MARRIOTT INTERNAITONAL LICENSING COMPANY BV, MUMBAI V. DDIT (IT) RG 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2083/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71870 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRAJA PRADHAN
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L B ENCH, MUMBAI . . , , !'#$ , % & BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAI YA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.2083/MUM/2011 ( ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 M/S. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL LICENSING CO BV, C/O BMR & ASSOCIATES, 3F CONTRACTOR BLDG., 41 R KAMANI MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001 THE DY.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), RANGE 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ( % ./ )* ./PAN/GIR NO. : AADCM 0918R ( (+ /APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : ` SHRI NIRAJ SHETH ,-(+ / . /RESPONDENT BY : MS. NIRAJA PRADHAN / 01% / DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2013 23' / 01% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2013 4 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-11, MUMBAI DT. 17.1.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: ITA NO.2083/M/2011 2 BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE APPELLANT, RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 11, MUMBAI HAS IN HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) ERRED O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. IN UPHOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT OF INR 9,393,202 R ECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT PURSUANT TO THE INTERNATIONAL SALES A ND MARKETING AGREEMENT (ISMA) ENTERED INTO WITH AN INDIAN HOTE L FOR ADVERTISING, MARKETING AND SALES PROMOTION PROGRAM ARE NOT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I ABOVE, IN UPHOLDIN G THAT THE AFORESAID PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT PURSUAN T TO THE ISMA IS IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY FOR THE USE OF I NTERNATIONAL BRAND NAME MARRIOTT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, VARY, OMI T, SUBSTITUTE OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AT ANY TIME BEFO RE OR AT, THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, SO AS TO ENABLE THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ACCORDING TO THE LAW. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN AND A TAX RESIDENT OF NETHERLANDS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,82,85,445/-. NOTE NO. 4 OF EXHIBIT A ACCOMPA NIED WITH THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME READ AS UNDER: MILC HAS ENTERED INTO AN INTERNATIONAL SALES AND MARKETING AGREEMENT WITH ITC FOR PROVIDING MARKETIN G SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION, ITC HAS PAID MARKETING FEES OF RS. 93,93,202/- ON W HICH TAXES OF RS. 9,39,320/- HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED. AS THE MARKETING SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA AND ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED IN THE TAX TREATY, THIS AMOUNT IS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA . ACCORDINGLY, THE TAXES DEDUCTED IN RESPECT THEREOF HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS A REFUND. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED FOLLOWING INCOME AS R OYALTY INCOME AND OFFERED THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION ITA NO.2083/M/2011 3 ROYALTY FROM ITC LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ANSAL HOTELS LTD) RS. 22,87,379/- ROYALTY FROM PALM GROVE BEACH HOTELS PVT. LTD. RS.1,39,91,777/- ROYALTY FROM CHALET HOTELS LTD. RS. 3,19,03,569/- 5. TAKING A LEAF OUT OF NOTE NO. 4 MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED A QUERY AS TO WHY THE AMOU NT RECEIVED FROM ITC FOR PROVIDING MARKETING SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA SHOU LD NOT BE TAXED IN INDIA AS PER THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMEN T (DTAA) WITH NETHERLAND INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. TO THIS THE ASSES SEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY VIDE LETTER DT. 20.11.2009 AND STRONGLY CONTE NDED THAT SALES AND MARKETING ACTIVITIES ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF MANAG ERIAL/TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND HENCE TREATED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE SALES AND MARKETING CONTRIBUTION COLLECTED FROM HOTELS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGR EEMENTS WITH THE HOTELS. THE CONTRIBUTION WOULD GO TO A CENTRALIZED MARKETING FUND WHICH IS OPERATED ON A COST BASIS, WITHOUT ANY PROFIT OR MARK-UP. THE AMOUNTS SO COLLECTED IS SPENT ON ADVERTISING, SALES AND MAR KETING ACTIVITIES. 5.1. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND AN Y FAVOUR FROM THE AO . THE AO WAS OF THE BELIEF THAT THE MARKETING A ND BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENDITURE IS AIMED NOT ONLY FOR THE BEN EFIT OF THE INDIAN HOTEL BUT ALSO TO THE MARRIOT GROUP AS A WHOLE. TH E AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS COPIES OF REIMBURSEMENT OF BILLS OR INVOICES, ALL T HE EXPENSES DETAILS AND ITS NATURE TO CRYSTAL CLEAR THE ACTUAL NATURE OF SE RVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WENT ON TO REFER TO THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE TERMS ITA NO.2083/M/2011 4 AND CONDITIONS OF THE SALES AND MARKETING AGREEMENT AND REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT CLAUSES AT PARA-6 OF HIS ORDER. THE AO WA S OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE NATURE OF BENEFITS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY TO ITC, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MAKES AVAILABLE ITC TO US E THE BRAND/BRAND PREFERENCE/BRAND AWARENESS. THE AO WAS ALSO OF THE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HAVING BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH ITC AND ITC IS USING THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, KNOW-HOW OF CHA NGING SCENARIO RELATED TO MARKET/INDUSTRY ETC. FROM THE TRANSACTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH ITC, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENT RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITC CLEARLY FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE- 12(4) OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND NETHERLAND. THE AO FINALLY CONCLU DED THAT THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA AS ROYALTY IN TERMS OF ARTICLE 12(4) OF DTAA BETW EEN INDIA AND NETHERLAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WENT ON TO TREAT T HE PAYMENT OF RS. 93,93,202/- AS THE PAYMENT TOWARDS ROYALTY FOR USE OF BRAND MARRIOTT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT UNDER THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ROYA LTIES TOWARDS LICENSE OF THE MARRIOTT BRAND TO ITC. FOR THE OVERSEAS MAR KETING SEPARATE SPECIAL EFFORT HAS TO BE MADE. FOR THIS PURPOSE, I TC HAS ENTERED INTO THE INTERNATIONAL SALES & MARKETING AGREEMENT 9SMA) WIT H THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT UNDER THE L ICENSE AND ROYALTY AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ROYALTIES AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION WHEREAS THE AMOUNT RECOVERED BY THE ASSESS EE UNDER THE ISMA IS IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR INTE RNATIONAL ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION. THEREFORE, INTERNATIONAL SALES AND MARKETING FEES AMOUNT TO RS. 93,93,202/- DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITI ON OF ROYALTY AND THEREFORE, NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. ITA NO.2083/M/2011 5 6.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION S THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CHARGING INTERN ATIONAL SALES AND MARKETING FEES FROM ITC LTD. FOR GLOBAL ADVERTISIN G AND PROMOTION OF THE BRAND NAME MARRIOTT, IT IS ONLY STRENGTHENING THE GLOBAL BRAND MARRIOTT. THE BENEFIT OF THIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PROFIT AND FUNCTIONING OF THE HOTEL RUN BY M/S. ITC LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ROYALTY AGREEMENT HAS B EEN SPLIT INTO TWO PARTS ONE FOR ROYALTY AND OTHER FOR FEES. IN THE OP INION OF THE LD. CIT(A) BOTH THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ITC LTD TOWARDS ROYAL TY OR MARKETING FEES ARE ONE AND SAME AND CONSTITUTE ROYALTY PAID T O THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. R ELEVANT MATERIAL EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD SHOWS THAT AN IDENTICAL DISPUTE CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 416/M/08 FOR A.Y 2004-05 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. BEFORE CONSIDERING THIS DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER CLAUSE 3.1, 3.2 AND 3.3. OF THE AGREEMENT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL TH AT PAYMENTS RECEIVED UNDER CLAUSE 3.1 ARE RECEIPTS OVER AND ABOVE REIMB URSEMENT WHEREAS RECEIPTS UNDER CLAUSE 3.2 AND 3.3 ARE NOTHING BUT R EIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF SERVICES. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE BENCH ASKE D THE LD. COUNSEL TO GIVE THE BREAK-UP OF THE RECEIPTS UNDER THESE 3 CLA USES OF THE AGREEMENT. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHOWED HIS INABILIT Y TO FURNISH ANY BREAK-UP OF RECEIPTS UNDER THESE THREE CLAUSES OF T HE AGREEMENT. 7.1. NOW COMING BACK TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL IN A.Y. 2004- 05, WHEREIN THE BREAK-UP WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE TRI BUNAL AND ON THAT NOTE ITA NO.2083/M/2011 6 THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AT PARA-5 ON PAGE-5 OF ITS ORDER. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 90.06 LACS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT RECEIVE D UNDER CLAUSES 3.1 TO 3.3 OF THE AGREEMENT. THE FIRST PAR T OF THE AMOUNT, BEING THE RECEIPT UNDER CLAUSE 3.1 OF THE AGREEMENT WAS HELD TO BE ROYALTY AND THE SECOND PART OF THE A MOUNT UNDER CLAUSES 3.2 AND 3.3 WAS HELD TO BE TOWARDS `REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON SALES PROMOTIONS AN D MARKETING AND HENCE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE L D. CIT(A) IN RELATION TO THE PAYMENT MADE UNDER CLAUSES 3.2 A ND 3.3 OF THE AGREEMENT TREATING IT AS `REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPE NSES AND NOT `ROYALTY. THE LD AR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN DIRECTING TO TAX THE RECEIPT UNDE R CLAUSE 3.1 OF THE AGREEMENT AS `ROYALTY HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO ADJUDICAT E UPON THE NATURE OF RECEIPT UNDER CLAUSES 3.2 AND 3.3 OF THE AGREEMENT. SINCE THE BREAK-UP WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER GIVING ITS FINDING ON RECEIPTS UNDER CLAUSE 3.1 OF THE AGR EEMENT, THE TRIBUNAL WAS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS UNDER CLAUSES 3.2 AND 3.3 OF THE AGREEMENT. THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA-14 ON P AGE-11 HAS HELD AS UNDER: REVERTING TO THE CONTENTS OF CLAUSES 3.2 AND 3.3 OF THE AGREEMENT, IT IS MANIFEST THAT AHL MADE CONTRIBUTION AT THE RATE OF 1.5% TOWARDS `INTERNATIONAL MARKETING ACTIVITIES, WHICH, IN TUR N, MEANS PURCHASE OF ADVERTISEMENT SPACE IN MAGAZINES, NEWSPAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR MEDIA ; ADVERTISEMENT O N RADIO, TELEVISION AND ETC. AND OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING NATURE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE AGREEMENT AS BONA FIDE WITHOUT DOUBTING ITS CORRECTNESS IN ANY MANNER. WH EN ADMITTEDLY CONTRIBUTION AT THE RATE OF 1.5% BY AHL TO ITA NO.2083/M/2011 7 THE ASSESSEE, AMOUNTING TO RS. 38.59 LACS, IS TOWA RDS MARKETING ACTIVITIES, WE FAIL TO SEE AS TO HOW IT C AN BE CHARACTERIZED AS `ROYALTIES FALLING WITHIN THE AMB IT OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAA. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO PAR A 5 OF THE AGREEMENT TO BOLSTER HER SUBMISSION OF THE AMOUNT BEING IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY. IT IS BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION AS TO HOW THIS PARA ADVANCES HER CASE . IT TALKS OF `CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND PROVIDES THAT THE FRANCHISEE SHALL NOT DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THEREAFTER COPY, DUPLICATE, RECORD OR REPRODUCE ETC. THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO ANY PERSON WITHOUT THE ASSESSEES CONSENT. THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION FOR MAINTAINING SUCH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. THE AMOUNT WITH WHICH WE ARE PRESENTLY CONCERNED IS UNDISPUTEDLY CONTRIBUTION FOR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING ACTIVITIES, WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF ADVERTISEMENT AND MARKETING ETC. THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE TAGGED WITH ANY OTHER CLAUSE OF TH E AGREEMENT WHEN IT HAS BEEN STATED TO BE FOR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING ACTIVITIES. IT IS FURTHER N OTICED THAT THE AO ALSO TRIED TO LINK THIS AMOUNT WITH BR AND MARRIOTT/BRAND PREFERENCE/BRAND AWARENESS. IN OTHER WORDS, HE CANVASSED A VIEW THAT WITH SUCH PAYMENT AHL FACILITATED IN BUILDING AND STRENGTHENI NG THE BRAND `MARRIOTT. WE HAVE NOTICED ABOVE THAT TH E TERM `ROYALTIES AS PER ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAA CAN ALWAYS BE A CONSIDERATION FOR THE USE OR RIGHT TO U SE OF ANY DEFINED EXISTING PROPERTY. IT CANNOT BE FOR THE CREATION OF THE DEFINED PROPERTY. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY AHL TOWARDS THE INTERNATIONAL MARKETING ACTIVITIES LED TO THE BRAND BUILDING, STILL IT WOULD BE A PAYMENT FOR THE CREAT ION OR SWELLING OF THE BRAND AND NOT FOR THE USE OF SU CH BRAND, WHICH COULD QUALIFY TO BE CHARACTERIZED AS `ROYALTIES. VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE, IT IS ABUNDANTL Y CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION RELATABLE TO CLAU SES 3.2 AND 3.3 OF THE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE HELD AS `ROYALTIES FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 12( 4) OF THE DTAA. THUS THE AOS ACTION IN TREATING THIS AMOUNT AS ROYALTIES IS SET ASIDE. ITA NO.2083/M/2011 8 8. ON THE ISSUE OF THE RECEIPTS BEING IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND HENCE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX , THE TRI BUNAL HELD THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AS NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT R ECEIVED. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, SITUATION IS THE SAME. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED WERE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, THUS IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS AR E NOT REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHETHER THE AMOUNT WILL BE TAXABLE IN INDIA. THE TAXABILITY WILL BE ATTRACTED IN INDIA IF ASSESSEE CARRIES ON BUSINESS IN INDIA THROUGH A PERMANENT E STABLISHMENT SITUATED IN INDIA. SUCH TAXABILITY WILL BE RESTRICTED TO TH E PROFITS OF THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT SUBJECT TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF TH E DTAA. SINCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TREATED AS ROYALTIES COVERED UNDER ARTICLE-12 OF THE DTAA BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THERE WAS NO OC CASION TO CONSIDER THE TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT IN TERMS OF ARTICLE-7 R.W. ARTICLE-5 OF THE DTAA. FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2004 -05, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF THIS AMOUNT AS ROY ALTY UNDER ARTICLE-12 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AS ALSO IN LINE WITH THE FINDING S OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2004-05 , WE HAVE HELD THAT THIS AMOUNT IS ALSO NO T REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. THE NATURAL COROLLARY WHICH FOLLOWS IN TH E PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES IS THAT THE TAXABILITY OF THIS AMOUNT IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED IN TERMS OF ARTICLE-7 AS HAS BEEN HELD B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2004-05 IN ITA NO. 416/M/08 (SUPRA). IT WOULD BE P ERTINENT TO MENTION HERE CLEARLY THAT IN A.Y. 2004-05, THE BREAK-UP OF THE SUM WAS AVAILABLE UNDER CLAUSES 3.1, 3.2 AND 3.3 WHICH HAS BEEN MENTI ONED BY US ELSEWHERE WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO US. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL IMPUGNED RECEIPTS ARE LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF ARTICLE-7. WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE ITA NO.2083/M/2011 9 THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE-7 OF THE DTAA. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.11.2013 . 4 / 3' % 5 6729.11.20133 / > SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 6 DATED 29.11.2013 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS 4 / ,0! ?!'0 4 / ,0! ?!'0 4 / ,0! ?!'0 4 / ,0! ?!'0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. @ ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. @ / CIT 5. !A> ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. >B C / GUARD FILE. 4 4 4 4 / BY ORDER, -!0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// D DD D / E ) E ) E ) E ) (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI