICH HAD RUPEE RESOURC ES,THAT THE REFERENCE TO DOMESTIC RATE WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE,THAT EACH YEAR WAS A DIFFERENT YEAR AND THERE WAS NO RATIONAL IN ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE RATE CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS MUST BE TREATED AS CUP, THAT WHAT WAS RELEVANT WAS THE PRICES PREVAILING IN CURRENT COMPA RABLE PERIOD,THAT THE RISK ESTIMATION AT THE RATE OF 3% WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, THAT THE TPO HAD MERE LY MENTIONED THAT MARKUP OF 3% WAS NECESSARY TO COVER VARIOUS RISK WITHOUT GIVING SUFF ICIENT DETAIL TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT. FINALLY,THE DRP DIRECTED TO ADOPT PLR OF STATE BANK OF INDIA PREVAILING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION TO WORK OUT THE ADJUSTMENT WITHOUT AN Y MARKUP. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ARGUED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR THE EARLIER TO AY.S AND SUBSEQUENT AY.,THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT LIBOR +2% WOULD BE THE FAIR RATE OF INTEREST F OR THE IT.S ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS AE.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SU PPORTED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD.WE FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADVANCED ANY INTEREST FREE LOANS TO THE A.E., WHICH IS ADMITTED BY THE TRANSFE R PRICING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE INTEREST FREE LOANS CONTINUED FROM THE PRECEDING AS SESSMENT YEAR. IT IS NOTICED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200910, THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE CONSIDERING IDENTICAL ISSUE RELATING TO RATE OF INTEREST APPLICABLE TO IN TEREST FREE LOAN ADVANCED TO A.E., HELD THAT LIBOR PLUS 2% IS THE APPROPRIATE ARM'S LENGTH INTEREST FOR BENCH MARKING THE TRANSACTIONS FOR PROVIDING INTEREST FRE E LOAN TO THE A.E. AGAIN, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809, THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DECIDI NG SIMILAR ISSUE FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200910, AND HELD THAT LIBOR PLUS 2 % IS THE APPROPRIATE RATE OF INTEREST FOR THE INTER EST FREE LOAN TRANSACTIONS WITH A.E. THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, APPLYING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, WE RESPECTFULLY F OLLOW THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE, AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, AND DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER / TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTEREST CHARGED ON INTER EST FREE LOAN TO A.E. AT LIBOR PLUS 2%. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER, WE DIRECT T HE AO TO FOLLOW THE ORDERS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS.FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE, IN PART. 1054 & 1152/M/15-SB&T INTL. LTD. 4 5. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 69.44 LAKHS,MADE U/S.14 A OF THE ACT.THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTM ENT OF RS. 25.73 CRORES AS ON 31/ 03/ 2010, THAT IT HAD NOT ATTRIBUTED ANY EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX EXEMPT INCOME. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS COULD NOT WE ARENT WITHOUT SYSTEMATIC MANAGEMENT, THAT THE TERM EXPENDITURE APPEARING IN SECTION 14A INCLUDED NOT ONLY DIRECT EXPENDITURE BUT ALSO ALL FORM OF INDIRECTION EXPEND ITURE.ACCORDINGLY HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.69,44,795/-. 5.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILE D OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP AND ARGUED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WERE NOT APPL ICABLE, THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT IT HAD MADE INVESTMENT OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND NOT OUT OF ANY INTEREST BEARING BORRO WED FUNDS, THAT THE AO HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE FOR AY . 2005-06 ON THAT ISSUE. 5.2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL, THE DRP H ELD THAT A FRESH INVESTMENT OF RS.1,00,25,000/-WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUIRI NG SHARES, THAT THE AO HAD ONLY COMPUTED EXPENDITURE APPORTION ABLE TO INVESTMENT W HICH GAVE RISE TO EXEMPT INCOME BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (RUL ES), THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS NO EXEMPT INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY THAT ALL EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS ONLY TOWARDS TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE CU RRENT YEAR. THE DRP REFERRED TO CASES OF BELLWETHER MICRO FINANCE FUNDS PRIVATE LTD. (108 DT R-TRIB-389) AND CHEMINVEST LTD. (121 ITD 318) AND UPHELD THE PROPOSED ADDITION. IT WAS A LSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FOR NOT FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEF ORE THE AO DESPITE CALLING FOR IT. 6. BEFORE US,THE AR ARGUED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APP EAL FOR THE AY. 2011 12, THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14 A COULD BE MA DE IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED EXEMPT INCOME,THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES,THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE AY.2011- 12.THE DR REFERRED TO THE CASE OF MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD.(347 ITR 272) AND RP MODI (115 ITR 59). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS.WE FIND THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2011-12 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 1054 & 1152/M/15-SB&T INTL. LTD. 5 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS IS EVIDENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDE R SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D, ON THE PLEA THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN ASSETS GIVING RISE TO EXEMPT INCOME WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE DRP. HOWEVER , CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TWO FOLD. FIRSTLY, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENTS ARE IN OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARY, HENCE, THE DIVIDEND EARNED FROM SUCH COMPANIES ARE NOT EXEMPT; THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME. AS FAR A S FIRST CONTENTION IS CONCERNED, IT IS OBSERVED, TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809 IN ITA NO.6929/MUM./2012, DATED 20 TH JANUARY 2016, AFTER CONSIDERING SIMILAR CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AND NOT TO DISALLOW ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER S ECTION 14A IF IT IS FOUND THAT INVESTMENT IS MADE I N FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY. AS FAR AS THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN CHEMINVEST LTD. V/S CIT, [2015] 61 TAXMANN .COM 118 (DEL.), WHILE REVERSING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF THE SAME ASSESS EE HELD THAT IF IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME, NO DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CAN BE MADE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED, WHILE COMING TO THE AFORESAID CON CLUSION, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT TOOK NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN RAJEND RA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA) AND OBSERVED THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN THEREIN WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLOW ABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 57(III), WHERE T HE EXPRESSION USED IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EA RNING SUCH INCOME, WHEREAS UNDER SECTION 14A, THE EXPRESSION USED IS IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOE S NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THUS, THE PRINCIPLE EMERGING FROM THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE IS, IF THE INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN FOREIGN SUBSIDIARY, DIVIDEND INCOME FROM WHICH ARE NOT EXEMPT AND SECONDLY IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, NO DISALL OWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CAN BE MADE. AS THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE AFORESAID ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE INCLINE D TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS MADE HEREIN ABOVE AND ONLY AFTER PROVI DING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . GROUND NO.4, IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7.1. WE OBSERVE THAT FACTS OF THE AY.2011-12 ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL.THEREFORE,RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE O RDER,WE DECIDE THE SECOND GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.IN OUR OPINION,CASES RELIED UPON BY THE DR HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE BEFORE US, AS THE FACTS OF BOTH THE CASES DIFFERENT. 7.2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO IS ABOUT DELETING 3 % RISK PREMIUM ADDED TO COST OF INTERNAL BORROWING WHILE ARRIVING AT ALP OF INTERES T RATE TO COMPUTE INTEREST ON INTEREST-FREE ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE. WHILE DECI DING THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE ISS UE UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN OUR OPINION,THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING 3% RISK PREMIUM TO T HE COST OF BORROWING, AS HELD BY THE DRP. WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAIN ST THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE AO IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. 16 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( / SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 16 . 11.2016. JV.SR.PS. 1054 & 1152/M/15-SB&T INTL. LTD. 6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.