ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI V. GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORAITON, MUMBAI

ITA 1740/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92784 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 03-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRITA SINGHDR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI , ! ..'(),*!,+ BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO. 15(3)(1), ROOM NO.106, MATRU MANDIR, 1 ST FLOOR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400007 / VS. M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION, NEELKANTH KINGDOM, NATHANI MILL COMPOUND, NEXT TO VIDHYAVIHAR STATION, VIDYAVIHAR, MUMBAI-400086 / REVENUE / ASSESSEE P.A. NO. AAFFG0913P ,- / REVENUE BY MS. AMRITA SINGH-DR ,- / ASSESSEE BY SHRI GYANESHWAR KATARAM / DATE OF HEARING 03/06/2015 / DATE OF ORDER: 05/06/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/12/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED PERTAIN TO DELETING THE ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 2 ADDITION OF RS.87,10,944/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAID EXPENSE S HAD BEEN CAPITALIZED TO THE COST OF HOUSING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH THEY WERE RELATED. 2. DURING HEARING OF THE APPEAL, AT THE OUTSET, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI GYANESHWAR KATAR AM, CLAIMED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DE CIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 10 TH OCTOBER, 2012 (ITA NO.6679/MUM/2010). THE ASSESSEE FURNISHE D THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER. THE LD. DR, MS. AMRITA TRIBUNAL SINGH, THOUGH DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R BUT DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL MATRIX THAT THE ISSU E IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PO RTION OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR READY RE FERENCE:- 3. THE AR FURTHER CONCEDED THAT GROUND NO. 1(B) IS NOT PRESSED. SINCE THE GROUND IS NOT PRESSED, GROUND NO. 1(B) IS DISMI SSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. WE ARE, THUS LEFT WITH THE SOLITARY GROUND, I.E. GROUND NO. 1(A), WHICH IS AGAINST THE CAPITALIZATION OF ADMINISTRATI VE EXPENSES OF RS. 10,13,025 TO WIP. ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 3 5. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CASE ARE, THE ASSESS EE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF TWO PARTNERS 1) M/S GAMMON HOUSI NG & ESTATE DEVELOPERS LTD AND 2) NEELKANTH MANSIONS PVT. LTD. IN THE PROFIT SHARING RATIO OF 34% AND 66% RESPECTIVELY. THE BUSI NESS CARRIED BY THE FIRM IS THAT OF DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY. THE AS SESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S VIDYA VIHAR CONTAINER LT D. A COMPANY, THE OWNERS OF THE LAND, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AT VIDYAVIHAR, MUMBAI. COPY OF APPROVAL OF PLAN APPROVED BY ASSTT. ENGINEER VIDE ITS NO. CE/6274/BPES/AM/01-11-04 DEVELOPMENT OF WOR K IN RESPECT OF LAND, SURROUNDINGS, SITE OFFICE, SAMPLE FLATS, ROAD AND ENTRANCE HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE WORK COMPLETED AS ON 31-03- 2005 IS REFLECTED IN THE WORK IN PROGRESS ACCOUNT. THE W ORK IN PROGRESS IS SHOWN AT RS 3,01,25,340/-. THE ADVANCE RECEIVED AGA INST SALE OF FLATS ARE SHOWN AT RS 6,15,22,115/-. ON VERIFICATIO N OF THE P&L ACCOUNT FILED WITH RETURN IT IS SEEN THAT DURING TH E YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSIT WITH HDFC BANK OF RS. 8,06,223/- AND AFTER DEDUCTING CONSTRUCTION & DEVEL OPMENT & OTHER EXPENSES OF RS. 10,13,023/- THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLAR ED LOSS OF RS. 2,06,810/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CAPITALIZED THE DIRECT EXPENSES AND THE INDIRECT EXPENSES OF RS. 10,13,023/- ARE DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT AND DEDUCTED FROM INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSIT AND DECLARED BUSINESS LOSS OF RS 2,06,800/-. THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE FIXED DEPOSIT OF UNUTILIZED FUNDS SHOULD BE ASSESSE D AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME AS DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE. VIDE LETTER NO. ITO15(3)(1)/142(1)/07-08 DT. 24-10-2007 A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY I T SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM THE OTHER SOURCES. IN RESPO NSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LETTER DATED 7-11-2007. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FACT THAT INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSITS OUGHT T O BE ASSESSED ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 4 UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS OR GAIN FROM BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION, THERE WOULD BE NO EFFECT ON THE RETURNED LOSS SINCE BY YO UR ASSESSING THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES, BUSINESS LOSS WOULD BE ASSESSABLE AT RS. 10,13,025/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WOULD BE ASSESSABLE AT RS . 8,06,223/- AND THEREFORE, ALSO THERE WOULD BE NET LOSS OF WHOL LY ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENSES IS EVIDENT FROM THE VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENSES LISTED IN THE SAID PROFIT AND LOSS. AS YOU ARE AWAR E AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY COMMENCED OUR BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AFTER COMMEN CEMENT OF OUR BUSINESS ARE WHOLLY ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE IS NO EFFECT ON THE RETURNED LOSS. 6. THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE REPLIES IN DE TAIL, CONCLUDED, REGARDING THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE IF THE INTEREST INCOME IS ASSESSED TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE BUS INESS LOSS WOULD BE RS. 10,13,025/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES WOULD BE RS. 8,06,225/- AND THEREFORE ALSO THE NET LOSS WOULD BE RS. 2,06,802/- AS RETURNED. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETA ILS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND OTHER DETAILS FILED AND OBTAINE D, IT IS SEEN THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS P ROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THEREFORE THE ENTIRE EXPENSES RELA TING, WHICH IS IDENTIFIABLE WITH THE PROJECT, HAS TO BE ACCUMULATED, ALLOWED IN THE YEAR WHEN THE INCOME FROM PROJECT IS COMPUTED.THE ASS ESSEE HAS CAPITALIZED ALL THE DIRECT EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE PROJECT AND REGARDING THE INDIRECT EXPENSES THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN CAPITALIZED AND BUT CLAIMED AS EXPENSES AND DEDUCTED FROM THE IN TEREST INCOME AND DECLARED BUSINESS LOSS AT RS. 2,06,800/-. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE INDIRECT EXPENSES CLAIMED AND DEDUCTED AS BUSINE SS EXPENSES FOR ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 5 THE YEAR IS NOT ALLOWED AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,13, 023/- HAS TO BE ACCUMULATED AND ALLOWED IN THE YEAR WHEN THE INCOME IS OFFERED. 7. THE AO, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED RS. 10,13,023. 8. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE, APPROACHED THE CIT(A), WHO SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE. 9. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE THE ITAT. 10. BEFORE US, THE AR WHILE GIVING THE BRIEF BACK G ROUND OF THE CASE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CAPITALIZED ALL D IRECT EXPENSES TO THE WIP AS PER THE AS 7 GUIDELINES. HE PRODUCED BEF ORE US THE COPY OF P&L ACCOUNT AND POINTED OUT THAT COMPLETE DETAILS O F EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT (SCH. E), WHEREIN THERE WAS A COMPLETE BREAK UP OF EXPENSES HAD BEEN GIVEN, SHOWING DIRECT EXPENSES TAKEN TO WIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, BEING COMMON EX PENSES, WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS. 10,13,023 (BEING THE IMPUGNED EXPEN SES). 11. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH A CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF BIFURCATED THE ENTIRE EXPENSES AND ALSO GAVE A COMPLETE HEADWISE DETAILS, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SAME AND CONTRARILY ALLOCATING THE SAME TOWARDS WIP. 12. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT IN A SIMILAR CASE IN CO ORDINATE BENCH AT CHENNAI IN ITAS NO.1512, 1513, 1514 TO 1518/MDS/201 0 IN THE CASE OF M/S SHRIRAM CHITS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD. AND OTHER ASSESSEES CASES, THE CHENNAI BENCH IN PARA 19 HAS HELD, ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 6 IN GROUNDS 3.1 TO 3.3 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE A CTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER EXPENSE S BEING INTEREST IN FINANCE CHARGES AND DEPRECIATION. IT WAS THE SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING A COM PLETED CONTRACT METHOD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ADMINIS TRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES, INTEREST AND FINANCE CHARGES AND DEPR ECIATION RELATING TO THE PROJECTS WHICH WERE UNDER PROGRESS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF WALL STREET CONSTRUC TION LTD., REPORTED IN 101 ITD 156, THE IDENTIFIABLE EXPENSES I N RELATION TO PROJECTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED WAS LIABLE TO B E DISALLOWED AND SUCH EXPENSES WERE ALLOWABLE ONLY WHEN THE PROJEC TS WERE COMPLETED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMP LETION METHOD. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF WALL STREET CONSTRUCTION LTD., REFERRED TO SUPRA. 13. THE AR ALSO CITED THE CASE OF CIT VS MANGAL TIR ATH ESTATES LTD., REPORTED IN 303 ITR 366, WHEREIN HONBLE MADRAS HIG H COURT HELD, THE FACTS PECULIAR TO THE FACTS OF AN ASSESSMENT W ITH REFERENCE TO THE MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE IGNORED. HENCE , THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THE RELEVANCY OF EXPENDITURE AND THE C HARACTER OF THE SAME, ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONFIRMED IN SO FAR AS LEGAL EXPENSES AND ADVERTISEMENT WERE CONCERNED. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO HAVE THE DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITU RE ON ADVERTISEMENT AND LEGAL EXPENSES IN FULL IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS INCURRED. ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 7 14. THE AR, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES ERRED IN ALLOCATING INDIRECT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,13 ,025 TO WIP. 15. THE DR POINTED OUT THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN JUST ONE PROJECT IN HAND AND THAT WAS TH E ONLY BUSINESS THAT WAS BEING CONDUCTED BY IT. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY CITED ELECTRICITY AND SECU RITY EXPENSES, CLAIMED UNDER INDIRECT EXPENSES TO BE PURELY INDIRE CT AND NOT ALLOCABLE TO THE DIRECT EXPENSES, AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS THE ASSESSEE W HO HAS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF EXPENSE AND IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT OF T HE ASSESSEE, WHERE THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY, ALL EXPENSES H AVE TO BE TREATED ALIKE. 16. THE DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) WAS CAT EGORICAL IN OBSERVING THAT EXCEPT FOR SECURITY AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, ALL EXPENSES ARE MINOR AND THUS THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN SUSTAI NING TO CAPITALIZE THE EXPENSES TO WIP. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS FROM EITHER SIDE AN D HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND T HE DETAILS PLACED BEFORE US ALONG WITH THE CASES CITED. THE ISSUE BEF ORE US IS WHETHER THE EXPENSES OF RS. 10,13,023 ARE ALLOWABLE AS NORMAL B USINESS EXPENSE, OR TO BE LOADED TO WIP, AS THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAV E DONE. 18. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE ACCOUNTS ARE BEING MAINTA INED ON MERCANTILE BASIS ON PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, AS P ER THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE ICAI. THE BASIC ARGUMENT OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES AND THE DR ARE THAT, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THEREFORE, THESE EXPENSES ALSO, HAVE TO B E TAKEN AS A PART OF WIP, AND HENCE, CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR. THIS ARGUMENT, AS SUCH, ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 8 WE CANNOT ACCEPT, BECAUSE EXPENSE HAS TO BE ALLOCAT ED AS PER ITS NATURE, I.E. WHETHER IT IS A ROUTINE BUSINESS EXPEN SE OR AN EXPENSE, WHICH HAS SOME SPECIFIC NATURE. WE FIND THAT AS PER SCHEDULE E, THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED A COMPREHENSIVE HEAD WISE DETAIL OF ALL THE EXPENSES, AND ALSO DISTINGUISHED THEM, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE I TSELF LOADED ALL THE DIRECT EXPENSES TO WIP AND SEPARATED THE EXPENSES, WHICH IT CONSIDERED TO BE NORMAL AND OF ROUTINE BUSINESS EXPENSE. WE AR E WELL SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION CITED BY THE AR, IN THE CASE OF SHR IRAM CHITS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN, THE COORDINATE BENCH HA D REFERRED TO THE CASE OF MANGAL TIRTH ESTATES (SUPRA) AND IN PARA 21 CONCLUDED, 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION AND OTHER EXPENSES, INTEREST & FINANCE CHARGES AND DEPRECIATIO N HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM THE P & L A/C OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THESE WERE CARRIED F ORWARD AS CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS. THE FACT THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAD BEEN TAKEN FROM THE P&L ACCOUNT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THESE AR E NOTHING BUT THE REGULAR BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND ARE NOT REL ATED TO ANY SPECIFIC PROJECTS. FURTHER A PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CLEARLY SHOWS THE BREAK -UP OF THE ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION, INTEREST AND FINANCIAL CHARGES WHICH ARE NOT IN RELATION TO ANY SPECIFIC PROJ ECT. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT RELATED TO ANY S PECIFIC CONTRACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETED CONTRACT METH OD. IT IS ONLY SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH IS RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC IDEN TIFIABLE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO THE PROJECT, THAT CAN BE DISA LLOWED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR A NY INTERFERENCE. ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 9 19. WE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS HOLD THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN LOADING AND CAPITALIZING T HE IMPUGNED AGGREGATE EXPENSES OF RS. 10,13,025 TO WIP. 20. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENSE OF RS. 10,13,025 AS CLAIMED AND RE COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 21. THE APPEAL IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 2.2. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND FOUND THAT WHILE COMING TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION THE BENCH CONSIDERED ANOTHER DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/ S SHRIRAM CHITS TAMILNADU PVT. LTD. FROM THE CHENNAI COORDINATE BENCH (ITA NOS.1512 TO 1518/MAD/2010) AL ONG WITH ANOTHER DECISION FROM HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COUR T IN CIT VS MANGAL TIRATH ESTATES LTD. (303 ITR 366) (MA D.) AND THEN DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ISSUE BEFORE THE BENCH WAS WHETHER THE EXPENSES OF RS.10,13,023/- WERE ALLOWABLE AS NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENSES OR TO BE LOADED TO WIP AS THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES HAVE DONE. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THE ACCOUNT ON MERCANTILE BASIS ON PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE HEAD WISE DETAILS OF ALL THE EXPENSES AND ASSESSEE LOADED ALL THE EXPENSES TO WIP AND SEP ARATED THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE CONSIDERED TO BE NORMAL AND ROUTINE BUSINESS EXPENSES. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDE NTICAL TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE D ECISION ITA NO.1740/MUM/2013 M/S GAMMON NEELKANTH REALITY CORPORATION 10 OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT TO IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITS ELF, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BECAUSE THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED T HE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE S IDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 03 ND JUNE 2015. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) &*! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 05/06/2015 F{X~{T? P.S / &/,0 123&241 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#$ ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. %$%$ & ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. %$%$ & / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. ) *+$' , %$$- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +. / / GUARD FILE. &/ / BY ORDER, #$) ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI