BLUE DART EXRESS LTD, MUMBAI V. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1949/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0219 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Tax effect
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4153/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ITA NO.1949/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD., BLUE DART CENTRE, SAHAR AIRPORT ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 099 PAN: AAACB0446L VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE 8(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.4433/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ITA NO.2004/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8(1), ROOM NO.260A, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD., BLUE DART CENTRE, SAHAR AIRPORT ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 099 PAN: AAACB0446L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHANESH BAFNA, A.R. MS. CHANDNI SHAH, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI SUMAN KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.06.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA , JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS TWO BY THE ASSESSEE AND TW O BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] D ATED 09.12.2013 AND ITA NO.4153/M/2014 & ORS. M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD. 2 24.03.2014 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. IN ALL THESE APPEALS THE COMMON GROUNDS ARE THERE. SI NCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE CASES ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE, THE SAME ARE TAKEN TOGETHER FOR DISPOSAL BY THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE, THE FACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM ITA NO.1949/M/2014 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 . ITA NO.1949/M/2014 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 (ASSESSEES APP EAL) 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE IN ALL THE FOUR CASE S ARE AS UNDER: GROUND NO.1 GROUND NO.1 IS IN RELATION TO DEPRECIATION ON SCAN NERS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED THE RETURN ON 22.09 .09. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON TWO CARGO SCANNERS @ 60%. THE PURCHASE PRICE OF EACH C ARGO SCANNER WAS RS.14,80,500/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRE CIATION @ 60% AS THE SCANNER IS INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER. THE AO W AS NOT CONVINCED AND ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION @ 15%. 3. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE CLAIM IN BOTH THE YEARS. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMI TTED THAT ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.330/ M/2012 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION @ 60%, THEREF ORE, IT MAY BE ALLOWED @ 60%. 5. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND TH AT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS ITA NO.4153/M/2014 & ORS. M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD. 3 COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.330/M/2012 WHEREI N THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION @ 60% BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R: 4. UNDER THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN WHICH HE CONFIRMED THE DEPRECIATI ON @ 15% ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.6,66,225/- ON CARGO SCANNERS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT TH E CARGO SCANNERS ARE INTEGRATED INPUT OUTPUT COMPUTER DEVICE AND ARE NOT THE PART OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY, THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATION IS LIABL E TO BE GRANTED @ 60% PER ANNUM AS APPLICABLE TO THE COMPUTERS. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REVENUE IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CARGO SCANNERS ARE NOT THE PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMPUTERS AND CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS COMPUT ERS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED THE DEPRECIATION @ 15% ONLY. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE CARGO SCANNERS IS THE PART AND PARCEL OF THE COMPUTER AND IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE PLACED UPON THE LAW SETTLED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN CASE OF CIT VS. BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD. IN ITA NO. 1267/2010 (DEL) AND ITO VS. SAMIRAN MAJUMDHAR 98 ITD 119 (CAL.) AND ACIT VS. GE CAPITAL BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT SER VICES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 2887/DEL/2011. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILE CAREFULLY AND PERUS ED THE RECORD. THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY IS THAT WHETH ER THE CARGO SCANNERS ARE INTEGRATED INPUT OUTPUT COMPUTER DEVICE OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. BSES YAMUNA POWERS LTD. IT IS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THE COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS SUCH AS, PRINTERS, SCAN NERS AND SERVER, ETC. FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF COMPUTER . SYSTEM. IN FACT IN THE COMPUTER ACCESSORIES AND PERIPHERALS CANNOT HE USED WITHOUT COMPUTER. CONSEQ UENTLY, THESE ARE THE PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS. THEREFORE, THESE ARTI CLES ARE TREATED TO DEPRECIATION AS HIGHER RATE OF 60%. THE HON'BLE ITA T KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SAMIRAN MAJUMDHAR 98 ITD 119 (CAL.) IS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRINTERS, SCANNERS ARE THE INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, THEREFORE, THEY ARE TO BE TREATED AS COMPUTER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION, I.E., 60%. THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI BEN CH IN THE CASE TITLED ACIT VS. GE CAPITAL BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT SER VICES PVT. LID, HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE PRINTERS, SCANNERS AND SERVER ET C. ARE THE INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER. THEREFORE, ENTITLED FOR THE DEPRECIATION @ OF 60%. IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. DATACRAFT INDIA LTD. (ITA NO. 7462 & 754/M/2007) DATED JULY 9, 2010 HON'BLE MUMBAI BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE ROUT ERS AND SWITCHES CAN HE CLASSIFIED AS A COMPUTER HARDWARE W HEN THEY ARE USED ALONG WITH COMPUTER AND WHEN THEIR FUNCTION ARE INT EGRATED WITH COMPUTER AND THEREFORE, THEY ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK OF COMPUTER ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION @ 60%. NOW COMING TO THE PRESENT CASE, THE PRESENT CASE IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARGO SCANNERS WHICH CANNOT BE UTILIZED WITHOUT COMPUTER AS THEIR FUNCTION ARE INTEGRATED WITH COMP UTER AND THEREFORE, THEY ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK OF COMPUTER EN TITLED TO DEPRECIATION @60%. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND LAW MENTI ONED ABOVE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE A.0. IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND ITA NO.4153/M/2014 & ORS. M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD. 4 FACTS THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTA INABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON, THIS ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION 60% ON THE CARGO SCANNERS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DECIDE THE GROUND NO.1 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST T HE REVENUE. GROUND NO.2 8. GROUND NO.2 IS IN RELATION TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.2,56,58,059/- EARNED FROM INVESTMENTS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN MUTUAL FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTRIBUTED ANY EXPENDI TURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE CONCERNED INCOME. AS PER SECTION 14A, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS IN INVESTMENT AND AS TO WHY THE DI SALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NO DIRECT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCUR RED IN RELATION TO THE ACTIVITY OF INVESTMENT, NOR ANY INDIRECT EXPENDITUR E IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS EXEMPT INCOME, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED TO REST RICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1,23,654/- BEING 5% OF THE SALARY COST OF THE TR EASURY TERM. HOWEVER, AO MADE THE ADDITION. 9. MATTER TRAVELLED TO TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HA S ALLOWED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. UNDER THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E EXPENDITURE ASSESSED TO EARNED THE EXEMPT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.27,14 ,925/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R.81D. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EARNED THE DIVIDEND INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,49,68,920/- FROM MUTUAL FUNDS AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY USED ITS OWN FUND TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE U/SL4A OF THE ACT R.W.R 8D IS NOT ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT INCURR ANY DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES TO EARN THE EXEMPT ITA NO.4153/M/2014 & ORS. M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD. 5 INCOME THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IS JUSTIFIABLE. NO EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE SAID EXEMPT INCOME WAS CLAI MED THEREFORE, IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT EASE, THEREFORE , THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS WRONG AGAINST, LAW AND FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF DEPARTMENT HAS STRON GLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSING THE RECORD. WE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NOWHERE CLAIM AN Y EXPENDITURE TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE QUANTIFIED EXPENDITURE TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. WHEN THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT CLAIMED THEN, IN THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO Q UESTION OF DISALLOWANCE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSE E EARNED THE DIVIDEND INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,49,68,920/-. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OFFERED THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE TOTAL SALARY RELATING TO THE TREASURY OPERATION OF THE FINANCE TEAM. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMS TANCE WE FOUND IT JUSTIFIABLE TO RESTRICT THE EXPENDITURE TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCO ME @ 5% OF THE TOTAL SALARY RELATING TO THE TREASURY OPERATION OF THE FINANCE TEAM AS SOME EXPENDITURE MAY BE OCCURRED TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCO ME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,49,68,920/-. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE EXPENDITURE TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. A CCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND TH AT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.330/M/2012. HENC E, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DECIDE THE GROUND NO.2 IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. GROUND NO.3 11. GROUND NO.3 IS IN RELATION TO AD-HOC DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.19,11,838/- INCURRED ON HANDLING & CLEARING CHARGES ON AD-HOC B ASIS. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE LOCATION-WISE BREAKU P OF FLEET HIRE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.81,60,09,115/- AND HANDLING & CLEAR ING CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.16,57,22,523/- AND ITS FURTHER BREAKUP BASED ON THE MODE OF PAYMENT I.E. ITA NO.4153/M/2014 & ORS. M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD. 6 CASH AND CHEQUE. THE AO DISALLOWED 2.5% OF CASH AN D CHEQUE WHICH COMES TO RS.19,11,838/-. 12. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBM ITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.330/ M/2012 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R: 7. ISSUE NO.3 IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE AD-HOC DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.8,26,165/- BEING 2.5% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE O F RS.3,30,46,586/- ON ACCOUNT OF FLEET HIRE CHARGES AND HANDLING AND CLEA NING IN CHARGES. THE A.O. DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 2.5% OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDING OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR OF THE CIT(A ). THE SAID FINDING WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY VIRTUE OF ORDER DATE D 19.10.2011 IN QUESTION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN CASE OF M/S CRESCENT CHEMICALS VS. ITO DATED 21.01.2011 IN WHICH IT IS SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT AFTER GIVING OUR CONSCIOUS CONSIDERATION TO TH E REASONING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAV E MADE THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ON MANY OCCASIONS, ISOLATED TRANSPORTERS AND LABOURERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ENGAGED WHEN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET THEIR BILLS. HE FURTHER FINDS THAT NOWHERE IT IS A CASE OF THE A.O. THAT ANY OF THE EX PENDITURE WAS FOUND TO BE BOGUS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CON FIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DE LETED AND GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. 8. IT IS NOT DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES OF FLEET AND HIRE CHARGES AN D HANDLING AND CLEANING CHARGES ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT( A) IN THE PAST YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS TO PROVIDE THE COURIER SERVICES IN WHICH THE ASSESS EE HAS TO MAKE THE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF FLEET AND HIRE CHARGES AND HA NDLING AND CLEANING CHARGES IN CASH. THE PAYMENT OF LABOUR WAS PAYABLE ALSO IN CASH ON SPOT. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROCURE THE EAC H AND EVERY BILLS/DETAILS. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS BOGUS. MOREOVER, WITHOUT ANY REASON AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, WE ALLOWED THE CLAI M OF THE EXPENSES IN ALL ON ACCOUNT OF FLEET AND HIRE CHARGES HANDLING AND C LEANING CHARGES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE REVENUE. 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL, WE DECIDE THE GROUND NO.3 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST T HE REVENUE. ITA NO.4153/M/2014 & ORS. M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD. 7 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ITA NO.2004/M/2014 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 (REVENUES APPE AL) 15. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICA L TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.1949/M/2014 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. S INCE WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THESE IDENTICAL ISSUES IN ASSESSEE S APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.1949/M/2014 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ITA NO.4153/M/2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 (ASSESSEES APP EAL) 17. GROUNDS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1949/M/2014 FOR A.Y. 20 09-10 AND HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, FOL LOWING THE SAME RATIO, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED. ITA NO.4433/M/2014 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 (REVENUES APPE AL) 18. TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS AND THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/201 5 IS APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL, HENCE, THIS APPEAL BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRES SED IN TERMS OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO 21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015. 19. HENCE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF THE ISSU ES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THIS APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED AS WITH DRAWN/NOT PRESSED AS ITS FILING BEING IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 1 0/12/2015 READ WITH SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 20. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ITA NO.4153/M/2014 & ORS. M/S. BLUE DART EXPRESS LTD. 8 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. ITA NO.4153/M/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ITA NO.1949/M/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 ARE ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I.E. ITA NO.4433/M/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND ITA NO.2004/M/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.06.2017. SD/- SD/- ( G. MANJUNATHA) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 29.06.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.