THE ADIT (I.T)3(1), V. M/S. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G,

ITA 2518/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8621 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Earning of tax free income; Revised return
• Section: 43B; 14A; 37(1); 139(5); 37

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES L, MUMBAI .. , ! '# , $ !, % BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ./ ITA NOS.2518/MUM/2004 & 4492/MUM/2005 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-2001 AND 2001-2002) THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(1) / 2(2) MUMBAI. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G 201 RAHEJA CENTRE, FREE PRESS JOURNAL MARG, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN :AAACO0440M. ( )* / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NOS.2675/MUM/2004 & 4756/MUM/2005 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-2001 AND 2001-2002) M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G 201 RAHEJA CENTRE, FREE PRESS JOURNAL MARG, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 3(1) / 2(2) MUMBAI ( )* / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - -- - . . . . / REVENUE BY : SHRI MAHESH KUMAR (CIT-DR) +,)* - . - . - . - . / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIRAJ SHETH ' - / / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 08.10.2012 01( - / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.10.2012 !2 !2 !2 !2 / / / / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE SETS OF CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE REVENUE RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-2001 AND 2001-2002. SINCE SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, WE A RE THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 2. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE TAXATION OF INTEREST OF ` 5,61,68,345 RECEIVED FROM HEAD OFFICE. BRIEFLY STAT ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXE MPTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME OF ` 5,61,68,345 EARNED FROM ITS HEAD OFFICE IN THE REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW ANY EXEMPTION AND ACCORDINGLY TAXED THIS AMOUNT. THE LEARNED CITA ) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A NON-RESIDENT CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS IN INDIA. DURING THE C OURSE OF ITS BUSINESS IT PLACED CERTAIN FUNDS WITH ITS HEAD OFFI CE AND EARNED THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT . THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ABN AMRO BANK NV V. ADIT [(2005) 97 ITD 89 (KOL) (SB)] HAS HELD THAT THE BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEE BANK CANNOT BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE ENTIT Y. THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE HEAD OFFICE AND BRANCH RESULTING INTO I NTEREST INCOME OR INTEREST EXPENDITURE ARE TO BE VIEWED AS TRANSACTIO N WITH SELF. ON THE BASIS OF MUTUALITY, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NEITHER ANY INCOME IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EARNED FROM ITS OVERS EAS BRANCHES, NOR THERE CAN BE DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST EXPENDITURE PAI D BY THE INDIAN BRANCH TO HEAD OFFICE OR THE OTHER OVERSEAS BRANCHE S. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED THE RATIO OF SPE CIAL BENCH DECISION IN SO FAR IT CONCERNS THE EXAMINATION UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 3 AND NOT THE DTAA. IT IS DIFFERENT MATTER THAT THE D ECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH RENDERED IN THIS CASE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DTAA HAS BEEN RECONSIDERED BY A LARGER BENCH, WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT PRESENTLY CONCERNED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THIS DECISION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WE HOLD THAT T HE INTEREST INCOME OF ` 5.61CRORE WHICH HAS RESULTED ONLY FROM THE ASSESSEE S DEALINGS WITH ITS HEAD OFFICE CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX ON TH E PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. ACCORDINGLY NO TAX CAN BE LEVIED ON THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS HEAD OFFICE OR OVERSEAS BRANC HES. AT THE SAME TIME WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY WILL EXTEND EQUALLY IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID BY THE A SSESSEE TO ITS HEAD OFFICE OR OTHER OVERSEAS BRANCHES. THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT CLAIM DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID TO ITS HEAD O FFICE AND OVERSEAS BRANCHES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLO W EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME AND ALSO NOT TO GRANT AN Y DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 4. THE OTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE INTEREST IN COME IS NOT EXEMPT. HE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE S INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH EXEMPT INCOME PRESUMABLY U/S 14A O F THE ACT. NEITHER IT IS THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THE ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 4 QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. AS THIS ISSUE DOE S NOT EMERGE OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DESIST F ROM EXAMINING IT. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A) REGARDING SECTION 44C OF THE ACT. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE ALSO IN RELATION TO DEDUCTION U/S 44C. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THESE GROUNDS ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF SPECIFIC EXPENSES INCURRED BY HEAD OFF ICE ON BEHALF OF INDIAN BRANCH AT ` 20,09,376 AS PER THE REVISED RETURN U/S 37 OF THE ACT AS AGAINST RS.19,24,206 CLAIMED AS PER THE ORIG INAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO OPINED THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE DE DUCTIBLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 44C. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SE PARATE CLAIM FOR HO EXPENSES, THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THIS CLAIM. IN PA RA 4.3 OF THE ORDER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT :`ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S HO AT RS.19,24,206 IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED. IN THE REVISED RERUN SUCH CLAIM IS MADE AT RS.26,00,621. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT APPEAL ARE PENDING FOR EARLIER YEARS THE CLAIM MADE AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO RECTIFICATION OF THE FIGURE ON F INALIZATION OF APPEALS. THAT IS HOW, THE AO ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.19,24,206 IN THE FINAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME TOWARDS `HEAD OFFIC E ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (AS PER REVISED ANNEXURE II) AS DISCUSSED. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S 44C BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN WHICH WAS MADE AT ` 26,00,621. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH THE SUBMISSION ADVANCED ON BE HALF OF THE ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 5 ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE A.O. HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE REVISED RETURN WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U /S 44C AT ` 26,00,621 AS AGAINST THE DEDUCTION U/S 44C IN THE O RIGINAL RETURN AT ` 19,24,206. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE DEDUCTION U/S 44C ON THE BASIS OF REVI SED RETURN FILED U/S 139(5) OF THE I.T. ACT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF T HE CORRECTNESS OF REVISED RETURN FILED WITHIN TIME. APPELLANTS APPEA L ON THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. NOW THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DI RECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN PRINCIPLE BUT THE LAST LINE BEING APPELLANTS APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWE D IS UNWARRANTED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEPARTMENT IS AGAINST THE DI RECTION GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN PRINCIPLE ABOUT THE ALLOWABILITY OF E XPENSES. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE REVISED ITS RETURN A ND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 44C AT HIGHER LEVEL THAN THAT CLAIMED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE HIGHER CLAIM U/S 44C AND NOT TO RESTRICT HIMSELF TO THE CL AIM MADE IN ORIGINAL RETURN. WE FAIL TO FIND ANY ABSURDITY IN THE DIRECTI ON OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE AO TO CONSIDER DEDUCTION U/S 44C ON T HE BASIS OF REVISED RETURN SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF THE CORRE CTNESS OF THE REVISED RETURN. WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) FOR APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44C CORRECTLY, WE DO NOT THINK ANY HARM HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE BY THIS DIRECTI ON. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE EXCEPT FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE LAST SENTENCE FROM PARA 6.1., WHICH IS CONTRARY TO HIS CONCLUSION ON ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 6 THE POINT. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE N OT ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSEES GROUND IS ACCEPTED TO THE EXTENT OF THE REMOVAL OF THE LAST SENTENCE. 7. GROUND NO.3, ABOUT NOT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM FO R DEDUCTION OF ` 21.75 LAKH BEING BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF IN THE PREVIO US YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96, WAS NOT PRESSED BY TH E LEARNED AR. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. THE LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESEES APPEA L IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B OF ` 38,561 PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTIO N TO PROVIDENT FUND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE SAI D SUM ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE UND ER THE EPF ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE ACCOR DINGLY. WE HAVE OBSERVED FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 38,561 WAS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETUR N U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED [(2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC)] READ ALONG WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AIMIL LIMITED [(2010) 321 ITR 508 (DELHI)], IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE I F THE EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION OR THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SECTION 139( 1) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 7 ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THIS SCORE IS A LLOWABLE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST A LLOWING DEDUCTION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE TUNE OF ` 2,60,02,975 ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF SUCH SUM AND CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON FOR IT AS BAD DEBT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE B Y HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BE COME BAD IN THE YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CL AIM. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THERE IS N O DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF BAD DEBT WAS CLAIMED AS DED UCTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ANNUAL ACCOUNTS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 36(2) ARE NOT COMPLIED WI TH. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.R.F. LTD. VS. CIT [(2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC)] HAS HELD THAT AFTER 01.04.1989 THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD IN THE PREVIO US YEAR U/S 36(1)(VII) AND DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE ON A SIMPLE W RITE OFF. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN DIT V. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. [313 ITR 12 8 (BOM.)] HAS HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBT IS ALLOWAB LE ON A SIMPLE WRITE OFF AND IT IS NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT HAD BECOME BAD. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE HONBLE ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 8 SUPREME COURT AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT, WE FIND THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS I SSUE IS WITHOUT EXCEPTION. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 12. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME OF ` 3,85,14,641 RECEIVED FROM HEAD OFFICE. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE WE HOLD THAT S UCH INTEREST CANNOT BE TAXED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. IN T HE LIKE MANNER, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF ANY, TOWARDS INTEREST PAID TO HEAD OFFICE OR OTHER OVERSEAS BRANCHES ALSO CANNOT BE ALLOWED. FURTHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A CANNOT BE ARG UED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHE N THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE IN THIS REGARD. 13. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISA LLOWANCE U/S 43B OF ` 18,102 PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROVIDENT FUND. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LIMITED (SUPRA) AND THAT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AIMIL LIMITED (SUPRA) , WE ALLOW THIS ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 9 GROUND OF APPEAL BECAUSE ADMITTEDLY THE AMOUNT IN R ESPECT OF EPF CONTRIBUTION WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 14. GROUND NO.3 ABOUT BRINGING TO TAX THE PROVISION OF ` 4,88,623 MADE FOR EXPENSES WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED AR . THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO.4 ABOUT NOT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF ` 21.75 LAKH BEING BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF IN THE PREVIO US YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WAS ALSO NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED AR. THE SAME IS ALSO DISMISSED. 16. FIRST GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF ` 32.64 LAKH U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 CONCERNING THE DEDUCTION OF HEAD OFF ICE EXPENSES U/S 44C OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOV E WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL. 17. LAST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOW ANCE OF ` 13,47,430 IN VIEW OF SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. T HE ASSESSEE PAID TRANSACTION CHARGES ON NOSTRO ACCOUNT WITH BANKS OU TSIDE INDIA. IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE HAVING DEDUCTED ANY TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH ITA NO.2518 /MUM/2004 & ORS. M/S.OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK S.A.O.G. 10 PAYMENTS, THE A.O. MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I). THE LEARNED CITA) DELETED THE ADDITION. 18. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS IN ASSESSEES FAVO UR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. !2 - 01( 3!'4 1 - 5 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (R.S.SYAL) $ ! $ ! $ ! $ ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 3!' DATED : 10 TH OCTOBER, 2012. DEVDAS* !2 - +$/6' 7'( !2 - +$/6' 7'( !2 - +$/6' 7'( !2 - +$/6' 7'(/ // // COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8 () / THE CIT(A)-XXXIII, MUMBAI. 4. 8 / CIT 5. ';5 +$/$' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5< = / GUARD FILE. !2' !2' !2' !2' / BY ORDER, ,'/ +$/ //TRUE COPY// > > > >/ // /? # ? # ? # ? # ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI