DELOITTE CONSULTING INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 157/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93204 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 14A; 10B

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM) . . , , ./ I.T .A. NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) DELOITTE CONSULTING INDIA PVT.LTD., FAIRMONT, LEVEL - 2, HIRANANDANI BUSINESS PARK, POWAI, MUMBAI - 400076 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AACCM6469 N / APPELLANT BY S/SHRI MADHUR AGRAWAL AND KETAN VED / RSPONDENT BY S/SHRI N K C HAND AND PREMANAND J / DATE OF HEARING : 10.6 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15. 7. 201 5 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.12.2011 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 5 , MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES ARE CONTESTED BEFORE US: - ( A ) COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. ( B ) DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND IS ALSO PROVI D IN G INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 2 CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 ( THE ACT) ON THE PROFIT GENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBIT ED EXPENSES REIMBURSED TO ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES (AE) RELATING TO O NSITE MANAGERS SALARY AND EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS . 4.83 CRORES. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SAID REIMBURSEMENT WAS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED WITH ITS AE AND THE SAME REQUIRED TRANSFER PRICING (T.P.) STUDY. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.4.83 CRORES , I.E., WHILE ARRIVING THE TOTAL INCOME THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTI ON . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD NOT CLAIMED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.4.83 CRORES AND HENCE NO T.P. ADJUSTMENT/STUDY IS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF THIS TRANSACTION. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ALSO DID NOT EXAMINE THIS CLAIM, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD I NFORMED HIM THAT IT HAS SUO - MOTU DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT MADE BY IT TO ITS AE IN RELATION TO REIMBURSEMENT OF ONSITE MANAGERS SALARY AND EXPENSES. 3. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISALLOWE D IDENTICAL CLAIM MADE IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING YEAR ALSO SUO MOTU AND THE AO , IN THAT YEAR, HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT SO DISALLOWED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE INCOME EXEMPT U/S 10A OF TH E ACT. ACCORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION TAKEN IN THAT YEAR, THE AO HELD THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SUO - MOT U DISALLOWANCE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . 4 . THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1.65 CRORES AN D CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE U /S 14A OF ITA NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 3 THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING T HE DIVIDEND INCOME . THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION S OF THE A SSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 5 . IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE LD. CIT ( A) UPHELD THE REJECTION OF CLAIM U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE SUO MOT U . THE LD. CIT ( A), HOWEVER, SET ASIDE THE MATTER RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO THE A O. AGGRIEVED, BY THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 . THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THA T THE ISSUE RELATING TO DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SU O - MOT U DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR , I.E. AY 2006 - 07, AND THE SAME DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE MUMBAI BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL REPORTED AS DELOITTE CONSULTING INDIA (P) LTD. V S . DY. CIT (2012) 150 TTJ 824 (MUM.) (TRIB.) . H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 0 7 , BUT IT WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. T HE L D. AR , HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT ANY AMOUNT DISALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS WOULD ALSO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT , AS THE AMOUNT SO DISALLOWED WOULD ALSO FORM PART OF B USINESS INCOME . IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD (2011) 330 ITR 175(BOM) . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL , IN AY 2006 - 07, DID NOT H AVE OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REFERRED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE SUO MOT U DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 4 7. HE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME STATED IN THE PROVISO TO SEC. 92C(4) OF THE ACT, SINCE IT WAS NOT AN ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE AO . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE PROVISO TO SEC. 92C(4) BARS ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT OF INCOME ENHANCED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE. IN THIS REGARD, T HE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF I GATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (2007) 112 TTJ BANG 1002 , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN AFTER ASCERTAINING ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) CANNOT BE CONS IDERED TO BE A CASE OF ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(4) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPT U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. AR FUR THER SUB MITTED THAT THE TPO HAS ALSO NOT SUGGESTED ANY ADJUSTMENT AND HENCE PROV IS O TO SECTION 92C(4) WILL NOT APPLY TO THE SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . 8 . THE LD. DR, ON THE CONTRARY, SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ITS OWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2006 - 07. THE LD D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN AY 2006 - 07 AND THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD (SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA S E , SINCE THE DISALLO WANCE MADE IN THAT CA S E UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(IV) OF THE ACT . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 5 DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(IV) OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE DUE TO THE LEGAL FICTION CREATED IN THE STATUTE , WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE ITS ELF HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE , WHICH OTHERWISE IS ALLOWABLE AT ALP AFTER CARRYING OUT TRANSFER PRICING STUDY. THUS, THE SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMI TT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE , IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY FURNISHED IN FORM NO.3CEB , HAS CLAIMED THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE WAS AT ALP . THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S UO MOTU DISALLOWED THE S AME IN THE COMPUTATION OF IN COME UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ALP SHALL BE DETERMINED AT NIL VALUE, IN WHICH CASE, THE DISALL OWANCE THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(4) OF THE ACT . 9. THE LD. D R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S AGILISYS IT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD V/S ITO IN ITA NO.2113/MUM/2011 (AY - 2003 - 04) DATED 29.4.2015, WHEREIN SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT. 10 . IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S AGILISYS IT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS TO THE INSTANT CASE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE WA S PERTAINING TO EXPORT SALES REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THE PROVISO TO 10B(3) SALE PROCESS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT INTO INDIA IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE WITHIN SIX MONTHS. SINCE THE SALES R ELATING TO THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT WOULD NOT RESULT IN RE CEIPT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE , THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 1 0 B OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER ITA NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 6 PRICING ADJ USTMENT SUO MOTU MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTE D THAT , IN THE INSTANT CASE , THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RELATE TO SALES AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF BRINGING THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN TO INDIA DOES NOT ARISE. 11. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, THE LD A.R REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE IN EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME AND HENCE NO EXPENDITURE NEEDS TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ONLY SET ASIDE THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 12 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISALLOWED IDENTICAL CLAIM MADE IN AY 2006 - 07 AND THE SAME WAS ALSO HELD TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON THE REASONING THAT THE INCOME PERTAINING TO SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT BEAR THE CHARACTER OF INCOME HAVING NEXUS WITH THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE ADJUSTMENT IS NOT DERIVED BY THE UNDERTAKING FROM THE EXPORT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 10A IN RESPECT OF THE SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, IT IS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REIMBURSEMENTS MADE BY IT WAS AT ALP AS EVIDENCED BY THE REPORT FILED IN FORM 3CEB AND IT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION BY DE BITING THE REIMBURSEMENTS AS AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HENCE THE SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY CONTRADICTS ITS STAND TAKEN BY IT IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS WELL AS IN THE REPORT FURNISHED IN FORM 3CEB . ITA NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 7 13. THOUGH THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S AGILISYS IT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD PERTAINED TO SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF SALE RECEIPTS , THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT ONLY ON THE REASONI NG THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THAT SECTION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE SUO - MOTU IN RESPECT OF SALE RECEIPTS . IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEES SALE PRICE WAS SEEN UNDER PRICED WHILE MAKING TRANSFER PRICING STUDY A ND ACCORDINGLY THE INCOME WAS ENHANCED. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT ON THE SAID ENHANCEMENT MADE THROUGH T.P STUDY, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE RELEVANT HERE: - 15. CO MING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUO MOTO MADE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. AT THIS POINT ASSUMING THAT THERE IS NO ENHANCEMENT BY THE TPO AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT THEN, EVERY TAX PAYER WILL FIRST UNDER PRICE ITS SALE WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AND THEREAFTER SUO MOTO ENHANCE THE SALE PRICE BY MAKING TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT AND CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT, STATING THAT UNDER PRICE SALES ORIGINALLY DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN INDIA IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE THEREBY KEEPING A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE SALE ABROAD. 16. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGISLATI VE INTENTION, WE CANNOT PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO STRETCH THE BENEVOLENT PROVISION TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT WHICH THE LEGISLATURE NEVER INTENDED TO. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDER PRICED ITS SERVICES TO AES AND THEREFORE MA DE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT SUO MOTO. THIS PECULIAR CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, IF ALLOWED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT, WILL GO AGAINST THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.4,09,54,804/ - SUO MOTO MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER FORM 3CEB. THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE ITA NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 8 RELEVANT P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT WITH LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND ARE THEREFORE DISTINGUISHED FROM PECULIAR FACTS AND MODUS OPERANDI OF THE CASE IN HAND IN THE INSTANT CASE , THE ASSESSEE HAS DETERMINED THE REIMBURSEMENTS AT ALP IN FORM NO. 3CEB, WHEREAS IN M/S AGILISYS I T SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD, THE ALP OF SALE RECEIPTS WAS DETERMINED AT HIGHER FIGURE THAN THAT REPORTED AND HENCE DUE ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE. IN RESPECT OF THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE DUE TO THE TP STUDY WAS HELD TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OF THE ACT BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. IN EFFECT, THE SALE PRICE ADJUSTMENT HAS NOT RESULTED IN RECEIPT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE. 14. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GENERATED ANY FOREIGN EXCHANGE OUT OF THE SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE M ADE BY IT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY SPENT MONEY ON REIMBURSEMENTS AND HENCE THE RE IS NO QUESTION OF GENERATING ANY INCOME OUT OF SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCOME, IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE (WHICH HAS ALREADY RESULTED IN OUT GO OF MONEY) WOULD GIVE RISE TO RECEIPT OF ANY MONEY, WHICH CAN BE CALLED AS INCOME GENERATED OUT OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, THE RATIO OF T HE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF AGILISYS IT SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD CAN BE APPLIED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. EVEN OTHERWISE IT IS NOT A CASE OF DISALLOWANCE THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE UNDER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS DUE TO LEGAL FICTION. WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN AY 2006 - 07, HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE BANGALORE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF I GATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (SUPRA). HENCE, FOR THE ADDITIONAL REASONS DISCUSSED SUPRA AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2006 - 07 ON IDENTICAL ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ITA NO. 157 / MUM/20 12 9 THE AO IN REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SUO - MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 5 . THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAD ONLY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION REND ERED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD (328 ITR 81) BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 15 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRO NOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 15TH JULY , 2015. 15TH JULY , 2015 SD SD ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 15TH JULY ,2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - C ONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI