STAR INDIA PVT.LTD., MUMBAI V. ASST.C.I.T.-RANGE 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1112/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3505 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 32; 37

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -KBENCH MUMBAI , . . , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C.N. PRASAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA/1112/MUM/2009, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S. STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. STAR HOUSE, OPP. DR. EMOSES ROAD MAHALAXMI,MUMBAI-400 011. PAN:AAACN 1335 Q VS. ACIT, RANGE-11(1) MUMBAI-400 020. ./ITA/1370 /MUM/2009, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ACIT, RANGE-11(1) M.K. MARG,MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S. STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. STAR HOUSE, MAHALAXMI,MUMBAI-400 011. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI N.K. CHAND-CIT ASSESSEE BY: S/SHRI PORUS KAKA & DIVESH CHAWLA / DATE OF HEARING: 04.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.05.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER,DTD.12/11/2008,OF CIT(A)-XXXI I,MUMBAI,THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAVE FILED CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED AY. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCING/ PROCURING TEL EVISION PROGRAMMES AND SUPPLYING THEM TO OVERSEAS MEDIA COMPANIES.IT ALSO ACTS AS AN AGENT F OR ADVERTISEMENT SALES FOR OVERSEAS MEDIA COMPANIES AND CARRIES ON CHANNEL SUBSCRIPTION BUSIN ESS.IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2004,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.42,79,81,70 0/-.THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28/12/2006, U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT,DETERMINING ITS INCOME AT RS.311.49 CRORES. ITA/1112/MUM/2009: 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, RAISED BY THE AO, IS ABOUT DEDUCTIBILITY OF LICENSE FEE.WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2003-04(ITA/6332 & 6385 /MUM/ 2009 DTD.20.05.2016 ),WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AO AT PARAGRAPH-7 OF TH E ORDER.FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 3. NEXT GROUND DEALS WITH DEDUCTIBILITY OF ADVERTISEME NT AND PUBLICITY EXPENSES.WE HAVE ADJUDICATED THE SAID ISSUE,IN THE APPEAL FOR THE EA RLIER AY.AS UNDER: 1112/09&1370/09-STAR 2 9 .SECOND GROUND DEALS WITH DEDUCTIBILITY OF ADVERTIS EMENT AND PUBLICITY EXPENSES. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE AO F OR THE AY.S 1997-98 TO 2000-2003, THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE APEX COURT DID NOT ENTER TAIN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRO -DUCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY. 2000-01 IN ITA NO.1249 AND 378/MUM/2004,DATED 16.4.2008. 69.THE NEXT ISSUE, COMMON TO BOTH THE APPEALS, REL ATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,78,87,244/- IN RESPECT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE. THE DISALL OWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, ON THE GROUND THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT (A), FOLLOWING HIS ORDERS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,33,97,222/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE SA ME. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 70. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT T HIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR'S 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE IN TH IS REGARD. SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OW N CASE WE HAVE REFRAINED OURSELVES FROM NARRATING THE NECESSARY FACTS AND DETAILS IN THIS REGARD. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEARS, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AN D CONSEQUENTLY, THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY HIM IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS WOULD DISPOSE OF GROUND NO.3 IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE. RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER SECOND GROUN D OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SECOND GROUND IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 4. ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF POINT OF ACCRUAL OF COM MISSION INCOME IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF GROUND NO.3.WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE EARLI ER AY.(SUPRA), WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO(PARGRAPH NO.10).FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUND NO.3 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 5. GROUND 4 PERTAINS TO NET COMMISSION AND NET MISCELL ANEOUS INCOME FROM THE PROFIT OF BUSINESS,WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHF OF THE ACT.WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL FOR THE EARLIER AY.(SUPRA),WE HAD HELD AS UNDER: 11. FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL DEALS WITH NET COMMISSION A ND NET MISCELLANEOUS INCOME FROM THE PROFIT OF BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80 HHF OF THE ACT.WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE AO IN THE APPE AL FILED FOR THE AY.2000-01 TO 2002-03. 49. THE NEXT ASPECT OF THE ISSUE RELATING TO DEDUC TION U/S 80HHF IS WHETHER 90% OF COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION (F) TO SECTION 80HHF. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD AT LENGTH BY THE TRIBUNAL, 'B' BENCH IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ON 5.2.2008 AND THEREFORE, THE A.O. MAY BE DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REQUEST AND CONSIDERING THE CONSISTENCY IN THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF CLT(A) IS SET ASIDE ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE A.D. IS DIRECTED TO DE CIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DISCUSSED ABOVE. THIS WOULD DISPOSE OF TH E GROUND NO.4 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. 1112/09&1370/09-STAR 3 WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER THE MATTER OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES(P.) LTD.,(343 ITR 89),THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS DEALT THE ISSUE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 8 0HHC OF THE ACT, NINETY PER CENT. OF ANY RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMISSION, INTEREST, RENT, CHARGES OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT OF A SIMILAR NATURE INCLUDED IN ANY SUCH PROFITS ARE TO BE DEDUC TED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION. THE EXPRESSION INCLUDED ANY SUCH PROFITS WOULD MEAN ONLY SUCH RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMISSION, INTEREST, RENT, CHARGES OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSI ON. THEREFORE, IF ANY QUANTUM OF THE RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMISSION, INTEREST, RENT, CH ARGES OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT OF A SIMILAR NATURE IS ALLOWED AS EXPENSES UNDER SECTIONS 30 TO 44D OF THE ACT AND IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GA INS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, NINETY PER CENT. OF SUCH QUANTUM OF RECEIPTS CANNOT BE REDUCED UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. IN OTHER WORDS, ONLY N INETY PER CENT. OF THE NET AMOUNT OF ANY RECEIPT OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (1) WHICH IS ACTU ALLY INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DE TERMINING PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC . EXPLANATION (BAA) HAS TO BE CONSTRUED ON ITS OWN LA NGUAGE AND AS PER THE PLAIN NATURAL MEANING OF THE WORDS USED IN IT, THE WORDS RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMISSION, INTEREST, RENT, CHARGES OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT OF A SIMILAR NATURE INCLUDED I N SUCH PROFITS WILL NOT ONLY REFER TO THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS BUT ALSO THE QUANTUM OF RECEIPTS INCLUD ED IN THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PART OF EXPLANATION (BAA). ACCORDINGLY, IF ANY QUANTUM OF A NY RECEIPT OF THE NATURE MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN T HE PROFITS OF BUSINESS OF AN ASSESSEE AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION, NINETY PER CENT. OF SUCH QUANTUM OF THE RECEIPT CANNOT BE DEDUCTED UNDER EXP LANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC..THAT NINETY PER CENT. OF NOT THE GROSS RENT OR GROSS INT EREST BUT ONLY THE NET INTEREST OR NET RENT, WHICH HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, WAS TO BE DED UCTED UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC FOR DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF THE BU SINESS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DECIDE FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. GROUND NO.4 STANDS DISMISSED. 6 .LAST GROUND OF APPEAL DEALS WITH DEPRECIATION OF C OMPUTER PERIPHERALS LIKE SERVERS, CABLE CONNECTION,KVM SWITCHES ETC.WE HAVE DISMISSED THE I DENTICAL GROUND OF APPEAL,RAISED BY THE AO,FOR THE EARLIER AY.FOLLOWING THE SAME,GROUND NO. 5 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. ITA/1370/MUM/2009: 7. FIRST GROUND IS ABOUT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LEASE HOLD IMPROVEMENT. 7.1. BEFORE US,REPRESENTATIVES BOTH THE SIDES STATED THA T IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO,WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS ,BY THE TRIBUNAL.WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL , WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR AY.2000-01 (ITA NO. 1 249/ MUM/04 & 378/MUM/04 DTD.16.4. 2008) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 1112/09&1370/09-STAR 4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT IF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE W HO IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING BUT SUCH BUILDING IS USE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD ONLY BE ENTITLED TO CAPITALIZE SUCH EXPENDITURE AND CONS EQUENTLY ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AS PER RULES IF : - 1) SUCH EXPENDITURE IS PER SE CAPITAL IN NATURE, 2) SUCH EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED ON A)CONSTRUCTION OF ANY STRUCTURE, B)DOING OF ANY WORK BY WAY OF RENOVATION OR EXTENSI ON OF OR IMPROVEMENT OF SUCH BUILDING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING,IT IS FURTHER HELD THA T IF THE EXPENDITURE UNCURED FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 32 THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ONLY BU T IF IT IS FOUND THAT EXPENDITURE PER SE WAS REVENUE IN NAT URE, THEN THE SAME SHALL BE ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 30/37 OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER,WE DIRECT THE AO ACCORDIN GLY.FIRST GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. 8. NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO ALLOWABILITY OF SOFTWARE EX PENSES. 8.1. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER FOR AY.2002- 03 (ITA NO.3585/M/2006 & 3846/ M/2006 DT.28/5/2008) HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR ISSUE AS FOLLOW: 17.GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,06, 06,456/- ON ACCOUNT OF SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. FACTS IN BRIEF BORNE OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES O F RS.2,13,27,333/- ON ACCOUNT OF EDP AND SOFTWARE EXPENSES.S THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING HIS EARLIER ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 RESTRICTED THE ALLOWANCE AT RS.2,06,06,456/- AFTER TREATING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF 25% OF THE SAME. HE, HOWEVER, ALLOW ED INTERNET CHARGES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A),FOLLOWING EARLIER ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR, HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE. 18.NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE, I.E., WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE IS OF REVENUE OR CAPITAL NATURE, IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CA SE OF M/S. AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES VS. DCIT (111ITDD 112(SB) . BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THA T THE ISSUE BE REFERRED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICAT E IT IN THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE AFORESAID CASE. 19.IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE REQUEST OF THE PARTIES WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGAR D AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECI AL BENCH IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES(SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER,WE ARE RESTORING THE MATT ER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. THIRD GROUND DEALS WITH NON REDUCTION OF COMMISSION INCOME FROM THE PROFIT OF BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHF OF THE ACT. 9.1 .BEFORE US,THE AR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE ST ANDS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER AY.I.E. AY.2 002-03(SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL,GROUND NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 1112/09&1370/09-STAR 5 10. NEXT GROUND IS ABOUT ALLOWABILITY OF ADVANCES WRITT EN OFF. 10.1. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE W AS DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2002-03, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS (ITA NO. 3585/M/2006 & 3846/M/ 2006 DT.28/5/ 2008),HELD AS UNDER: 53.WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CAS E IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND WE FIND THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THIS DEBT AS BAD DEBT BY WRITING IT OFF IN THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IBM WORLD TRADE CORPORATI ON VS. CIT. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE IT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED JUDGMENT. IF THE ADVANCE AMOUNT IS FOUND TO BE IRRECOVERABLE DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSEE IT MAY BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS. AS THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE IDENTICA L TO THE FACTS OF EARLIER YEAR,SO,WE ARE RESTORING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJ UDICATION .FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. 11. TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENTS ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL FOR THE EARLIER YEAR(SUPRA) WE HAVE REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE .F OLLOWING THE SAME FIFTH GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT ON 25 TH MAY, 2016. 25 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . / C.N. PRASAD ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 25 .05.2016. JV.SR.PS. ! '# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / !'#$ 2. RESPONDENT / %&#$ 1112/09&1370/09-STAR 6 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.