M/s. AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT - 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1824/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71460 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 43(5); 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 1824/MUM/2008 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LIMITED CRESCENT CHAMBERS, GROUND FLOOR, HOMI MODI CROSS STREET, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001 / VS. DY. CIT 4(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACA 3778 L ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DEEPAK TRALSHAWALA !' $ # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. S. RANA % &'( $ )* / DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2013 +,- $ )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2013 . / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THISSS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, MUMBAI (C IT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 26.12.2007, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2004-05 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2006 2 ITA NO. 1824/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT 2. THE APPEAL RAISES AS MANY AS FIVE GROUNDS, BESID ES AN ADDITIONAL GROUND. AT THE VERY OUTSET THOUGH IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSI NG ITS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, MAKING AN ENDORSEMENT TO THAT EF FECT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 AND THE ADDI TIONAL GROUND AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3.1 OPENING THE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.3, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS IN THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.67,51,469/- INCURRED ON JOBBING ACTIVITY. THE AS SESSEE-COMPANY IS A SHARE AND STOCK BROKER, AND APART FROM BUSINESS UNDERTAKEN FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS, ALSO ENGAGES IN TRADING IN SHARES AS WELL AS JOBBING ON OWN ACCO UNT. THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE TRADING INCOME FOR THE YEAR APPEAR AT PAGE 6 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER, WHICH IS AS UNDER: SALE OF SHARES 1,96,73,80,671 COST OF SHARES SOLD 1,88,79,97,398 PROFIT FROM TRADING IN SHARES 7,93,83,273 THE SAME HAS BEEN TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHILE THE LOSS ON THE JOBBING ACTIVITY HAS BEEN TREATED AS A SPECULATIVE INCOME U/S. 43(5) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, NO SET OFF IN ITS RESPECT HAS BEEN ALLOWED AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOM E FROM TRADING IN SHARES. HE WOULD THEN TAKE US TO THE RELEVANT PROVISION, I.E., SECTI ON 43(5), DEFINING SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION AND, FURTHER, CLAUSE (C) THEREOF, WHIC H EXCLUDES A TRANSACTION IN THE NATURE OF JOBBING OR ARBITRAGE UNDERTAKEN BY A MEMBER OF A ST OCK EXCHANGE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, DESPITE THE CLEAR PROVISION OF SECTION 43(5)(C), HAVE NOT ADMITTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, I.E., OF LO SS ON JOBBING ACTIVITY, AS THE SAME IN THEIR VIEW HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, A MEMBER OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE, IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS, WHEREBY THE BUSINE SS IS UNDERTAKEN ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS; THE JOBBING ACTIVITY HAVING BEEN ADMITTEDLY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT. 3 ITA NO. 1824/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT AS REGARDS GROUND NO.4, THE SAME RELATES TO THE DI SALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SAID SPECULATION BUSINESS, I.E. , JOBBING ACTIVITY, WHICH HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE RESULTING IN A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.182.05 LACS. THE SAME AGAIN HAS NO BASIS IN FACT/S, AND HAS BEEN DONE IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSING ITS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE TURNOVER FI GURES, I.E., OF PURCHASE AND SALE WITH REGARD TO THE JOBBING ACTIVITY, AND WHICH WAS FOR T HE REASON THAT THE STOCK EXCHANGE DOES NOT RELEASE SUCH FIGURES WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE MADE BY A MEMBER ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT, CREDITING OR CHARGING HIM ONLY THE NET AMOUNT. THE SAID ADJUSTMENTS HAVE THUS RESULTED IN GROSS INJUSTICE, BY INFLATING THE ASSESSEES INCOME FOR THE YEAR AT RS.249.57 LACS. 3.2 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) WOULD, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, STATING THAT THE B USINESS OF A MEMBER OF A STOCK EXCHANGE IS ONLY TO UNDERTAKE SHARE TRADING FOR AND ON BEHAL F OF HIS CLIENTS, WHICH ONLY HE IS AUTHORIZED TO, AND NOT WHEN HE ACTS ON HIS OWN ACCO UNT. THAT IS, THE SAME, IF UNDERTAKEN, THOUGH BUSINESS, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A TRANSAC TION UNDERTAKEN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS AS SUCH MEMBER. AS REGARDS THE DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, THE SAME IS ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL. THE ESTIMATE AT 50%, THOUGH ADM ITTEDLY AD HOC , HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING THE RELEVANT DET AILS AND ANY BASIS FOR ALLOCATION OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO LEAD EV IDENCE IN RELATION TO ITS BUSINESS. THE SAID BUSINESS BEING DEFINITELY A DIFFERENT ACTIVITY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN ITS RESPECT. ACCORDINGLY, AN ALLOC ATION TOWARD THE SAME HAS NECESSARILY TO BE MADE, AND WHICH HAS BEEN DONE BY THE REVENUE ON A REASONABLE BASIS; THE SAME BEING NECESSARILY CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THE INFORMATION OR THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. NO INFIRMITY AS SUCH ATTENDS THE SAME . THE CLAIM OF INFLATION IS WITHOUT MERIT, HAVING NO INDEPENDENT STANDING OF ITS OWN. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AND GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER. 4.1 IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED, I.E., IN PRINCIPLE. THE ISSUE ARISING FOR OUR RESOLUTION, I.E., THE MAINTAINABILITY OF TH E ASSESSEESS CLAIM OF ITS JOBBING ACTIVITY 4 ITA NO. 1824/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT BEING NON-SPECULATIVE, INVOLVES A LEGAL ASPECT, I.E ., INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF THE ACT. WE SHALL ACCORDINGLY BEGIN BY REPRODUCI NG THE SAME: DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS RELEVANT TO INCOME FR OM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. 43. IN SECTIONS 28 TO 41 AND IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS T HE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES- (1) .. (2) (5) 'SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION' MEANS A TRANSACTION IN WHICH A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY COMMODITY, INCLUDING ST OCKS AND SHARES, IS PERIODICALLY OR ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN B Y THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF THE COMMODITY OR SCRIPS: PROVIDED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE ( A ) A CONTRACT IN RESPECT OF RAW MATERIALS OR MERCHA NDISE ENTERED INTO BY A PERSON IN THE COURSE OF HIS MANUFACTURING OR MERCHA NTING BUSINESS TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS THROUGH FUTURE PRICE FLUCTUATIONS IN R ESPECT OF HIS CONTRACTS FOR ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS MANUFACTURED BY HIM OR MER CHANDISE SOLD BY HIM; OR ( B ) A CONTRACT IN RESPECT OF STOCKS AND SHARES ENTER ED INTO BY A DEALER OR INVESTOR THEREIN TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS IN HIS HOLDI NGS OF STOCKS AND SHARES THROUGH PRICE FLUCTUATIONS; OR ( C ) A CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY A MEMBER OF A FORWARD MARKET OR A STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE COURSE OF ANY TRANSACTION IN THE NA TURE OF JOBBING OR ARBITRAGE TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS WHICH MAY ARISE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS AS SUCH MEMBER; SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION . IN SUBSTANCE, THEREFORE, THE LAW PER SECTION 43(5)( C) PROVIDES EXCLUSION TO HEDGING TRANSACTIONS BY A MEMBER OF A FORWARD MARKET OR A S TOCK EXCHANGE ENTERED INTO TO GUARD AGAINST THE LOSS THAT MAY ARISE TO HIM IN THE COURS E OF HIS BUSINESS, AND TOWARD WHICH IT STIPULATES JOBBING AND ARBITRAGE TRANSACTIONS OR A TRANSACTION OF SIMILAR NATURE. WHAT IS IMPORTANT, IN OUR VIEW, IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH TH E LAW PROVIDES EXCLUSION TO OTHERWISE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS, BEING NON-DELIVERY BASED, I.E., TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS WHICH MAY ARISE TO A MEMBER OF A STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS . THE LOSS TO SUCH MEMBER IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS WOULD ARISE ONLY WHERE HE ACTS OR ENTERS 5 ITA NO. 1824/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT INTO A CONTRACT ON HIS OWN BEHALF, I.E., ON A PRINC IPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. NO LOSS COULD ARISE TO HIM ACTING AS AN AGENT, I.E., FOR AND ON B EHALF OF HIS CLIENTS, IN WHICH CASE THE ENTIRE PROFIT LOSS OR PROFIT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, W OULD BE TO THE CLIENTS ACCOUNT, AND NOT HIS. THE REASON IS SIMPLE, AS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TRANSACTION, OR THE PROPERTY IN THE CONTRACT, VESTS IN THE CLIENT, WITH THE ASSESSEE AS A BROKER-MEMBER BEING ENTITLED ONLY TO THE REMUNERATION TOWARD HIS SERVICES IN EXECUTING T HE TRADE, ETC. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LAW CLEARLY ENVISAGES A MEMBER ENTERING INTO TRANSACTIO NS AS A PRINCIPAL, INCURRING RISK AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE POSSIBILITY OF LOSS ARISING, SO T HAT HE MAY HAVE TO HEDGE AGAINST THE SAME, AS BY WAY OF JOBBING OR ARBITRAGE. AS REGARDS THE WORDS BUSINESS AS SUCH MEMBER OCCU RRING IN THE PROVISION, WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF THE REVENUES STAND; TRUE, EACH W ORD OF A PROVISION HAS TO BE ACCORDED PLAY, AS NO WORD THEREIN CAN BE REGARDED AS EITHER SURPLUS OR OTIOSE. HOWEVER, WE HAVE EXPLAINED, WITH REFERENCE TO THE RATIONALE OF THE P ROVISION, THAT THE SAME ITSELF CONTEMPLATES LOSS ARISING TO A MEMBER OF A FORWARD MARKET OR A STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS AS SUCH MEMBER, AND WHICH WOULD ONLY BE WHEN HE ACTS ON OWN ACCOUNT. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT MAY ALSO BE MADE TO CLAUSES (A) AND (B) OF SEC. 43(5), PROVIDING FOR LIKE EXCLUSION TO SIMILAR TRAN SACTIONS, I.E., ENTERED INTO WITH A VIEW TO GUARD AGAINST LOSS THAT MAY ARISE IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS, BY A MANUFACTURER OR A MERCHANT AS WELL AS BY A DEALER OR INVESTOR IN STOC KS AND SHARES RESPECTIVELY, FURTHER CLARIFYING THE SCHEME OF THE PROVISION AS ALSO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND PROVIDING THE SAID EXCLUSION, I.E., TO GUARD AGAINST LOSSES INCID ENTAL TO HIS BUSINESS. THE RULE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION WOULD THUS IMPEL US TO OUST THE REVENUES OBJECTION BASED ON THE PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING INCURRED THE IMP UGNED LOSS WHILE ACTING ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT. TOWARD THIS, WE ALSO DERIVE SUPPORT FROM T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ TEMPO LTD. VS. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 188 (SC). IN THAT CASE, HAVING REGA RD TO A PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION, THE HONBLE APEX COURT EXPLAINED TH AT THE EMPHASIS IN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 15C(2)(I) OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 192 2, READING AS UNDER, IS ON THE WORD FORMATION AND NOT THAT ON USED: (PGS. 192,193) 6 ITA NO. 1824/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT 15C. (1) SAVE AS OTHERWISE HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, T HE TAX SHALL NOT BE PAYABLE BY AN ASSESSEE ON SO MUCH OF THE PROFITS OR GAINS DERIVED FROM ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING TO WHICH THIS SECTION APPLIE S AS DO NOT EXCEED SIX PER CENT. PER ANNUM ON THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED IN THE UNDE RTAKING, COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH RULES AS MAY BE MADE IN THIS B EHALF BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE. (2) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAK ING WHICH - (I) IS NOT FORMED BY THE SPLITTING UP, OR THE RECONSTRUCTION, OF A B USINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE OR BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BU SINESS OF BUILDING, MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED IN ANY OTHER BUSINESS [EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLIN ING, OURS] THE WORDS BUSINESS AS SUCH MEMBER IN CLAUSE (C) O F SEC. 43(5) MUST THEREFORE NECESSARILY, I.E., IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISION, BE REGARDED AS ALL CONTRACTS AND TRANSACTIONS WHICH THE MEMBER IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTE R INTO, WHETHER ON HIS OWN BEHALF OR ON ACCOUNT OF HIS CLIENTS, WITH RATHER ONLY THE FOR MER BEING RELEVANT FROM THE STAND POINT OF THE PROVISION INASMUCH AS THE SCOPE OF LOSS ARIS ES ONLY THEREIN. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER THE REVENUES SAID OBJECTION AS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4.2 AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IN OUR VIEW, THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION, SAVE STRICTLY IN TERMS OF SECTION 43(5)(C), TO A ME MBER OF A FORWARD MARKET OR A STOCK EXCHANGE QUA NON-DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTIONS FOR BEING NON-SPEC ULATIVE. IT IS THEREFORE INCUMBENT ON SUCH MEMBER, TO AVAIL THE SAID EXCEPTI ON, SHOW THAT THE RELEVANT JOBBING OR ARBITRAGE TRANSACTION WAS ENTERED INTO TO GUARD AGA INST THE LOSS TO WHICH HE WAS OTHERWISE SUBJECT, I.E., ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSACTIONS ENTER ED INTO IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS. TO PUT SUCCINCTLY, THE FIELD IS NOT CLEAR , BUT QUALIFIED BY THE CONDITION OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAID HEDGING TRANSACTION/S ST ANDS ENTERED INTO. AS SUCH, WHILE WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE REVENUES INTERPRETATION OF T HE PROVISION, WE CONSIDER ITS HOLISTIC READING, AS EXPLAINED HEREINABOVE, TO BE TOWARD SUB -SERVING A PURPOSE, I.E., TO GUARD AGAINST THE LOSS THAT MAY ARISE TO A MEMBER OF A FO RWARD MARKET OR A STOCK EXCHANGE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS, AND WHICH WOUL D THEREFORE NEED TO BE DEMONSTRATED, AS WHERE HE HAS AN OPEN POSITION OR EXPOSURE ON ACC OUNT OF TRANSACTIONS/CONTRACTS ENTERED 7 ITA NO. 1824/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT INTO AS A PRINCIPAL, I.E., INDEPENDENT OF THE JOBBI NG TRANSACTION, WHICH WOULD BE, AND FOR THAT REASON, REGARDED AS NON-SPECULATIVE. THAT IS, THAT THE JOBBING ACTIVITY FORMS AN INTEGRAL PART OF HIS BUSINESS. THIS BECOMES ALL THE MORE RELEVANT AND PERTINENT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS APART FROM BEING ONLY TOWARD SATIS FACTION OF THE MANDATE OF THE PROVISION, THE LOSS CLAIMED STANDS INCURRED IN THE JOBBING ACT IVITY ITSELF, I.E., WHICH THE LAW EXCEPTS WHERE ENTERED INTO TO GUARD AGAINST AN IMMINENT OR POSSIBLE LOSS THAT A MEMBER STANDS TO INCUR OR SUFFER IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS. THAT IS NOT TO SAY, WE MAY CLARIFY, THAT NO LOSS COULD BE INCURRED ON SUCH TRANSACTIONS, WHICH MAY BE SO, BUT ONLY TO EMPHASIZE THAT A JOBBING TRANSACTION COULD BE ENTERED INTO BY A ME MBER EVEN INDEPENDENT OF AND DE HORS THE PURPOSE OF SAFEGUARDING SELF AGAINST LOSSES THA T ONE IS SUSCEPTIBLE OR PRONE TO IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ONES BUSINESS, AND IN WHICH CAS E IT WOULD BE SPECULATIVE. FURTHER, WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO E STABLISH ITS JOBBING ACTIVITY AS FALLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF S. 43(5)(C), THE SAME, WHETHE R FINALLY RESULTING IN A PROFIT OR LOSS, BEING SPECULATIVE BY DEFINITION, WOULD QUALIFY AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ONLY CONSIDER I T FIT AND PROPER THAT THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE OF THE JOBBING TRANSACTIONS, ON WHICH THE IMPUGNED LOSS ST ANDS SUSTAINED BY IT, AS NON SPECULATIVE IN TERMS OF SEC. 43(5)(C), AND DECIDE T HE SAME AS PER LAW BY ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT, HAVING REGARD TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THIS ORDER. THE QUESTION OF THE EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO THE JOBBING ACTIVITY, WHICH W OULD ARISE ONLY WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE REGARDED AS A SEPARATE BUS INESS, BEING CONSEQUENTIAL AND INEXTRICABLY RELATED, WOULD ALSO STAND TO BE REMITT ED LIKEWISE. AN AD HOC APPROACH IN THE MATTER IS THOUGH DISCOUNTENANCED, AND THE ALLOCATIO N IS TO BE BASED ON SOME MEASURABLE, OBJECTIVE CRITERION, AND TOWARD WHICH THE ASSESSE I S TO MAKE OUT A CASE IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FACTS OF ITS CASE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8 ITA NO. 1824/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) AMU SHARES & SECURITIES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. /-)0 &12/) $ 3$ 456 7 8 7. ' 9 ) $ ) :; ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 11, 2 013 SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % ( MUMBAI; <& DATED : 11.10.2013 '.&../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % =) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % =) / CIT CONCERNED 5. @'AB !)&C1 , * C1- , % ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. BD2 E( / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % ( / ITAT, MUMBAI