PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL SERVICES, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 15(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1590/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87881 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR BORA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUPENDR SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Accommodation entries
• Section: 133A; 133(6); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 1590/M/2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 2010 ) ./I.T.A. NO. 1345/M/2011 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 2008 ) M/S. PARAMOUNT FINANCIAL SERVICES, B/402, POLARIS, OFF MAROL MAROSHI ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 050. / VS. ADDL. CIT 15(1), MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI 400 007. ./ PAN : AAGFP3880M ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHUPENDR SHAH / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BORA, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 13.1.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .1.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 2010. IN THESE APPEALS, ASSESSEE RAISED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND THE SAME RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUB - BROKERAGE PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AMOUNTS DISALLOWED ARE RS. 1,85,95,007/ - AND RS. 1,78,52,082/ - FOR THE AYS 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY. OTHERWISE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. FURTHER, S PECIFIC TO THE AY 2009 - 10, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 2,08,681/ - IN VIEW OF THE IRRECONCILIATION OF FIGURES QUA AIR INFORMATION. 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LIAISON AN D EARNS FEE FOR CORPORATE FINANCIAL SERVICES. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 IS A SPEAKING ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE SAID AY ARE CONSIDERED THERE IN THIS ORDER. FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS SESSEE DEBITED SUB - BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS. 2 1,78,52,082/ - AGAINST THE TOTAL COMMISSION AND SERVICES OF RS.3,69,62,082/ - . ASSESSEE INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE SUB - BROKERS AND THEIR ASSOCIATES FOR BRINGING THE CUSTO MERS , WHO REQUIRED THE LIAISONING SERVICES OF THE ASSESSEE . ASSESSEE IS EXPERT IN ARRANGING LOANS AND ADVANCES TO THE CORPORATE BODIES FOR COMMISSION . DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE PAID SUB - BROKERAGE TO 57 PARTIES. DOUBTING THE BONA FIDES OF THE PAYMENTS OF BROKERAGE, ASSESSING OFFICER ENQUIRED INTO THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS. IN THE PROCESS, ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 131 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID SUB - BROKERAGE AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 136 OF THE ACT. IN TOTO, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS SELECTIVELY IN RESPECT OF THE 37 SUB - BROKERS , OUT OF THEM , ONLY 7 ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO . OTHERWISE , THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AFFIDAVITS IN RESPECT OF THE SUB - BROKERS. ALL THE AFFIDAVITS WERE FOUND IDENTICALLY MADE. ON FINDING DEFECTS AND INADEQUACIES IN THE SAID AFFIDAVITS, THEY WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED THE DETAILS OF THE EX ACT SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID SUB - BROKERS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT EVIDENCES THE EXACT NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM. OUT OF THE TOTAL SUB - BROKERAGE PAID LARGER AMOUNT OF RS. 1.04 CRS WAS PAID TO (I) INCRE DIBLE CAPITAL LTD; (II) KARTIK INDUCTION LTD AND (III) SEWA CASTING PVT LTD. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE SUB - BROKERS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AFTER MAKING TDS AS PER THE RULES AND THE SAID INCOME WAS SUBJECT TO T AX IN THEIR HANDS FOR TAX PURPOSES. ASSESSEE FURNISHED LOT OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A) BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED FAVOURABLY AND REJECTED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF RENDERING OF THE SERVICES BY THE SUB - BROKERS. THE DETAILS OF THE DEFECTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER WITH INCONSISTENCIES NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ENLISTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CONTENTS OF PARAS 8 TO 61 ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMED UP IN HIS FINDING IN PARA 62 AND 63 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 62. TO SUM UP, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SUB BROKERAG E PAYMENT WORTH RS. 1,78,52,082/ - MADE TO VARIOUS SUB BROKERS ON THE PRETEXT THAT THEY HAD INTRODUCED THE CLIENTS / VARIOUS PARTIES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING LOANS / ICDS / BILL DISCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF 3 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENTS OF SO CALLED SUB BROKERS WERE TAKEN TO VERIFY THE BONA FIDE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO THE PARTIES / CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, ON ACCOUNT OF WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID SUB BROKERAGE TO THE VARIOUS SUB BROKERS. IN THE REPLIES RECEIVED FROM SUCH PARTIES THEY HAVE DENIED HAVING ANY NEXUS WITH THE SAID PERSONS / SUB BROKERS. IN FACT MOST OF THEM HAVE REPLIED THAT THEY HAVE CONDUCTED THE DEALS DIRECTLY WITH M/S. PARAMOUNT FINAN CIAL SERVICES LTD AND NOT THROUGH ANY SUB BROKER. 6.3. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL DETAILS OF THE CASE I HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF SUB BROKERAGE WORTH RS. 1,78,52,082/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS BOGUS AND N OT FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS BEING DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE CIT (A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER OBTAINING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH FORM PART OF PARA 3.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDINGS. IN THE PROCESS, CIT (A) REFERRED TO THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 WHICH ARE EXTRACTED IN PARA 3.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. EVENTUALLY, THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE CIT (A) IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONFIRMING OF THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.1,78,52,082/ - AND OTHER ADDITION OF RS. 2,08,681/ - ARE GIVEN IN PARA 3.4 AND 4 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE US FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) FOR THE AY 2009 - 10 ARE EQUALLY RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 WHERE THE ADDITION IS RS. 1,85,95,007/ - . THE S AID PARA 3.4 AND 4 ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 3.4. THOUGH EVERY YEAR IS A DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, BUT STILL IF THE FACTS ARE QUITE IDENTICAL, THEN LOGICAL FINDINGS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES ON SIMILAR ISSUES IN EARLIER YEARS NEEDS TO HE CONSIDERED FOR CONSIS TENCY. COMING TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD SUB BROKERAGE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE T FOLLOW THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW PRONOUNCED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, TIME AND AGAIN, THT IT IS THE PRIMARY RESPONSI BILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. ANY EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF SUB BROKERAGE CAN ONLY BE ALLOWED IF IT IS PROVED BY RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE IN LIEU OF APPROPRIATE SERVICES PROVIDE BY THE SUB BROKERS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, EXCEPT SAYING THAT ALL THE SUB BROKERS INTRODUCED THOSE CLIENTS TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO WERE IN NEED OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ANY CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE ALLEGED SUB BROKERS AND THE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CAN SHOW THAT THESE SUB BROKERS WERE KNOWING THE CLIENTS ON REGULAR BASIS AND THEY WERE WELL AWARE OF THEIR IMMEDIATE LOAN REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, EVE N DURING THE EXTENSIVE INQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THESE SUB BROKERS NONE OF THE SUB BROKERS COULD PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL SERVICES RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR COULD THEY THROW ANY LIGHT ON HOW THEY CAME TO KNOW AB OUT THE FUND REQUIREMENTS OF VARIOUS CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIRDLY, THE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING ANY INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN THEM AND THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM ANY CL IENT IN THIS REGARD. ALL THESE FACTS 4 INDEPENDENTLY AND CUMULATIVELY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ARRANGING LOANS / ICDS TO VARIOUS REPUTED CONCERNS, HAS ACTUALLY PROVIDED THE LOAN SERVICES DIRECTLY TO ALL THESE CLIENTS AND THE PAY MENTS SHOWN TO THE SUB BROKERS DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN LIEU OF ANY ACTUAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT ACCEPT FILING THE CONFIRMATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS OF IDENTICAL MATERIAL IN A STAGE MANAGED WAY, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE SATISFACTORY / RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF ANY ACTUAL SERVICE RENDERED BY THE SUB BROKERS. THEREFORE, SUCH PAYMENTS DOES NOT FULFILL THE BASIC CRITERIA OF ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH EXPENDITURE U/S 37 FOR THE IT ACT. THER EFORE, THE SAME HAS CORRECTLY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 4. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,08,681/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE RECEIPTS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE RECEIPTS AS PER AIR INFORMATION, IT IS N OTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY SUBMISSION OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RECEIPTS T6O THIS EXTENT WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS IS JUSTIFIED, HENCE THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10. 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NARRATED THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE AND EXPLAINED THE MODUS OPERANDI IN EARNING OF THE FEE FOR LIAISONING SERVICES. HE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ARRANGING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES TO THE NEEDY CUSTOMERS FOR COMMISSION AND SERVICE CHARGES. AS A PART OF THIS ARRANGEMENT OF LIAISONING SERVICES, ASSESSEE NEEDS TO ROPE IN NUMBER OF PEOPLE FOR SERVICE AND PAY SUB BROKERAGE TO VARIOUS PERSONS / SUB BROKERS WHO BRING THE CUSTOME RS AND PLAY ROLE IN CLINCHING THE FINANCING DEALS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS THAT DIRECT EVIDENCE ON THE SERVICE RENDERED BY EACH OF SUCH PERSONS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIE NCY RELATED PRINCIPLES. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY WAY OF CHEQUES TO THE SUB BROKERS WHO ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE PAYMENTS INVOLVE TDS DEDUCTIONS WHEREVER APPLICABLE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIR ED TO BE ALLOWED IN FULL. WITHOUT PREJUDICE HE MENTIONED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED FULLY THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE AYS 2007 - 08 AND 2009 - 10, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE IN THE AY 2008 - 2009. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR THE AY 2010 - 2011, LD COUNSEL DEMONSTRATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A PART DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING THE AD - HOC DISALLOWANCE @ 20% OF THE SUB BROKERAGE CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE ALSO MENTIONED WITHOUT PREJUDICE THAT SIMILAR AD - HOC PERCEN TAGE MAY BE ADOPTED IN 5 THIS YEAR ALSO SINCE THE PAYMENT OF SUB BROKERAGE IS ESSENTIAL PART IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. HE ALSO UNDERLINED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THIS TRUTH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. THEREFORE, CONSIDERIN G THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY, SOME AD - HOC PERCENTAGE OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SUB BROKERAGE MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE BENCH. OTHERWISE, LD AR SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE LOT OF DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES AND THE TRIBUNAL, THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE MINUTE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE ADVERSE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY SOME OF THE SUB BROKERS AND THE FAILURES OF THE SUB BROKERS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT SOME OF THE SUB BROKERS ARE PARTIES TO THE SCHEMING OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WHICH WAS UNEARTHED BY THE DEPARTMENT VIDE SURVEY ACTIONS U/S 133A OF THE ACT. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE BASIC FACTS RELATING TO THE EXTENT OF SUB BROKERAGE PAID, NUMBER OF SUB BROKERS , PAYMENTS BY W AY OF CHEQUE AFTER MAKING TDS ETC. MAJOR DISPUTE IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SUB BROKERS AND THEIR NEXUS TO THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH YIELDED INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 131 AS WELL AS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SUB BROKERS. THERE IS NON - COMPLIANCE TO THESE NOTICES TO SOME EXTENT BY SOME SUB BROKERS. ASSESSEE ATTEMPTED TO FILL THE GAP BY FURNISHING THE AFFIDAVITS WHICH WERE DEEPLY A NALYZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE REJECTING THE SAME AS SELF SERVING ONUS . ON PERUSAL OF THE BASIC FACTS PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULLY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS ESPECIALLY QUA THE RENDERING OF SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMERS AND THE NEXUS OF THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN MATTERS OF PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY WHEN THE FACTS OTHERWISE ARE APPLICABLE. WE FIND THE SUB BROKERS ARE MORE OR LESS ARE COMMON AMONG THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E ., FROM THE AY 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10. IN FACT, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COUNSEL THAT SIMILAR BROKERAGE WAS PAID IN THE AY 2010 - 11. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE SAID AY 2010 - 11, WE FIND 6 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWING 20% OF THE SUB BROKERAGE CLAIMED IN THE BOOKS ON AD - HOC BASIS . THIS ASSESSMENT HAS BECOME FINAL BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE VOLUME OF THE BUSINESS IN THIS YEAR IS NO WAY COMPARABLE. LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE SIMILAR RATE OF 20% CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THIS YEAR CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENCES IN VOLUME IN TURNOVER. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE RESTRICTED TO 5 % TO 10% FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. ADOPTING 2 0% WOULD BE IN VERY HIGH SIDE. THUS, WE HAVE HELD THAT THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, I N PRINCIPLE, IT CALLS FOR DISALLOWANCE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE VOLUME AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS, ASSESSING OFFICERS DECISION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE ENTIRE PAYOUT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THEREFORE, MAKING DISALLOWANCE A PART OF THE TOTAL CLAIM SHOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THEN, THE QUESTION RELATES TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWANCE. ASSESSEE SUGGESTS 5% TO 10% OF THE CLAIM OF SUB BROKERAGE PAID. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE REVENUE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE LATER AY TO 20%. THU S, CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF COMMERCIAL EXIGENCIES AND VOLUME OF TURNOVER OF BUSINESS, WE PROCEED TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE SUB BROKERAGE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O F B O T H T H E A Y S . ACCORDINGLY, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 8 IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 R D JANUARY, 2015. S D / - S D / - (VIJAY PAL RAO) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 2 3 .1.2015 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 7 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI