SUBHKAM STOCK & SHARES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO CIR 4(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2360/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 236019914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRIJA DAYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R C JAIN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Cost of acquisition; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ ! %, & !'# !' BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, J M !./ I.T.A. NO. 2360 /MUM/2012 ( &) % $*% &) % $*% &) % $*% &) % $*% / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SUBHKAM STOCK & SHARES PVT. LTD., THE INTERNATIONAL HOUSE, 4 TH FLOOR, NEW MARINE LINE CROSS ROAD NO. 1, NEAR AMERICAN CENTRE, 16 M.K. ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI 400 020. ) ) ) ) / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 4(2)(3), 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. #+ !./ PAN : AAACM7389K ( +, / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -.+, / RESPONDENT ) +, / 0 ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.C. JAIN -.+, / 0 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GIRIJA DAYAL !)$ / / // / DATE OF HEARING : 07-08-2013 12* / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-08-2013 '3 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : .. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 9, MUMBAI DTD. 13-01-2012. ITA 2360/MUM/2012 2 2. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 REL ATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,57,886/- MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) ON ACCOUNT OF V-SAT AND LEASELINE CHARGES, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THE SAME IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY TH E DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANGEL CAPI TAL AND DEBIT MARKET LTD. (IT APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2007) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THA T V-SAT AND LEASELINE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO STOCK EXCHANGE BEI NG MAINLY REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CHARGES PAID/PAYABLE BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE T O THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, THE SAME DO NOT HAVE ANY ELEMEN T OF INCOME AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTING ANY TAX FROM THE PAYMEN T OF SUCH CHARGES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF V-SAT AND LEASELINE CHARGES. GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 3. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 RELA TING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR LOSS ON FUTURE AND OPTION TRANSACTIONS AM OUNTING TO RS. 41,95,678/- HOLDING THAT THE PROVISION MADE FOR FAL L IN PRICES OF THE INSTRUMENTS AT THE END OF THE YEAR IS NOT ALLOWABLE , THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 RENDERED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25 TH JUNE, 2010 IN ITA NO. 1941/MUM/2009 WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DISCUSSING ALL TO THE RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE MATTER IN PARA 9 TO 14 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- ITA 2360/MUM/2012 3 9. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE FUTURES ARE CONT RACTS FOR PURCHASE OR SALE OF AN ASSET AT A FUTURE DATE AT AN AGREED PRICE. WHILE TRADING THESE FUTURES IN THE MARKET, THE EXCHANGE H AS STIPULATED CERTAIN CONDITIONS VIZ., THE CONTRACT HAS TO BE SET TLED ON A DAILY BASIS. THEY ARE SQUARED UP AND CARRIED FORWARD ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS AT THE CLOSING RATE PREVAILING AT THE END OF THE DAY. IT W ILL TANTAMOUNT TO SETTLEMENT OF THE CONTRACT EVERY DAY AND ENTERING I NTO A FRESH DEAL AT THE PRICE PREVAILING AT THE CLOSE OF THAT DAY AND S ETTLING THE DIFFERENCE. ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS THESE ARE VALUED AND THE DIFF ERENCE BETWEEN THE CLOSING PRICE OF THE FUTURES ON ANY DAY AND THE CLO SING PRICE ON THE PREVIOUS DAY ARE COLLECTED FROM OR PAID TO THE BROK ERS BY THE EXCHANGE. THE BROKERS PASS IT ON OR ADJUST IT AGAINST THE MAR GIN MONIES DEPOSITED BY THE CLIENTS. THEREFORE THESE PAYMENTS OR RECEIPT S WHICH ACCRUE ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS AND WILL HAVE TO BE SETTLED TO THE EXCHANGE, INDEPENDENT OF THE UNDERLYING FORWARD CONTRACT WHIC H IS ULTIMATELY SETTLED. IT IS NOT AS IF THE DAILY VARIATIONS ARE M ERELY BOOK ENTRIES, MADE ON A NOTIONAL BASIS. ACTUAL PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY OR TO THE EXCHANGE ON THE DAILY DIFFERENCES. THESE ARE NOT NOTIONAL. T HE LOSS OR AS THE CASE MAY BE PROFITS ACCRUE ON A DAILY BASIS AND SETTLED. THEREFORE THE LOSSES OR PROFITS CANNOT BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COM PUTING TOTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS THAT THEY ARE ONLY NOTIONAL. 10. THE LOSS OR PROFIT IS NOT MERELY ON A NOTIONAL VALUATION OF. THE DERIVATIVE CONTRACT. THUS IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DE CIDED WHETHER THE DERIVATIVE CONTRACT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS STOCK IN T RADE OR NOT AS THEIR COST OF ACQUISITION IS NIL OR WHETHER THE LOSS CAN ARISE ON VALUATION OF THE RIGHTS UNDER THE CONTRACT WHOSE COST OF ACQUISI TION IS NIL. THE NATURE OF CONTRACT IS SUCH THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQ UIRED TO SETTLE OR RECEIVE FROM EXCHANGE LOSSES OR PROFITS COMPUTED ON A DAILY BASIS. THESE PAYMENTS ARE NOT ON A REFUNDABLE BASIS. THEY ARE PAYABLE ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. 11. THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE AO AND THE LD. C IT(A) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OVE RSEAS BANK (151 ITR 446 (MAD), THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO FORWARD CO NTRACTS FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE. ON THE OUTSTANDING CONTRACTS THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE LIKELY LOSS. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE UNPREDICTABILITY OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATIO N, THE LOSS ON UNEXPIRED CONTRACTS CANNOT BE ESTIMATED. IN THIS CA SE IT IS NOT AN ESTIMATE OF LOSS AT A FUTURE DATE. THE LOSS HAS ACT UALLY OCCURRED ON THE BASIS OF THE FLUCTUATION OF THE PRICE OF THE FUTURE S EVERY DAY AND THE SAME IS ALSO SETTLED. 12. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KAM ANI METAL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD (208 ITR 1017), THE ASSESSEE CONT RACTED TO PURCHASE COPPER CATHODE AT RS. 33,825 PER M.T. TILL THE LAST DATE OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR THE MATERIAL WAS NOT RECEIVED. THE MARKET PRICE OF COPPER CATHODES FELL TO RS. 25,461/-. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED FOR THE ANTICIPATED LOSS IN THE PRICE OF COPPER CATHODES AN D CLAIMED IT AS A ITA 2360/MUM/2012 4 DEDUCTION. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY STOCK IN TRADE OR HAND AS ON THE LAST DAY OF TH E PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH CAN BE VALUED AT MARKET VALUE AND LOSS CAN BE BOOKE D. IT WAS ONLY A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE MATERIAL AT A FUTURE DATE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT AND NO PROPERTY PASSED TO ASSES SEE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM ANY ANTICIPATORY LOSS. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS NOT AN ANTICIPATORY LOSS. IT IS ACTUAL LOSS BASED O N THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICES ON TWO SUCCESSIVE DAYS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SAME IS TO BE SETTLED ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. 13. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A LOSS OF RS. 23,42,30 /- BEING THE LOSS INCURRED UPTO 30.3.2005 WHICH HAS BEEN ACTUALLY SET TLED AND MADE A PROVISION OF RS. 13,33,180/- BEING THE LOSS INCURRE D ON 31.3.2005 AND SETTLED ON 1.4.2005. THE AO DSA11QWCL.23,42,83O/- A ND THE CIT(A) ISSUED ENHANCEMENT NOTICE AND DISALLOWED, IN ADDITI ON TO SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 23,42,830/- MADE BY THE AO, THE LOSS OF RS. 13,33,180/- INCURRED ON 31.3.2005. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THE LOSSES INCURRED UPTO AND INCLUDING 31.3. 2005, NET OF ANY PROFITS EARNED DURING THE PERIOD ON FAVORABLE FLUCT UATION OF THE PRICE OF THE FUTURES, ARE ACCRUED LOSSES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR. THEY HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE. 14. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A MARK TO MARKET BASIS ON THE STOCK INDEX FUTURE OF R S. 23,42,830/- (INCURRED UPTO 31.3.2005) AND RS. 13,33,180/-(INCUR RED ON 31.3.2005), ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL SETTLEMENT OF LOSSES ON FUTU RE CONTRACTS BASED ON THE PRICE DIFFERENTIAL OF THE FUTURES ON A DAY TO D AY BASIS, WHICH IS NET OFF ANY PROFITS EARNED DURING THIS PERIOD ON THE CO MPUTATION OF THE DIFFERENTIAL PRICING, IS AN ACCRUED LOSS AND IS ALL OWABLE. 4. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO A.Y. 2005-06, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THI S TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON FUTURE AND OPTION TRANSACTIONS. GROUND NO. 2 OF ASS ESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,98,247/- MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD . CIT(A) U/S 14A R.W.S. RULE 8-D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. ITA 2360/MUM/2012 5 6. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSE E HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 4,89,330/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE EX EMPT U/S 10(33) OF THE ACT. NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INC URRED FOR EARNING OF THE SAID EXEMPT INCOME, HOWEVER, WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A WORKING CLAIM ED TO BE MADE AS PER RULE 8D SHOWING THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT DIVIDEND IN COME AT RS. 21,230/-. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID WORK ING FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O. MADE HIS OWN WORKING OF THE DISA LLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AS PER RULE 8-D AT RS. 5,98,247/- AN D MADE A DISALLOWANCE TO THAT EXTENT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 14A R.W.R. 8-D RELYING INTER ALIA ON T HE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMEN T, (2008) 26 SOT 603 (MUM.). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES WHICH IS TREATED AS SPECULATION B USINESS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OR INTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THUS IS TO EARN PROFIT FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND THE EARNING OF DIVI DEND INCOME IS ONLY INCIDENTAL. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS FOR EARNING PROFIT FROM THE BUSIN ESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND THE EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME WAS ON LY THE FALL OUT OF THIS MAIN BUSINESS. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS THUS NO CASE OF MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT BUT STILL THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED THE WORKING OF THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14A BEFORE THE A .O. AS PER RULE 8-D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOU NT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARES ON WHICH DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EARNED D URING THE YEAR UNDER ITA 2360/MUM/2012 6 CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES. HE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE SAID WORKING BEFORE US AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BEING MADE BY ADOPTING REASONABLE BAS IS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID WORKING, EVEN THE LD. D.R. H AS AGREED THAT THE SAID WORKING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER RULE 8-D SHOWIN G THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AT RS. 21,230/- IS QUITE FA IR AND REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO RS. 21,230/- AND ALLOW PARTLY GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSES SEES APPEAL. 8. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,21,836/- MADE BY THE LD. CIT (A) U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF TURNOVER CHARGES BY EXERCISING HIS POWER OF ENHANCE MENT. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT W AS NOTICED BY THE LD. CIT (A) THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,21,836/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE (NSE) TOWARDS TRANSACTION CHARGES. ALTHOUGH NO TAX AT SOURCE WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID PAYMENT AS REQUIRED U/S 194J OF THE A CT, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF T RANSACTION CHARGES PAID TO NSE WAS NOT MADE BY THE A.O. AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) THUS ISSUED A NOTICE REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON ACCO UNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID TO NSE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND ITS INCOME SHOULD NOT BE ENHANCED TO THAT EXTENT. SINC E THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT FOUND SATISF ACTORY BY HIM, THE LD. CIT(A) ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISAL LOWING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID TO N SE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITIES (ITA APPEAL NO. 3111 OF 2009, DTD. 21-10-2011) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID BY THE A SSESSEE TO STOCK EXCHANGE ITA 2360/MUM/2012 7 FOR RENDERING THE MANAGERIAL SERVICES CONSTITUTED F EES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE THEREFROM U/S 194J R.W. EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/ S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID TO NSE FOR THE FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE ON MERIT BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. HE, HOWEVER, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAVING NOT BEEN CONSIDERED OR DISCUS SED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ARI SING FROM THE SAID ORDER GIVING THE JURISDICTION TO THE LD. CIT (A) TO CONSI DER THE SAME BY EXERCISING THE POWER OF ENHANCEMENT, SCOPE OF WHICH IS LIMITED. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE SCOPE OF POWER OF ENHANCEMENT GIVEN TO THE LD. CIT (A) IS VERY WIDE AND THE ONLY LIMITATION FOR EXERCISING THE SAID POWER IS THAT TH E LD. CIT (A) CANNOT GO BEYOND THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND CANNOT BRING TO TAX THE NEW SOURCE OF INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPE NDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THIS BEING THE UNDISPUTED POSITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID E XPENDITURE WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE LD. CIT (A) U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TH EREBY ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD HIS IMPUGNED O RDER ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 4 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. ITA 2360/MUM/2012 8 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4 5 &) %4 / 63 #$ 7 / 89 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH AUGUST, 2013. . '3 / 12* :') 5 14-08-2013 2 / SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (P.M. JAGTAP ) & !'# JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; :') DATED 14-08-2013 $.&).!./ RK , SR. PS '3 / -&6; <;* '3 / -&6; <;* '3 / -&6; <;* '3 / -&6; <;*/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = () / THE CIT(A)- 9, MUMBAI 4. = / CIT 4, MUMBAI 5. ;$@ -&&) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. A% B / GUARD FILE. '3)! '3)! '3)! '3)! / BY ORDER, !.; -& //TRUE COPY// C C C C/ // /!8 !8 !8 !8 ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI