PARLE BISCUITS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. ACIT ,RG. 10(3)(2) [OLD RANGE - 9(2)], MUMBAI

ITA 1611/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1502 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1611 & 1565/MUM/2015 PARLE BISCUIT P LTD. 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1611/MUM/2015 FOR A Y : 2011-12) PARLE BISCUIT PVT. LTD NORTH LEVEL CROSSING VILE PARLE (E) MUMBAI-400057 PAN : AAACP0485D VS. ACIT, RANGE - 10(3) (2), ROOM NO. 212, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1565/MUM/2015 FOR A Y : 2011-12 ACIT, RANGE - 10(3) (2), ROOM NO. 212, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS. PARLE BISCUIT PVT. LTD NORTH LEVEL CROSSING VILE PARLE (E) MUMBAI-400057 PAN : AAACP0485D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. GIRISH DAVE (AR) REVENUE BY MS. MAHUA SARKAR (DR) DATE OF HEARING 19.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.12.2016 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1. THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS UNDER SECTION 253 OF INCOME TAX ACT(ACT) ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 21, MUMBAI, DATED 08.12.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR(AY) 2011-12. A S BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ARISING OUT OF SAME ORDER, THUS BOTH THE APPEAL WER E CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY COMMON ORDER TO AVOID THE CONFLICTIN G DECISION. 2. IN ITA NO. 1611/MUM/2015, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO. 1611 & 1565/MUM/2015 PARLE BISCUIT P LTD. 2 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IC 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 9(2), MUMBAI ('DC IT') IN REDUCING THE FOLLOWING OTHER INCOME WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80-LE ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS NOT A FIRST DEGREE OR THE PROX IMATE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT: SR.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (INR) 1. INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS, GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, SECURITY DEPOSITS AND LOAN TO EMPLOYEES 5,13,498 2. SCRAP SALES IN THE NATURE OF IRON AND STEEL 5,7 9,686 3. TRANSPORT CLAIM OF DEPOT TRANSPORT 33,68,136 TOTAL 44,61,736 DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 14A 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TIONAL DISALLOWANCE OF INR 1,43,60,136 UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 3 EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER. 4 THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER OR ADD TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. IN ITA NO. 1565/MUM/2015, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE SCRAP SALES AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80IC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME DOES NOT HAVE D IRECT NEXUS WITH THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE SCRAP SALES AS ELIGIBLE FOR D EDUCTION U/S.80IC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP SA LES IS NOT DERIVED FROM OR ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSE SSEE.' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF RS.1,25,82,977/ - RECEIVED ON WASTE GENERATED FROM MANUFACTURING PROCESS IS TO BE INCLU DED IN 'BUSINESS INCOME' INSTEAD OF 'INCOME FROM OTHERS SOURCES' FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC.' 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD DR FOR REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE LEARNED AR OF ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS CO VERED IN HIS FAVOUR AND THE ISSUE GROUND RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL IS COVERED AGAINST ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R AY 2008-09, 2009-10 & ITA NO. 1611 & 1565/MUM/2015 PARLE BISCUIT P LTD. 3 2010-11. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A CHART/ TABULATION OF GROUNDS DECIDED IN EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. DR NOT DISPUTED THE FACTU AL POSITION OF VARIOUS DECISIONS PLACED ON RECORD BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. FIRST W E SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1611/MUM/ 2015 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 5. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO REDUCING THE OTHER INCOME WH ILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 44,61,776/- WHICH CONSIST OF INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS, GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, S ECURITY DEPOSITS AND LOANS TO EMPLOYEES OF RS. 5,13,498/-. SCRAPE SALES IN THE NA TURE OF IRON & STEEL OF RS. 5,79,686/-. TRANSPORTATION CLAIM OF DEPOT TRANSPORT OF RS. 33,68,136/-. 6. WE HAVE SEEN THAT SIMILAR ISSUE ARISE FOR AY 2008-0 9 & 2009-10 AND AGAIN IN AY 2010-11. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 387/MUM/2015, WHILE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF EARLI ER YEARS (AY-2008-09 &2009-10) MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 5. WE HAVE SEEN THAT SIMILAR ISSUES AROSE FOR ASSE SSMENT 2008-09 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND THE SAME WITH CONSIDERE D BY TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.8199/M/2011, WHEREIN SIMILAR CLAIMS OF INTEREST INCOME ON BANK DEPOSITS AND TRANSPORT CLAIM WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSES SEE AND CLAIM RELATED WITH SCRAPE SALE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE HOLDI NG AS UNDER : 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. UNDOUBTEDLY THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE SOME ARRANGEMENT WITH ITS BANK WHICH THE AMOUNT EXCEEDIN G A CERTAIN LIMIT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE CONVERTED INTO FLEXIBLE DEPO SIT RECEIPTS. BUT NEVERTHELESS THE NATURE OF INCOME IS INTEREST ON BA NK DEPOSITS. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TINKER WITH THE FINDIN G OF LD CIT(A). 9. THE SECOND ITEM RELATES TO SCR AP SALES OF DRUM, THE BAGS ETC. THE DETAILS OF WHICH WERE PROVIDED TO THE AO AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED AT PAGE 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH A SCRAP SALE HAS NO DIRECT LINK WITH THE PROF IT AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING MAKING IT ELIGIBLE F OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT AND PROFITS FROM SUCH UNDE RTAKING HAS TO BE DISTINGUISHED AS TO WHETHER THEY BELONG TO THE CATE GORY OF FIRST-DEGREE PROFIT OR AUXILIARY PROFIT. THE AO CONCLUDED THA T IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SCRAP THAT HAS BEEN GENERATED IS THE FIRST-DEG REE APPROXIMATE PROFIT OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE IS TO MAKE ITEM OF CONFECTIONERY ETC, AND DOES NOT EARN INCOME BY S ALE OF SUCH A SCRAP ITA NO. 1611 & 1565/MUM/2015 PARLE BISCUIT P LTD. 4 AND ACCORDINGLY EXCLUDED THE ENTIRE SALE OF A SCRAP TO THE TUNE OF RS. 74,08,714/-FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT. 10. BEFORE THE LD CIT (A), THE AS SESSEE ONCE AGAIN FURNISHED THE DETAILS AND SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL SCRAP SALES AMO UNTING TO RS. 74,08,714/-, RS.27,14,604/- BELONGED TO THE WASTE O CCURRED DURING BISCUIT MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND THEREFORE IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT SUCH A SCRAP SALE HAS NO DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE MANUFACTU RING ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED TO THIS EXTEN T THAT WASTE OCCURRED DURING BISCUIT MANUFACTURING PROCESS ARE PART OF TH E MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND THEREFORE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUDING DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC. SO FAR AS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.46,94,110 /- IS CONCERNED THE LD CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE AO. 11. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAY 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) BOTH HAVE ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SALE OF A SC RAP SO FAR AS PART-B OF THE DETAILS IS CONCERNED. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DETAILS AS EXHIBITED AT PAGE 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK . WE FIND THAT THERE ARE FEW ITEMS WHICH ARE PART OF PLANT AND MACHINERY IS USED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THA T BEING SO, IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, THESE ITEMS ARE PART OF CAPITAL ASS ET AND ANY SALE OF SCRAP WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSET. TO THIS EXTENT WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONFIRM THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE TOTAL OF THESE ITEMS COMES TO RS. 11,36,173/- 13. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE EX CLUSION FROM THE ELIGIBILITY PROFIT UNDER SECTION 80 IC TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 1136173/-ONLY. THEREFORE ASSESSEE GETS ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION A T RS. 3557937/-UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT. 14. THE NEXT ITEM RELATES TO TRA NSPORT CLAIM OF DEPOT TRANSPORT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 15,34,970/-. IT APPEARS THAT THIS AMOUN T IS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT OF RS. 15,67,986/-. DET AILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED FROM PAGES 78 TO 89 OF THE PAPER BOO K. AS THE AO HAS EXCLUDED THE ENTIRE MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT FROM THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT, HE HAS NO T DISCUSSED THE TRANSPORT CLAIM SEPARATELY. 15. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSE SSEE RETREATED ITS SUBMISSION BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 16. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 78 TO 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED THAT THESE CLAIMS ARE MADE FROM THE TRANSPORTERS FOR DELAY IN TRANSPORTATION O F GOODS TO THE PARTIES. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, IF THE TRANSPORTERS FAILED TO TRANSPORT THE GOODS ON THE TIME, NOMINAL CHARGE WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE TRAN SPORT PAYMENT. THESE CHARGES BEING PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE THEREFORE THESE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1611 & 1565/MUM/2015 PARLE BISCUIT P LTD. 5 17. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENT REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES.. 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DETAILS AS EXHIBITED FROM PAGES 78 TO 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT THESE CLAIMS HAV E BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN SERVICES OF GOODS. HOWEVER, W E FIND THAT THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ANY RECOVERY FROM THE TRAN SPORTER FOR IMPROPER SERVICE WOULD NOT, IPSO FACTO, MAKE IT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DET AILS, THE CLAIM OF RS. 15,34,970/- HIS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY EXCLUDED THIS AMOUNT FROM THE ELIGIBIL ITY OF SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT. 18. TO SUM UP THE ENTIRE GRIEVAN CES OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED AS PER GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE GETS ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80 IC TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 355797/-. GROUND NO1 IS PARTLY AL LOWED. 6. THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COOR DINATE BENCH FOR AY 2008- 09 THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DECIDED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 7. THUS, CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS OF EARLIER YEARS I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPAL OF CONSISTENCY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSES WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 8. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R. W. RULE 8D OF THE ACT. WE HAVE SEEN THAT SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS 2008-09 & 2 009-10 AND FURTHER IN AY 2010-11. AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUN AL WHILE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF EARLIER YEAR IN ITA NO. 387/MUM/2015 FO R AY 2010-11 PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: 9.GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UND ER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT. WE HAVE SEEN THAT SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL CA ME UP CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND IN 2009-10. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 6661/M/2012 PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 7. THE THIRD GRIEVANCE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14B AMOUNTING TO RS 38,12,000/-. THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2008-09 QUA GROUND NO2. IN ITA NO.8 199/M/11 AND AT PARA 24 THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 100,000/- WOULD MEET THE END OF JUSTICE CONSIDERING THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1611 & 1565/MUM/2015 PARLE BISCUIT P LTD. 6 TOTALITY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH, A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000 /- WOULD MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. WE, ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO RE STRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS,100,000/-. GROUND NO.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10.THUS WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF COOR DINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 6661/M/2012 DATED 20.05.2015, F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A IS REST RICTED TO RS. 100,000/-. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 9. THUS, CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS CASE AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPAL OF CONSISTENCY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSES WITH SIMILA R DIRECTIONS. ITA NO. 1565/MUM/2015 (REVENUES APPEAL) 10. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ONLY ONE GROUND OF APPEAL WH ICH RELATES TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC. WE HAVE SEEN THAT SIMILAR GROUN DS OF APPEAL CAME UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OW N THIS FOR AY 2008-09 AND 2009-10 & 2010-11. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRI BUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2010-11 WHILE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF EARLIER ORDERS FOR AY 200 8-09 & 2009-10, MADE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 12.THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ONLY ONE GROUND OF APPEA L WHICH RELATES TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC. WE HAVE SEEN THAT SIM ILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL CAME UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN AS SESSEES OWN THIS FOR AY 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 7962/M/2012 FOR AY 2008-09 MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER . 27. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLE NGED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) BY RAISING TO SUBSTANTIVE GROUND S OF APPEAL. GROUND NUMBER ONE RELATES TO THE PART RELIEF GIVEN BY LD CIT(APPEALS) FROM THE INCOME RECEIVED ON SCRAP GENE RATED FROM WASTAGE. 28. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US IN GR OUND NO.1, ITEM NO 2 AND IN PARAS 9 TO 12 IN ITA NO. 8199/M/2011 AND ASSESSEES APPEAL. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY DECIDED PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF T HE REVENUE. (AS QUOTED IN AY 2009-10, ITA NO. 8199/MUM/ 2011 ABOVE ) 13.WE HAVE SEEN THAT WHEN THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAI SED BY REVENUE IN AY 2009-10 IN ITA N O. 6661/M/2012 THE TRIBUNAL HAS FO LLOWED ITS ORDER FOR EARLIER YEAR. THUS WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE OR DER OF COORDINATE BENCH HOLD THAT REVENUE IS ENTITLED FOR THE LIMITED RELIE F AS PER ORDER IN REVENUES APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 AND 2009-10. WE ORDER ACCORDI NGLY. ITA NO. 1611 & 1565/MUM/2015 PARLE BISCUIT P LTD. 7 11. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( P.K. BANSAL ) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 21/12/2016 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/