M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 45, MUMBAI

ITA 2503/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 250319914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K DAS
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Deemed dividend
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2501/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) ITA NO.2502/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) ITA NO.2503/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD., 53, HAJI MAHAL, MOHAMMED ALI ROAD, MUMBAI -400 003 ..... ASSESSEE VS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 45, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 ..... REVENUE ITA NO.3561/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) ITA NO.3559/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) ITA NO.3560/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 45, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 .... REVENUE M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD., 53, HAJI MAHAL, MOHAMMED ALI ROAD, MUMBAI -400 003 ..... ASSESSEE VS M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD., 53, HAJI MAHAL, MOHAMMED ALI ROAD, MUMBAI -400 003 ..... ASSESSEE PAN: AACCA 7715 P ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 2 ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DEEPAK TRALSHAWALA REVENUE BY: SHRI B.K. DAS O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM THIS BATCH OF SIX APPEALS, THREE BY THE ASSESSEE PE RTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 AND THREE BY TH E REVENUE PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05, IN WHICH THE RESPECTIVE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT-(A), CENT RAL III MUMBAI DATED 17.3.2009 HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED. WE FIRST TAK E UP THE ASSESSEES APPEALS. 2. ONLY ONE ISSUE IS INVOLVED I.E. IN RESPECT OF TH E ADDITION OF THE COMMISSION PAID TO SUB-AGENTS. THE A.O. MADE THE A DDITION IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION PAID TO 15 LADIES FOR PRO CURING THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT IN ` 2004-05 ` 4,95,920/- 2005-06 ` 10,10,150/- 2006-07 ` 29,05,600/- 3. THE FACTS REVEALED FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UNDER. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE A ND ITS GROUP COMPANIES U/S.132(1) OF THE ACT ON 21.3.2006. IN C ONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH OPERATION, ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED U/S.143(3 ) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS CONCERNED, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED PAYMENT OF THE EXTRA COMMISSION TO FREE LANCERS/SUB-AGENTS. THE A .O. HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FROM PAGE NO.16 TO 21. THE A.O. ISSUED SUMMONS U/S.131 TO SOME OF THE PERSONS TO WH OM COMMISSION WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE SUMMONS U/S.131 WERE ISSUED TO 15 PERSONS WHOSE DETAILS ARE GIVEN BY THE A.O. ON PAGE NO.17 & 18 OF THE ASSESSMENT ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 3 ORDER. IT APPEARS THAT ALL THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE SUMMONS WERE ISSUED DID NOT APPEAR BUT REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT . SUBSEQUENTLY, SOME OF THE PERSONS APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. IT APP EARS THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE ALSO MADE. THE NAME OF THE 15 PER SONS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID THE COMMISSIO N FOR PROCURING THE BUSINESS ARE AS UNDER:- 1) ZARIA JAMIL QURESHI 2) SHAKILA A QURESHI 3) SJAOSTA MABO QURESHI 4) SALMA ANWAR MOJAWALA 5) SAIMA ABDUL HAFEEZ MERCHANT 6) M/S. NAHID S. MERCHANT 7) MEHZABEEN S. BAGA 8) KHADEEJA A H MERCHANT 9) HIRAL THAKKAR 10) MS FIRDAUS SALIM MERCHANT 11) FARHA SHOEB MERCHANT 12) ASMA HANIF LAKDAWALA 13) MS. ANEESA SIRAJ MERCHANT 14) ABDUL REHMAN MERCHANT 15) HUSNA AZIZ MERCHANT 4. THE A.O. REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY G IVING THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I. THEY DO NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CUSTOMER B USINESS. THE DO NOT HAVE RELEVANT ELIGIBLE QUALIFICATION OF SUCH TYPE OF BUSINESS. THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY PAST EXPERIENCE O F SUCH TYPE OF CUSTOMER RELATED BUSINESS. II. EVERYBODY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE AND EXPLAIN HO W THEY GOT THE CUSTOMER. ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 4 III. AFTER BOOKING TICKETS THEY GET THE COMMISSION, AFTER 2/3 MONTHS RETURNING FROM THE HAJJ AND UMRAH. IV. WITHOUT MAINTAINING THE RECORD, HOW THEY CAN TH EY CONTROL AND MONITOR THE COMMISSION ON TICKETS IS BOOKED BY THEM. V. THE SOME LADIES SUB AGENTS SAID THEY ARE RELATED WITH THE ABOVE CONCERN BUT THEY COULD NOT EXPLAIN PROPERLY. VI. NOBODY COULD PROVIDE THE LIST OF CUSTOMERS WHIC H THEY CLAIM TO BE BROUGHT FOR THE HAJ AND UMRAH PILGRIMAG E. THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY PRELIMINARY LIST OF REGI STER WHICH COULD HAVE PROVED TO SOME EXTENT THAT THEY HA VE MADE ANY ATTEMPTS TO PROCURE CUSTOMER FOR THE ATLAS TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT LMT OR THE ATLAS TOURS AND TRAVELS FIRM EITHER ON ANY PARTICULAR DAY OR MONTH. VII. THE SUB-AGENTS COULD NOT EXPLAIN SATISFACTORIL Y ABOUT THE COMMISSION RATES PER PASSENGER. THEY SAY THEY GET A LUMP SUM AMOUNT. VIII. THERE ARE NO AGREEMENTS OF APPOINTING THEM AS SUB AGENTS, RATE OF COMMISSION AGREED UPON. THE CRITERIA CONDIT IONS, ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATION ON WHICH THEY HAD BEE N ASSIGNED AND APPOINTED AS SUB AGENTS NOBODY COULD EXPLAIN AND CLARIFY THESE POINTS. IX. THE SUB-AGENTS COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE EXACT COST INVOLVED IN EACH TOUR. THEY SAID THEY ONLY RECOMMEND WHICH WA S THE STANDARD REPLY. THEY SAID THAT THEY ONLY TOLD TO P EOPLE HOW TO PERFORM HAJ / UMRAH. ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 5 X. ALL SUB AGENTS LADIES APPEARED AND PROVED THAT T HEY BELONG TO SIGNIFICANTLY CONSERVATIVE AND RELIGIOUS FAMILY. THE RELIGIOUS NORMS, CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS AND RULES MAY NOT ALLOW THEM TO GO OUT FOR THE PROFESSIONAL PURPOSE O R I CAN SAY OUT OF THE HOUSE TO GET CUSTOMERS FOR THE ATLAS TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT LMT OR THE ATLAS TOURS AND TRAVELS FIRM EITHER. XI. THOUGH THE LADIES, WHO HAVE ATTENDED BEFORE UND ERSIGNED HAVE FILED THE RETURN AND SHOWN COMMISSION AS INCOM E, TAX PAYMENT IS NEGLIGIBLE KEEPING IN VIEW OF BASIC ASSU MPTION. ONLY TO AUTHENTICATE THE TRANSACTION, THESE LADIES WERE FILING THE RETURN WHEREAS THEY HAVE NOT RENDERED AN Y SERVICES. 5. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITIONS IN ALL THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID EXTRA PAYMENT OF C OMMISSION WAS NOT THE GENUINE EXPENDITURE BUT ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SA ME TO REDUCE THE PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS BEFO RE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LD. COUNSEL TOOK US THROUGH THE P APER BOOK, MORE PARTICULARLY PAGE NO.115 & 116 AND SUBMITTED ALL AG ENTS ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE WORKED FOR THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR PROCURING THE BUSINESS THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO SOME OF THE QU ESTIONS AND ALSO THE REPLIES OF THE PERSONS/AGENTS. HE FURTHER ARGU ES THAT LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CIT (A), BUT, THOSE ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OF THE EVIDENCES. B OTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE RAISED THE QUESTION OF QUALIFICATION OF THE AG ENTS FOR PROCURING THE BUSINESS FOR HAJ AND UMRAH TOURS OF THE MUS LIMS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THOSE TOURS WERE ORGANIZED FOR SPIRIT UAL SATISFACTION AND TO COMPLY WITH RELIGIONS PRINCIPLES. IT IS ARG UED THAT PERSONS ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 6 EVERY MUSLIM DESIRES TO VISIT TO HOLY PLACES OF ME CCA AND MADINA AT LEAST ONCE IN ONES LIFE-TIME, FOR PERFORMING TH EIR RELIGIOUS RITUALS. IT IS NOT A NORMAL TOUR AND THE PERSONS GOING TO THE H AJ OR UMRAH MAY NOT BE EDUCATED ONE IN THE RELIGIOUS RITUALS. THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRED TO SOME OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE AGENTS AND SUBMITT ED THAT THESE AGENTS HAVE TO SPEND THEIR TIME NOT ONLY FOR PROCUR ING TOURISTS FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS BUT ALSO TO GIVING TRAINING TO THE TOURISTS HOW TO PERFORM HAJ OR UMRAH AS WELL AS ALSO TO SEE THA T THEY ARE COMFORTABLY BOARDED THE FLIGHTS IN THE AIRPORTS. HE SUBMITS THAT MERE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION CANNOT BE THE CRITERIA F OR PROCURING THE BUSINESS OF HAJ OR UMRAH TOURISTS. THIS ALSO S AVES THE COSTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EMPLOYING THE ADDITIONAL STAFF. HE AL SO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THAT IN THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO T HE AGENTS SAME TIMING IS GIVEN TO ALL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE AGENTS / SUB- AGENTS HAVE DECLARED THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM T HE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IN THEIR RETURNS. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED T HAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. MOREOV ER, ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OR WHEREFROM NECESSARY TDS IS ALSO DEDUCTED. PER CONTRA, THE LD . D.R. SUBMITS THAT MOST OF THE AGENTS ARE LADIES. THEY ARE NOT EDUCAT ED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY AGREEMENTS WITH THOSE PERSONS OR LADIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE S ERVICES RENDERED BY THEM. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED FOR CONFIRMING THE AD DITIONS. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE TOURISM BUSINESS AND THER E IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ARRANGES HAJ OR UMRAH TOURS FOR THE MUSLIMS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNSEL THAT HAJ OR UMRAH TOURISTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE REGULAR TO URISTS. PERFORMING HAJ IS ONE OF THE RELIGIOUS COMPULSIONS FOR FOLLOWE RS OF ISLAMIC FAITH. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS/AGEN TS, WE FIND THAT MOST OF THEM HAVE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF THE SERVI CES RENDERED BY THEM I.E. PROCURING THE BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY, GIVING THE TRAINING TO THE PERSONS WHO ARE DESIRING TO GO FOR HAJ OR UMRAH IN ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 7 RESPECT OF THE RELIGIOUS RITUALS TO BE PERFORMED AN D ALSO TO ACCOMPANY THEM TO THE AIR PORTS. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE STATE MENTS RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING/A.O., WE FIND THAT NONE OF T HE AGENTS HAS DENIED THE RECEIPT OF THE COMMISSION FROM THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY. WE FURTHER FIND THAT MOST OF THE AGENTS HAVING FILED T HE RETURNS OF INCOME AND DECLARED THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E-COMPANY. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ALL AGENTS HAVE EXPLAINED NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS QUESTION RAISED IN RESPECT OF THE AGREEMENTS WITH THOSE PERSONS, IN OUR OPINION, CONS IDERING THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SERVICES RE NDERED BY THOSE AGENTS THE CLAIM CANNOT BE DENIED BECAUSE THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. AFTER GIVING OUR ANXIOUS CONSIDERATION TO THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE, ACCORDIN GLY, DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THE EXTRA C OMMISSION PAYMENT AND ALLOW A GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS. 8. NOW, WE TAKE-UP REVENUES APPEALS. 9. THE ONLY ISSUE IN REVENUES APPEAL IS ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIRST TAKE THE R EVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03. THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS EARLIER THE FIRM HAVING FOUR PARTNERS, WHICH WA S CONVERTED INTO PVT. LTD. COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS TAKEN THE LOANS AND ADVANCES FROM OTHER FOLLOWING GROUP-CONCERNS I.E. A TLAS TOURS & TRAVELS (P) LTD. IN WHICH THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY ARE HAVING THE EQUITABLE DUES. THE A.O., THEREFORE, PR OCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY MADE TH E ADDITION OF ` 8,05,217/- IN THE A.Y. 2002-03 AND IN THE SAME WAY, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 OF ` 7,04,954/- AND FOR THE A.Y. ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 8 2004-05 OF ` 14,22,976/- RESPECTIVELY. THE LD. D.R. IS FAIR EN OUGH TO CONCEDE THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS NOW SQUARELY CO VERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNIVERSAL MEDICARE (P) LTD. 324 ITR 263 IN WHICH TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE SB OF THE ITAT MUMBAI HAS BEEN APPROVED. T HE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE SHAREHOLDER IN ANY OF THE CONCERNS OR COMPANIES FROM WHICH LOANS / ADVANCES A RE TAKEN. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNIVERSAL MEDICARE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) APPROVING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OW N CASE, DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UNIVER SAL MEDICARE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) THE ITAT MUMBAI HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 9. ..HOWEVER, EVEN ON THE SECOND ASPECT WHICH HAS WEIGHED WITH THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE PROVISION S OF S.2(22)(E) IS CORRECT. SEC. 2(22)(E) DEFINES THE A MBIT OF THE EXPRESSION DIVIDEND. ALL PAYMENTS BY WAY OF DIVI DEND HAVE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE DIVIDEND NAMELY THE SHAREHOLDER. THE EFFECT OF S.2(22) IS T O PROVIDE AN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF EXPRESSION DIVIDEND. CL AUSE (E) EXPANDS THE NATURE OF PAYMENTS WHICH CAN BE CLASSIF IED AS A DIVIDEND. CLAUSE (E) OF S. 2(22) INCLUDES A P MA DE BY THE COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IN TERESTED BY WAY OF AN ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER OR TO ANY CONCERN TO WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR PA RTNER, SUBJECT TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS WHIC H ARE SPELT OUT IN THE PROVISION. SIMILARLY, A PAYMENT M ADE BY A COMPANY ON BEHALF, OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, O F ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS TREATED BY CL. (E) TO BE INCLU DED IN THE EXPRESSION DIVIDEND BY INCLUDING CERTAIN PAYMENTS WHICH THE COMPANY HAS MADE BY WAY OF A LOAN OR ADVANCE OR PAYMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BE NEFIT OF A SHAREHOLDER. THE DEFINITION DOES NOT ALTER THE L EGAL ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 9 POSITION THAT DIVIDEND HAS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER. CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, TH E PAYMENT, EVEN ASSUMING THAT IT WAS A DIVIDEND, WOUL D HAVE TO BE TAXED NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE B UT IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDER. THE TRIBUNAL WAS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT, IN ANY EVENT, THE PAYMENT COULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY IN CONCLUDING NOTE THAT THE B ASIS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IN THE PRE SENT CASE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS 32,00,000 IS TH AT THERE WAS A DIVIDEND UNDER S. 2(22)(E) AND NO OTHER BASIS HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. 11. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE SHARE HOLDER OF SAID COMPANY. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE I N ALL THE APPEALS. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 8 TH APRIL 2011. SD/- SD/- ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 8TH APRIL 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPLICANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CENT III, MUMBAI. ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 10 4) THE CIT CENTRAL -IV, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. A BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 2501 TO 2503/M/2009 ITA 3559 TO 3561/M/2009 M/S. ATLAS TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 11 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 01.04.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 05.04.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER