DCIT 10(1), MUMBAI V. MAHANAGAR GAS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1945/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4295 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIV JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: A V SONDE; P P JAYARAMAN
• Keywords: Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ITA NO. 1945/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 10(1), MUMBAI.455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M. K. MARG, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. MAHANAGAR GAS LTD. MGL HOUSE, BLOCK NO. G-33, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400 051. (PAN:AABCM4640G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJIV JAIN, DR RESPONDENT BY : S/SHRI A. V. SONDE & P.P. JAYARAMAN DATE OF HEARING: 31.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.04.2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT(A)-21, MUMBAI IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-21/IT/356/2011-12 VIDE ORDER DATE D 14.12.2012. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ADDL. CIT-10(1), MUMBAI U/S. 143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2009- 10 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 16.12.2011. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES EXPENSES OF SECONDMENT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1. (I) ALLOWING THE SECONDMENT EXPENSES ON WHICH T AX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOU NT BY THE AO U/S.40(A)(IA) TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,93,46,000/- AND I N NOT APPRECIATING THAT 2 ITA NO. 1945/MUM/2013 MAHANAGAR GAS LTD. ASST. YEAR 2009-10 NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS CERTIFICATE WAS NOT OBTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM THE APPROPRIATE TDS AUTHORITY FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. 1. (II) IN IGNORING THAT FACTUALLY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY WAS WELL AWARE OF THE TDS PROVISIONS OF THE AC THAT 'THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS CERTIFICATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED U/S.197 FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL; AND INSTEAD WRONGLY RELYING ON THE DECISION BEMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (APPEAL NO. 3111 OF 2009). 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED FROM SCHEDULE M FORMING PART OF P&L ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.193.46 LACS ON ACC OUNT OF SECONDMENT CHARGES UNDER THE HEAD PERSONAL COST BUT NO TDS HAS BEEN DE DUCTED ON THE SAME. THE AO APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON THIS SECONDMENT CHARGES DISALLOWED THE SAME BY STATING THAT NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE SAME. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF COORD INATE BENCH OF ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) (2009 122 TTJ 410 (BANG) AND ALSO THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. IN APPEAL NO. 3111 OF 2009. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE TRI BUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE FACTS RELATING TO T HE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE SECONDMENT CHARGES OF EMP LOYEES SECONDED BY GAIL & BRITISH GAS TO WORK WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT TO SECONDMENT CHARGES NAMELY W ITH GAIL & BRITISH GAS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NO MARK UP IN THE PAYM ENTS MADE TO THEM AND ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL, THIS IS CLEAR FROM SECOND MENT AGREEMENT. THERE IS ALSO A LETTER FROM BRITISH GAS WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL THE TAXES DUE IN INDIA OF THE EMPLOYEES SECONDED TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. MAHANAGAR G AS LTD. HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM SALARY PAID TO SECONDEES AND PAID TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 23 AND 24 WHER EIN DECLARATION MADE BY BRITISH GAS IS THAT TAXES DUE OF SECONDEE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN PAID BY THEM IN 3 ITA NO. 1945/MUM/2013 MAHANAGAR GAS LTD. ASST. YEAR 2009-10 INDIA AND RELEVANT DECLARATION IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 23 AND 24 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO SECONDMENT AGREEMENT ENCLOSED AT PAGES 25 TO 38 OF THE ASSESSE ES PAPER BOOK AND PARTICULARLY AT PAGE 35 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE IPR RIGHTS WILL REMAIN WITH BRITISH GAS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE T HE SECONDMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO. HE REFERRED TO RELEVANT CLAUSES 16(1 ) AND 16(2), WHICH READS AS UNDER: 16.1. SAVE AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 16.2 ALL SPECIFI CATIONS, REPORTS, DRAWINGS, PATENTS, COPYRIGHT, DESIGNS AND OTHER TECHNICAL INF ORMATION WHICH ARE THE PROPERTY OF BRITISH GAS SHALL REMAIN IN THE OWNERSH IP OF BRITISH GAS AND THERE SHALL BE NO TRANSFER OR LICENCE OF SUCH PROPERTY EX CEPT AS MAY BE OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING BETWEEN THE PARTIES, OR AS PROVID ED UNDER THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AGREEMENT. 16.2. FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT THE PARTIES AGREE THAT DURING THE SECONDMENT ANY INVENTION, DESIGN, COPYRIGHT OR OTHER INTELLECT UAL PROPERTY MADE BY A SECONDEE ALONE SHALL BE OWNED BY JV C, PROVIDED THA T BRITISH GAS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A ROYALTY-FREE NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENCE TO UTILIZE SUCH INVENTION, DESIGN, COPYRIGHT OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FIRST OF ALL, STATED THAT THE ABOVE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT THE EMPLOYEES OF ASSESSEE MAHANAG AR GAS LTD. BUT EMPLOYEES OF BRITISH GAS AND THEY ARE WORKING WITH ASSESSEE ONLY IN VIEW OF SECONDMENT AGREEMENT. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT A S PER JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT GAIL AND BRITISH GAS HAVE AGREED TO SECON D, THEREFORE, EMPLOYEES TO THE JOINT VENTURE COMPANY I.E. MAHANAG AR GAS LTD. ON SECONDMENT BASIS AND UNDER SECONDMENT AGREEMENT CER TAIN EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN SECONDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAIN ED BEFORE US THAT SINCE THE EMPLOYERS WERE SECONDED FOR LIMITED TIME OF 2 T O 3 YEARS, THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THESE SECONDED EMPLOYEES WE RE BEING PAID BY BRITISH GAS OR GAIL RECOVERABLE FROM ASSESSEE ON CO ST TO COST BASIS. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE NATURE OF SECONDMENT AGREEM ENT EXPLAINING THE DUTIES OF SECOND EMPLOYEES, THEIR LIABILITIES TOWAR DS ASSESSEE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL COST OF REMUNERATION, BENEF ITS AND DISBURSEMENT 4 ITA NO. 1945/MUM/2013 MAHANAGAR GAS LTD. ASST. YEAR 2009-10 BY ASSESSEE TO THE JOINT VENTURE PARTNERS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE ARE REIMBURSEMENTS. ANOTHER ARGUMENT TAKEN BY LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EMPLOYEES REMUNERATION WAS ALLOWABLE TO T AX IN INDIA THEN THERE WOULD BE TAX DEDUCTION OBLIGATION ON THE EMPLOYER W HO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE EMPLOYEES. IN THE PRESENT CAS E, THERE WAS SUBSISTING EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATION BETWEEN BRITI SH GAS AND EXPATRIATE. BRITISH GAS WAS ALSO PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO EXPATRIATE AND APPLICATION FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE FROM SA LARY WAS ON BRITISH GAS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A CATEGORICAL STA TEMENT THAT BRITISH GAS HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON THESE REMUNERATIONS PAID TO SEC ONDED EMPLOYEES AND ALSO DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY OF THE GOVT. OF INDI A. THE TDS ON SALARY PAYMENT TO EXPATRIATE SECONDED EMPLOYEES TO ASSESSE E HAVE BEEN GIVEN CERTIFICATE TO ASSESSEE STATING THE ABOVE FACT WHIC H IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID BY B RITISH GAS AND SECOND TIME TDS CANNOT BE DEDUCTED ON THE SAME AMOUNT. FO R THIS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO CBDT CIRCULA R NO. 720 DATED 30.08.1995 CLARIFYING THAT ANY SUM PAYABLE SHALL BE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX ONLY UNDER ONE SECTION. THE RELEVANT CIRCULAR I S ENCLOSED AT ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGES 126, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1120. PAYMENT OF ANY SUM SHALL BE LIABLE FOR DEDUC TION OF TAX ONLY UNDER ONE SECTION. 1. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD THAT IN SOME CASES PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ARE DEDUCTI NG SUCH TAX BY APPLYING MORE THAN ONE PROVISION FOR THE SAME PAYME NT. IN PARTICULAR, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE SUMS PAID FOR CARRYIN G OUT WORK OF ADVERTISING ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C AS PAYMENT FOR WORK CONTRACT AS ALSO U NDER SECTION 194J AS PAYMENTS OF FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. 2. IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT EACH SECTION, REGARDING TDS UNDER CHAPTER XVII, DEALS WITH A PARTICULAR KIND OF PAYMENT TO TH E EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER SECTIONS IS THIS CHAPTER. THUS, PAYMENT OF ANY SUM SHALL BE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX ONLY UNDER ONE SECTION. THEREFORE , A PAYMENT IS LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCTION ONLY UNDER ONE SECTION. 5 ITA NO. 1945/MUM/2013 MAHANAGAR GAS LTD. ASST. YEAR 2009-10 6. NOW WE GO THROUGH THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (2012) 340 ITR 333 (BOM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 31. THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCING SECTION 40(A)(IA), A S EXPLAINED IN THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES CIRCULAR NO. 5, DATED JULY 15 , 2005SEE [2005] 276 ITR (ST.) 151 ), IS TO AUGMENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE TDS PROVISIONS IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTS AND CURB BOGUS PAYMENTS. MOREOVER, THOUGH SECTION 194J WAS INSERTED WITH EFFECT FROM JULY 1, 1995, TILL THE AS SESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION THAT IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT SECTION 194J WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES AND ACCORDINGLY, DURING THE PER IOD FROM 1995 TO 2005 NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE WHI LE CREDITING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE NOR TH E REVENUE HAS RAISED ANY OBJECTION OR INITIATED ANY PROCEEDINGS FOR NOT DEDU CTING THE TAX AT SOURCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF BOTH THE PARTIES FOR NEARLY A DECADE PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT SECTION 194J IS NOT ATTRACTED, THEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE I N NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT LY, NO ACTION COULD BE TAKEN UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IT IS REL EVANT TO NOTE THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEDUC TING TAX AT SOURCE WHILE CREDITING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES TO THE ACCO UNT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE THOUGH NOT AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES BUT AS RO YALTY. IT IS FURTHER RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, THE R EVENUE HAS SUFFERED PRESUMABLY BECAUSE, THE STOCK EXCHANGE HAS DISCHARG ED ITS TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. IN ANY EVENT, IN THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED DECADE OLD PRACTICE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD BONA FIDE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURC E UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN INVOKING SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND DISALLOWING THE BUSINESS E XPENDITURE BY WAY OF TRANSACTION CHARGES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 32. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE TRANSACTION CHARG ES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE CONSTITUTE 'FEES FOR TECHNICAL S ERVICES' COVERED UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHILE CREDITING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES TO T HE ACCOUNT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE. HOWEVER, SINCE BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE A SSESSEE WERE UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF FOR NEARLY A DECADE THAT TAX WAS N OT DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES, NO FAULT CAN BE FOU ND WITH THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND CONSEQUENTLY DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION CHARGES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IN THE PECULIAR 6 ITA NO. 1945/MUM/2013 MAHANAGAR GAS LTD. ASST. YEAR 2009-10 FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE BOTH THE REVENUE A ND THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE INSERTION OF SECTION 194J IN THE YEAR 1995 TILL 2005 PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT T AX AT SOURCE AND IN FACT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, I.E., FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE WHILE CREDITING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE. 7. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DE CISION OF ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF IDS SOFTWARE SOLUTIO NS (INDIA) (P) LTD. VS. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) (2009) 122 TTJ 410 (BA NG), WHEREIN THE FACTS DISCUSSED AS REGARDS TO W HERE THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A SECONDMENT AGREEMENT WITH A US COMPANY AND OBTAINED THE SERVI CES OF AN EMPLOYEE AND THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER THE REIMBURSEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE US COMPANY OF THE SALARY PAID BY THE US COMPANY WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES . IT WAS HELD THAT T HOUGH THE US CO WAS THE EMPLOYER IN A LEGAL SENSE BUT SINCE THE SERVICES OF THE EMPLOYEE HAD BEEN SECONDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS TO REIMBURSE THE EMOLUMENTS AND IT CONTROLLED THE SERVICES OF THE EM PLOYEE, IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHICH FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES WAS THE E MPLOYER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SALARY REIMBURSED TO THE US CO WAS NOT CHARGEABLE T O TAX. THOUGH THE PERSON DEPUTED BY THE US CO WAS A TECHNICAL PERSON, THE CONSIDERATION PAID UNDER THE SECONDMENT AGREEMENT WAS NOT FEES FOR TE CHNICAL SERVICES BECAUSE THE FACT THAT THE SECONDED EMPLOYEE WAS RES PONSIBLE AND SUBSERVIENT TO THE PAYER (ASSESSEE) AND WAS REQUIRE D TO ALSO ACT AS OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY OR NOMINEE OF THE ASSESSEE MAD E IT INCONSISTENT WITH AN AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DI SMISS THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL. 8. THE SECOND ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF COMPENSATION FROM CUSTOMER S MADE BY AO ON ESTIMATE BASIS. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROU ND NO.2: 7 ITA NO. 1945/MUM/2013 MAHANAGAR GAS LTD. ASST. YEAR 2009-10 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30 LACS ON ESTIMAT ED BASIS ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION FROM CUSTOMERS WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE C OMPENSATION RECEIVABLE FROM THE CUSTOMERS IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCOUNTED ON ACCRUA L BASIS. 9. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO IN THE IMMEDIA TE PRECEDING YEAR EXACTLY ON IDENTICAL FACTS BY TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 6832/MUM/2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2013 AND ON SIMILAR LINE IF THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO THAT WILL SUFFI CE THE MATTER. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, LD. SR. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN TERM OF THE PRINCIPLE S LAID DOWN IN THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO. 6832/MUM/2011 FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-09 VID E ORDER DATED 27.02.2013. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 15TH APRIL, 2016 . SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 15TH APRIL, 2016 JD. SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) -21, MUMBAI 4 . CIT - , MUMBAI 5. DR, B BENCH ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI