M/S. FAMY CARE LTD, MUMBAI V. THE ITO 2(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1799/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 179919914 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI R.K.PANDA (A .M) ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) FAMY CARE LIMITED, BRADY HOUSE, 3 RD FLOOR, 12/14, VEER NARIMAN ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001. PAN: AAACF 1663R (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(9)(3), MUMBAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI YOGESH THAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAVAN VED DATE OF HEARING : 23/01/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 /01/2012 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 10/1/2008 OF CIT(A)-2, MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-02. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. RE-OPENING BAD IN LAW: (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147. (B) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE RE-OPENING BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING: (A)THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DEDUCTING DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS OF THE GOA UNIT AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB. (B) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DEPRECIATION NOT BE DE DUCTED FOR COMPUTING GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND FOR COMPUTING DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB. ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFAC TURING OF COPPER T , OCP AND TRADES IN PLASTIC GRANULES AND DIAMONDS. FOR A.Y 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/10/2001. AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT (THE ACT) ON 30/12/2002. THEREAFTER A NOTICE UNDER SECTION148 O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 28/3/2006. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR ISSU ING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.801A IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF THE GOA UNIT. HOWEVER THE ELIGIBLE DEPRECIATION ON THIS PROFIT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH RESULTED IN EXCESS DEDUCTION U/S. 801A CLAIMED THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO DETAILED WORKING OF DEPRECIATION ALLOW ABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DEPRECIATIO N SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UND ER SEC.801A OF THE I.T.ACT. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE ISSUE OF AL LOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA OF THE ACT ON PROFITS OF THE GOA UNIT WIT HOUT PROVIDING DEPRECIATION AS A DEDUCTION WHILE ARRIVING AT SUCH PROFITS, THE AO HELD AS FOLLOWS: 7. NOW COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CAST, IT IS SE EN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.801A AMOUNTING TO RS.3,59 ,17,105/- IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF GOA UNITS. ON PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNTS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIA TION AMOUNTING TO RS.18,13,758/- ON THE PROFITS OF ITS GOA UNITS. HOW EVER, WHILE CALCULATING THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS ASSESSEE HAS NO T CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION WHICH RESULTED AN INCREASE IN PROFITS. THUS IF THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF B USINESS, THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR DEDUCTION U/S.801A WOULD HAVE BEEN REDU CED TO THAT EXTENT. 8. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.801A HAS BEEN ALLOWED AT RS.3,59,17,105/- AS CL AIMED BY THE ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) 3 ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. INDIAN BANK CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT EXCLUDE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE WHILE COMPUTING PROF ITS DERIVED FROM NEWLY ESTABLISHED UNITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. CHAPTER VI-A OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESS EE HAS,BEEN GRANTED DEPRECIATION AT RS.18,13,758/- ON THE PROFITS OF IT S GOA UNITS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S.801A IS RE -CALCULATED. 4. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE ORDER OF THE AO. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE FACT THAT DEPR ECIATION HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT PROFITS ON WHICH D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED ON PROFITS ARRIVED AT B Y THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CLAIMING DEPRECIATION WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT AO WHEN HE COMPLETED THE PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT HE WAS FULLY CONSCIOUS OF THIS FA CT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL BASED ON WHICH THE A O HAS RESORTED TO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THEREFORE, THE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER HELD THAT PRODUCTION BEFORE THE AO OF ACCOUNTS BOOKS AND OTHE R EVIDENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEE N DISCOVERED BY THE AO WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN T HE MEANING OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WE OBSERVED THAT THE AFORE SAID REASON WHICH IS BASED ON EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS IS WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND, THER EFORE, THE PROVISO OF SECTION 147 WILL NOT APPLY. THE CIT(A), THEREAFTER HELD THAT IF THERE WAS ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) 4 REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T INCOME OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE VALID. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. AS FAR AS CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF INITIATIO N OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y 2001-02 GIVEN IN THE COMPUTATI ON OF TOTAL INCOME IN NOTE NO.1 WHICH SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE RESERVED ITS RIGH T TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION OF GOA UNIT IN CASE TAXABLE PROFITS ARRIVES IN ASSES SMENT. IT IS THUS CLEAR FROM THIS NOTE THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E UNDER SECTION 80IB FOR GOA UNIT WAS ON PROFITS ARRIVED AT WITHOUT CLAIMING DEPRECIATION. THIS FACT IS FURTHER CLEAR FROM THE STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80 IB OF GOA UNIT FILED ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME, WHEREIN DEPR ECIATION CLAIMED UNDER INCOME TAX ACT IS SHOWN AS ZERO AND THE DEPRECIATIO N CHARGED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS RS. 25,54,958/- FU RTHER THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN COLUMN 14 SHOWS AS FOLLOWS: 14. PARTICULARS OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE AS PER T HE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSET OR BLOCK OF ASSET S, AS THE CASE MAY BE IN THE FOLLOWING : NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON THE ASSETS SITU ATED AT GOA UNIT. DPRECIATION FOR THE DAMAN AND THE SARIGAM UNITS IN AGGREGATING TO RS. 73,50,505/- PRESCRIBED FORMAT HAS BEEN GIVEN I N ANNXURE-1. ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) 5 FURTHER THE AO PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND IN SUCH ORDER THE AO DEALT WITH THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB IN RESPECT OF GOA UNIT AS FOLLOWS: III ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB IN RESPECT OF GOA UNIT SITUATED AT L-20, VERNA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SULEETEE GOA 403 722. GOA UNIT STARTED PRODUCTION FROM A.Y 1998-99. GOA UNIT MANUFACTURE INTRAUTERINE DEVICE I.E. COPPER T. DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB IS CLAIMED AT RS. 3,59, 17,105/- AND IN RESPECT OF DAMAN UNIT IS NIL AS THERE IS NO PROFIT FROM DAMAN UNIT. FROM PROFIT AND OF GOA UNI T IT SEEN THAT DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED ON OTHER INCOME OF RS. 5 771/- ALSO. HOWEVER, DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY ON PROFIT AND GAIN DERIVED FROM ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY ASSESSEE CO MPANY AND IS APPLICABLE TO INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. SINCE, OTHER INCOME IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS PROFIT AND IT IS TAXED FROM OTHE R SOURCES, SAME IS EXCLUDED FROM TOTAL INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOW ABLE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. AFTER EXCLUDING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES PR OFIT OF BUSINESS WORKS OUT TO RS. 3,59,11,334/- AND DEDUCTION ADMISS IBLE WORKS TO RS. 3,59,11,334/-. 7. BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHE N THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NO NEW MATERIAL HAD COME INTO POSSES SION OF THE AO BASED ON WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THERE WAS EXCESS DED UCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80 IA OF THE ACT BECAUSE OF DEPRECIATION NO T HAVING BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS PURE LY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE SET OF FACTS. IN THIS REGARD LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO INITIAT E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINIO N. IN THIS REGARD OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) 6 KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., 320 ITR 561(SC). THE LD. D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KEL VINATOR OF INDIA LTD., 256 ITR PG.1(FB) WAS DEALING WITH A CASE WHERE AN ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) HAD BEEN COMPLETED. LATER ON THE AO NOTICED THAT CERTAIN EXPENDITURE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED AND HE, T HEREFORE, INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME WAS CHALLENGE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE HONBLE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE INITIATED MERELY ON CHANGE O F OPINION. THE COURT HELD THAT WHEN AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS PAS SED IT HAD TO BE PRESUMED THAT IT HAS BEEN PASSED AFTER DUE APPLICAT ION OF MIND. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE AO SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO INITIAT E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINIO N. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT IF AO IS PERMITTED TO DO SO THEN THAT WOU LD AMOUNT TO GIVING POWER OF REVIEW TO THE AO WHICH IS NOT CONTEMPLATED IN LA W. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL CO MING INTO POSSESSION OF THE AO AND THAT THE AO SHOULD FORM REASON TO BELIEV E ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION WHICH HE HAS RECEIVED AFTER THE COMPLET ION OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS SINCE BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALVINATOR OF INDIA LTD., 320 ITR 561(S C) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS FOLLOWS: PRIOR TO DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, RE OPENING COULD BE DONE UNDER TWO CONDITIONS AND FULFILLMENT OF THE SA ID CONDITIONS ALONE CONFERRED JURISDICTION ON THE AO TO MAKE A BACK ASS ESSMENT, BUT IN S. 147 (W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1989), THEY ARE GIVEN A GO B Y AND ONLY ONE CONDITION HAS REMAINED, VIZ., THAT WHERE THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) 7 THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, CONFERS JURISDI CTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, POST 1ST APRIL, 1989, PO WER TO REOPEN IS MUCH WIDER. HOWEVER, ONE NEEDS TO GIVE A SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE FAILING WHICH, S. 147 WOULD GIVE ARBITRARY POWERS TO THE AO TO REOPEN ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH CANNOT BE PER SE REASON TO REOPE N. THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POWER TO REVIEW AND POWER TO REA SSESS SHOULD ALSO TO BE KEPT IN MIND. THE AO HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW; HE HAS THE POWER TO REASSESS. BUT REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE BASED ON FU LFILLMENT OF CERTAIN PRE-CONDITION AND IF THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPIN ION IS REMOVED, AS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT, THEN, IN THE GARB OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, REVIEW WOULD TAKE PLACE. ONE MUST T REAT THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION AS AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK ABUSE OF POWER BY THE AC. HENCE, AFTER 1ST APRIL, 1989, AO HAS POWER TO REOPE N, PROVIDED THERE IS TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO TH E CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. REASONS MUST HAVE A LIVE LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BEL IEF. UNDER THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987, PARLIAMENT NOT ONLY DELETED THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE BUT ALSO INSERTED THE WOR D OPINION IN S. 147. HOWEVER, ON RECEIPT OF RE-PRESENTATIONS FROM T HE COMPANIES AGAINST OMISSION OF THE WORDS REASON TO BELIEVE, PARLIAMENT RE- INTRODUCED THE SAID EXPRESSION AND DELETED THE WORD OPINION ON THE GROUND THAT IT WOULD VEST ARBITRARY POWERS IN THE A C. APPEALS ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED-CIT VS. KALVINATOR OF INIDA OF INDIA LTD. (2002) 174 CTR (DEL)(FB) 617 AND CIT VS. EICHER LTD. (2007) 21 3 CTR (DEL) 57 AFFIRMED. (UNDERLINING BY US FOR EMPHASIS) 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCLOSED ALL FACTS AND THE AO WH ILE PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS PRESUMED TO HAVE APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0IA OF THE ACT ON PROFITS WHICH WAS CALCULATED WITHOUT DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT O F DEPRECIATION. IN SUCH A SITUATION WITHOUT A TANGIBLE MATERIAL COMING TO T HE POSSESSION OF THE AO REGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT THE AO CANNOT INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. GIVING SUCH A POWER TO T HE AO WOULD BE GIVING ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) 8 POWER OF REVIEW TO THE AO WHICH IS NOT CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH C AME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE AO BASED ON WHICH HE CAN CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION WHILE ARRIVING AT THE PROFITS OF THE GOA UNIT. IT HAS TO BE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS H AVE BEEN INITIATED PURELY ON A CHANGE OF OPINION. WE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT T HE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS INVALID. CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 IS ANNULLED. 10. THOUGH ON MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT A FULL BENCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF PLASTIBLANCE INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT 318 ITR 352(BOM) HAS HELD THAT DEPREC IATION HAS TO BE CLAIMED AND THE RESULTANT PROFITS ARRIVED AT AFTER CLAIMING DEPRECIATION WILL ALONE QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT , IN VIEW OF THE DECISION ON GROUND NO.1 REGARDING VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF REA SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IS NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE SAID ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 27 TH DAY OF JAN. 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. JAN.2012 ITA 1799/MUM/2008(A.Y. 2001-02) 9 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RF BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM.