ITO ACIT 7(3), V. M/S TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO, LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2667/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4490 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS KUSUM INGLE
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH VYAS; MRS INDIRA ANAND
• Keywords: Capital asset; Earning of tax free income; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH J,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR (PRESIDENT) & SHRI R.K. PAN DA (AM) I.T.A.NO.2667/MUM/2004 (A.Y.2000-01 ) ACIT, CIR. 7(3), ROOM NO.654, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.RD., MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S.TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD., BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMI MODY STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. PAN: AAACT 0191 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A.NO.495/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2002-03) M/S.TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD., BOMBAY HOUSE, 24, HOMI MODY STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. PAN: AAACT 0191 Q VS. ACIT, CIR. 7(3), ROOM NO.654, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.RD., MUMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY MRS. KUSUM INGLE, CIT/DR. ASSESSEE BY SHRI DINESH VYA S & MRS.INDIRA ANAND. O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, AM : I.T.A. NO.2667/MUM/2004 IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12-01-2004 OF THE CIT(A)-XIII, MUM BAI, RELATING TO THE ASSTT. YEAR 2000-01. I.T.A NO.495/MUM/08 FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03-12-2007 OF THE CIT(A)-XXIII, MUMBAI, RELATING TO THE ASSTT. YEAR 2002-03. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THE APPE ALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.2667/MUM/2004 (BY REVENUE): 2. GROUND NO. 1 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER : ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ASSESS INCOME FROM PROJECTS ON COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD, AND NOT ON PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS. THE AO, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE TILL ASST. YEAR 1996-97 FOLLOWED THE COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR INCOME FROM PROJECTS. IN ASSTT. YEAR 1997-98, THIS WAS CH ANGED TO PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. THIS METHOD HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THIS YEAR ALSO. THE DEPARTMENT HAD IN EARLIER YEARS NOT ACCEPTED THE AS SESSEES METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND TAXED ITS INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ASSTT. YEAR 1996-97 OFFERED INCOME BASED ON THE COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD. THIS WAS ACCEPTED WI THOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DEPARTMENTS VIEW IN EARLIER YEARS. IN ASSTT. YEAR 1997-98, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN BASED ON INCOME ON PERCENTAGE COMPLETION MET HOD, WHICH WAS LATER REVISED TO INCOME UNDER COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD. THE REVISED RETURN WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE PER CENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. 2.1 IN THE CURRENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME UNDER THE COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD FOR TAX PURPOSES, WHILE I N ITS BOOKS, PROFIT IS DETERMINED FOLLOWING THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METH OD. 2.2 ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD IN FILING I TS RETURN OF INCOME SINCE THE INCEPTION. THE PROFITS/LOSSES ON ANY PROJECT ARE AC COUNTED FOR IN THE YEAR OF SALE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD WILL NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL PROFITS AS IT WOULD ONLY BE AN ESTIMATE. THE ACTUAL PROFITS ARE OFFERED TO TAX BY ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 3 THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. TAXING THE PR OFITS ONCE UNDER PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN UNDER THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD WOULD RESULT IN DOUBLE TAXATION O F THE SAME INCOME AND, THEREFORE, TO AVOID THE SAME, IT WOULD BE ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY AND ADOPT ONLY ONE METHOD. 2.3 HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THE METHOD FOLLOWED TO DETE RMINE THE PROFITS OF THE PROJECTS CAN BE EITHER OF THE TWO METHODS I.E. COMP LETED CONTRACT METHOD OR PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD. BUT, WHAT IS IMPORTAN T IS THAT A METHOD APPLIED SHOULD BE FOLLOWED UNIFORMLY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. CHANGING FROM ONE METHOD TO ANOTHER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT REFLECT THE TRUE PROFIT S. ANY METHOD FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY WOULD RESULT IN THE SAME PROFITS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME SPECIALLY FOR PERSONS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. A CHANGE IN METHOD WOULD DISTORT THE PICTURE OF THE PROFITS. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK REPORTED IN 200 ITR 68. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000 AND EARLIER YEARS, A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION CONTRACT METHOD IS THE CORRECT WAY TO ASSESS THE PR OFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT FOR THIS YEAR ALSO THE ASSESS EES INCOME WILL BE COMPUTED ON THE SAME BASIS. 3. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A), FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR T HE ASSTT. YEAR 1998-99 AND THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, DIRECTED THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON COMP LETION CONTRACT METHOD. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASS T. YEARS 1998-99 AND 1999- ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 4 2000 VIDE ITA NO.2665 & 2666/MUM/2004. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 05-04-2010, WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILE D BY THE REVENUE, HAS HELD AS UNDER : 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF T HE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT ISSUE IS COVERED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE TO FOLLOW COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING , BY THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE ITAT FOR AY 83-84/87-88 WHICH HAVE BE EN CONFIRM THE HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 31.7.2006. THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED EARLIER YEARS ORDER OF ITAT AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURIS DICTION HIGH COURT, THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THAT WE DO NOT FIN D ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IS CONFIRMED. SINCE THE AO, FOLLOWING THE ORDERS FOR THE ASSTT. Y EAR 1999-2000 AND EARLIER YEARS, HAS CHANGED THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FROM C OMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD TO PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND SINCE THE CIT (A), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS, HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME FROM PROJECTS ON COMPLETED CONTRA CT METHOD, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOT ICE BY THE REVENUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 BY THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT9A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF RS.12,80, 83,267/- BY WAY OF INTEREST U/S. 36(1)(III), WHICH HAD BEEN CAPITAL IZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WORK IN PROGRE SS BUT WAS CLAIMED AS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE FOR COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT IN THE P & L A/C. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS.5,08,08,103/-. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.77,13,717/- AND INSTEAD C LAIMED INTEREST OF RS.12,80,83,267/- AND VIDE A NOTE THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED AS UNDER : COST OF SALES OF COMPLETED PROJECT SOLD DURING HE YEAR INCLUDES INTEREST ALLOCATED TO RESPECTIVE PROJECT DURING ITS CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. INTEREST SO ALLOCATED HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 5 RESPECT PREVIOUS YEAR ON PAYMENT BASIS U/S.36(1)(II I) R.W.S. 43B OF THE I. T. ACT. SINCE THE COST OF SALES DEBITED TO P & L A/C. DURING THE YEAR ON COMPLETED CONTRACT BASIS INCLUDES INTEREST COST WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED ON PAYMENT BASIS IN THE RESPECTIVE PRE VIOUS YEAR, SAME IS NOW OFFERED FOR TAXATION TO AVOID DOUBLE DE DUCTION. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN EARLIER Y EARS, SUCH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF INTEREST WAS SNOT ALLOWED ON THE PA YMENT BASIS CONTRARY TO STATUTORY PROVISIONS U/S. 43B OF THE I. T. ACT. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CL AIMED INTEREST OF RS.12,80,83,267/- BY REFERRING TO IT AS INTEREST PA ID DURING THE YEAR TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON BORROWINGS ALLOWABLE U/S. 43B R.W.S. 36(1)(III) INCLUDED IN CLOSING STOCK OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS BUT NOT DEBITED T O THE P & L A/C. 5.1 FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 A ND EARLIER YEARS, THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,80,83,267/- U/S.36(1) (III) OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A), FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR T HE ASST. YEAR 1998-99, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASS T. 1997-98. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.6739/MUM/2003 ORDER DATED 06-0 4-2002 AT PARA-8 OF THE ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER : 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. SINCE THE CIT(A) FO LLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LOKHANDWALA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES LTD. AND DIRECT ED THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ACCOUNT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 BY THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER : ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 6 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALL OWANCE OF INTEREST AT 5% OF THE INVESTMENTS, AS AGAINST THE D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WORKED OUT BY THE A.O. ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.48,00,000/- U/S.14A, BEING INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES, T HE DIVIDEND INCOME OF WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A), FOLLOWING H IS ORDER FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000, RESTRICTED SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO 5% ON TO TAL INVESTMENT OF RS.3,06,91,200/- WHICH WOULD MEAN AN ADDITION OF RS .15,34,560/-. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE & MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT V IDE ITA NO.626/MUM/2010 HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE I.T . RULES, WHICH HAS BEEN NOTIFIED W.E.F. 24-03-2008, SHALL APPLY WITH EFFECT FOM THE ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09. IN THE SAID DECISION, IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THAT EVEN P RIOR TO ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09, WHEN RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THE AO HAS TO ENFO RCE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SEC. 14A. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE AO I S DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. THE AO MUST ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURNISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 7 AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.495/MUM/08 (BY ASSESSEE): 10. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 1 I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) GROSSLY ERRED IN REJECTING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING NAMELY COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD CONSISTENTLY ADOPTED BY T HE APPELLANT TO ARRIVE AT TAXABLE PROFITS. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WA S ALWAYS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE COMPLETED CONTRACT METHO D FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSE AND THE SAID METHOD HAS BEEN HEL D TO BE VALID IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE BY ITAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. III) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) GROSSLY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE METH OD OF COMPLETED CONTRACT ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT IS AN A CCEPTED AND RECOGNIZED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AS LAID DOWN BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA IN ITS MANDATORY ACCOUNTING STANDARD 7. (AS-7) ACCOUNTING FOR CONSTR UCTION CONTRACTS. IV) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CHANGED ITS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IN BOOKS EVER SINCE A.Y. 97-98, HOWE VER FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES IT WAS ALL ALONG CONSISTENTLY F OLLOWING THE COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CONSIDERI NG PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AS THE CORRECT WAY TO ASSESS THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AGAINST COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE B Y HOLDING AS UNDER : 7. HOWEVER, AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABO VE ARGUMENTS, I FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DISTINGUISH ABLE. IN THIS YEAR, UNLIKE THE YEARS FOR WHICH HONBLE ITAT HAD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT, TWO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y. ONE FOR THE BOOKS AND ANOTHER, FOR THE INCOME TAX R ETURN. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT HAS BEEN OBJECTED TO BY THE A.O. IN THE EARLIER YEARS, ONLY ONE METHOD HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR BOTH. ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 8 8. I AM FURTHER CONVINCED THAT WHEN IN THE BOOKS, THE APPELLANT HAS COMPUTED INCOME ADMITTEDLY APPLYING T HE PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION METHOD, IT IS ONLY EVIDENT THAT FIGURES AND FACTS HAD BEEN AVAILABLE WITH IT TO ARR IVE AT A FIGURE OF INCOME. THUS THERE WAS NO REASON TO ADOPT A DIFFERENT METHOD FOR THE INCOME TAX PURPOSES. OBVIO USLY THE MOTIVE WAS NOT TO RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE AS PER THE PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT COMPLETED, DURING THE YEAR. I N OTHER WORDS, THE ONLY IDEA BEHIND THE ADOPTION OF THE COM PLETED CONTRACT METHOD WAS TO DEFER THE PROFIT TO A FUTURE DATE AND CLAIM THE EXPENSES ALLOWABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINES S HAVING NET EFFECT OF ACCUMULATING LOSS ONLY FOR THE INCOME TAX PURPOSES. THAT IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS YEA R. 9. INDEED, NO ONE IS DENYING THAT THE COMPLETED C ONTRACT METHOD IS A RECOGNIZED METHOD. THE ONLY OBJECTION I S THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CAPITALIZED THE EXPENSES AS PER T HE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AND WITHOUT RECOGNIZING A NY REVENUE FOR THE YEAR HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE E XPENSES PERTAINING TO THE YEAR. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS, MEANT FOR THE SHAREHOLDERS, BANKERS AND FINANCERS, IT HAD SHOWN A ROSY PICTURE ADOPTING A D IFFERENT METHOD BY RECOGNIZING THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT COMPLETED. NATURALLY, THE ADO PTION OF THE DIFFERENT METHOD FOR THE INCOME TAX RETURN HAD THE ONLY EFFECT OF THE IMMEDIATE NON-PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT BY ADOPTING TWO METHODS FOR TWO PURPOSES, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD WANTED TO WIN B OTH HEADS AND TAILS OF THE COIN. I DISMISS THE APPELLAN TS GROUND THAT HAD MISCONCEIVED ITS RELIANCE OF THE HONBLE T RIBUNALS DECISIONS IN ITS OWN CASE FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE ARS WHEN THE ISSUE IN THOSE YEARS WAS WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO ADOPT COMPLETED CONTRACT METHOD, WHEREA S IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ONE METHOD C AN BE ADOPTED FOR THE BOOKS AND ANOTHER FOR INCOME TAX SO THAT NO PROFIT IS ACTUALLY DETERMINED O BE TAXED. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION PARA-4 ABOVE W HERE THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2667/MUM/04 HAS BEEN DISMISSED. F OLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 2 I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ER RED IN ALLOWING A DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SELLING EXPENSES OF VARIOUS PROJECTS, LOAN PROCESSING ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 9 CHARGES, DEBENTURE BROKERAGE ETC. TO THE EXTENT WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES INSTEAD OF EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS AS CLAIMED BY TH E APPELLANT. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED A SUM OF RS.2,54,87,242/- INSTEAD OF RS.2,19,61,252/- AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.2,54,87,242/- AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES IN TH E P & L A/C. HOWEVER, IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED THIS AMOUNT AND INSTEAD CLAIMED RS.2,19,61,252/- BEING EXPENSES INCURRED DU RING THE YEAR. BY WAY OF NOTE IN THE COMPUTATION, IT IS STATED THAT DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REPRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES P AID TO HDFC, MARKETING EXPENSES FOR THE PROJECT, ETC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF I NCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT, THE SAME IS FULLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF ITS INCURRENCE. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.2,19,2,19 ,61,252/-. 13. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 12. I HAVE VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT HAND. THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN I NCURRED IN THE NATURE OF UPFRONT COMMITMENT CHARGES ON LOANS, DEB ENTURES ISSUE AND BROKERAGE ON PUBLIC FIXED DEPOSITS HELD OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. BESIDES, EXPENDITURE ON PROJECT SALES HAD BEEN CHAR GED IN THE BOOKS, IN PROPORTION TO THE PERCENTAGE OF AREA SOLD IN EACH PROJECT OR WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OR ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WHICHEVER WAS EARLIER. THIS HAD BEEN GIVEN IN THE N OTES TO THE ACCOUNTS (NOTE 8 OF SCHEDULE 17). FURTHER, IN THE S IMILAR MANNER, EXPENSES INCURRED FOR SETTING UP OF NEW OFFICES AND CORPORATE IMAGE BUILDING HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF OVER A PERIOD OF 3 YE ARS INCLUDING THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED. 13. THUS, THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR THE APPELLANT COMP ANY TO DIFFERENTLY AND SEPARATELY CLAIM THE ACTUAL EXPENSE S OF THE YEAR ON THESE COUNTS, WHEN IN THE METHOD ADOPTED FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, RECOGNITION OF THE REVENUE HAD BEEN DEFERRED TO THE COMPLETION OF ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 10 THE PROJECT ITSELF. I UPHOLD THEREFORE, THE DECISIO N OF THE A.O. AND DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND IDENTICAL ISS UE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSTT. YEAR 1997-98. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.6326/MUM/03 ORDER DATED 05-04-2010 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 1997-98 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 30. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ADMINISTRATIVE C HARGES OF THE LOAN OBTAINED IN AY 96-97. THE CIT (A) ALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED A DECISION OF ITAT KOLKATTA BENCH I N THE CASE OF SHAW WALLACE & CO. LTD., 86 ITD 315 (KOL). IT WAS A CASE OF RECEIVING LESSER AMOUNT FOR LIABILITY AND TO PAY HIGHER AMOUNT OVER A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS. UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE THE ITAT HELD THAT ONLY 1/7 OF EXPENDI TURE IS ALLOWABLE. IN MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORP. LT D V COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 225 ITR 802(SC) THE ASSE SSEE- COMPANY ON 10-12-1966 ISSUED DEBENTURES OF TOTAL VA LUE OF RS. 1.5 CRORES AT A DISCOUNT OF 2 PER CENT REDEEMAB LE WITH INTEREST AFTER 12 YEARS. THE ISSUE PRICE OF A DEBEN TURE OF RS. 100 WAS RS. 98. THE TOTAL DISCOUNT ON THE ISSUE OF RS. 1.5 CRORES AMOUNTED TO RS. 3 LAKHS. FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1968-69, THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF RS. 12,500 OUT OF TOTAL DISCOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS BEING THE PROPORTIONATE AMO UNT OF DISCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS ENDING WITH 3 0-6- 1967, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PERIOD OF 12 YEARS WH ICH WAS THE PERIOD OF REDEMPTION AND DIVIDING THE DISCOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS OVER THE PERIOD OF 12 YEARS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER DISALLOWED ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS. 12,500 AN D ALSO DISALLOWED DISCOUNT AMOUNT OF RS. 10,000 PERTAINING TO ISSUE OF DEBENTURE IN AN EARLIER YEAR, ON THE GROUN D THAT DISCOUNT ON BONDS AND DEBENTURES WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE . THE APEX COURT HELD THAT EXPENDITURE IS NOT NECESSARILY CONFINED TO THE MONEY WHICH HAS BEEN AC TUALLY PAID OUT. IT COVERS A LIABILITY WHICH HAS ACCRUED O R WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED, ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE TO BE DISCH ARGED AT A FUTURE DATE. HOWEVER, A CONTINGENT LIABILITY W HICH MAY HAVE TO BE DISCHARGED IN FUTURE CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D AS EXPENDITURE. ALTHOUGH EXPENDITURE PRIMARILY DENOTES THE IDEA OF SPENDING OR PAYING OUT, IT MAY, IN GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, ALSO COVER AN AMOUNT OF LOSS WHICH H AS NOT GONE OUT OF THE ASSESSEE'S POCKET BUT WHICH IS ALL THE SAME, AN AMOUNT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS HAD TO GIVE UP. IT ALSO ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 11 COVERS A LIABILITY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED IN PRAESENTI ALTHOUGH IT IS PAYABLE IN FUTURO. A CONTI NGENT LIABILITY THAT MAY ARISE IN FUTURE IS, HOWEVER, NOT 'EXPENDITURE'. IT WOULD ALSO COVER NOT JUST A ONE-T IME PAYMENT BUT A LIABILITY SPREAD OUT OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT WHEN A COMPANY ISSUES DEBENTURES AT A DISCOUNT, IT INCURS A LIABILITY TO PAY A LARGER AMOUNT THAN WHAT IT HAS BORROWED, AT A FUTUR E DATE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE QUESTION WHETHE R THIS ADDITIONAL LIABILITY EQUIVALENT TO THE DISCOUN T, WHICH IS INCURRED IN PRAESENTI BUT IS PAYABLE IN FUTURE, REP RESENTS DEFERRED INTEREST OR NOT. THAT MAY DEPEND UPON THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF DEBENTURE S, INCLUDING ITS TERMS. THE LIABILITY, TO PAY THE DISC OUNTED AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR THE DEBENTURES, IS A LIABILITY WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS IN ORDER T O GENERATE FUNDS FOR ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE AMO UNTS SO OBTAINED BY ISSUE OF DEBENTURES ARE USED BY THE COM PANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS BUT THE LIABILITY WAS A CONTINUING LIABILITY WHICH STRETCHED OVER A PERIOD OF 12 YEARS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, A LIABILITY SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF 12 YEARS. 30.1 FROM ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT WE NO TICED THAT WHETHER EXPENDITURE IS DEFERRED EXPENDITURE TO BE CLAIMED IN NUMBER OF THE YEARS OR IN THE YEAR WHEN IT WAS ACCRUED DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS OF THE EACH CASE. AC CORDING TO SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT THE REVENUE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS MUST BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE YEAR IN WHIC H IT IS INCURRED. IT CANNOT BE SPREAD OVER A NUMBER OF YEAR S EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN IT OFF IN HIS BOOKS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. HOWEVER, THE FACTS MAY JUSTIFY AN ASSESSEE W HO HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR TO SPREAD AND CLAIM IT OVER A PERIOD OF ENSUING YEARS. IN FACT, A LLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN ONE YEAR MIGHT GIVE A DISTORT ED PICTURE OF THE PROFITS OF A PARTICULAR YEAR. ISSUING DEBENT URES AT A DISCOUNT IS SUCH INSTANCE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE ASSES SEE HAS INCURRED THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE DISCOUNT IN THE Y EAR OF ISSUE OF DEBENTURES, THE PAYMENT IS TO SECURE A BENEFIT O VER A NUMBER OF YEARS. THERE IS A CONTINUING BENEFIT TO T HE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD. THE LIABILITY SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD OF THE DEBENTURES AS IN SUCH CASES THERE IS INBUILT CONDIT ION REGARDING OF LIABILITIES WHICH PERTAIN TO NUMBER OF YEARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CASE OF INDIA CEMENTS LTD. V. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) LAY DOWN THE LAW THAT LI ABILITY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE LOAN WOUL D BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE DECISION OF ITAT KOLKATTA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHAW WALLACE & CO. LTD., 86 ITD 315 (KOL) ON WHICH THE CIT (A) RELIED UPON IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE INCURS A LIABILITY TO PAY A LARGER AMOUNT THAN WHAT IT HAS BORROWED, AT A FUTURE DATE. THE ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 12 FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF MADR AS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORP. LTD V COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX 225 ITR 802(SC). 30.2 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS IF WE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION WE FIND T HERE ARE NO MATERIAL ON RECORD BASIS ON WHICH IT CAN BE SAID THE THERE IS INBUILT CONDITION OF THE LIABILITY FOR A N UMBER OF YEARS. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A LIABILITY TO PAY A LARGER AMOUNT THAN WH AT IT HAS BORROWED, AT A FUTURE DATE. FROM THE FACTS OF THE C ASE WE NOTICED THAT THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERED IS COVERED B Y THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA CEM ENTS LTD. V. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC) WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT A LOAN OBTAINED CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ASSET OR AD VANTAGE FOR THE ENDURING BENEFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE. A LOAN IS A LIABILITY AND HAS TO BE REPAID AND, IT IS ERRONEOUS TO CONSIDER A LIABILITY AS AN ASSET OR AN ADVANTAGE . THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RAISING A LOA N WOULD NOT DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF PURPOSE OF THE LOAN. A LOAN MAY BE INTENDED TO BE USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL WHEN IT IS NEGOTIATED, BUT THE COMPANY MAY , AFTER RAISING THE LOAN, CHANGE ITS MIND AND SPEND IT ON S ECURING CAPITAL ASSETS. THEREFORE, THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH TH E NEW LOAN WAS REQUIRED WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE CONSIDERATI ON OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE FOR OBTAINING THE LOAN WAS THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE THAT (A) THE LOAN OBTAINED WAS NOT AN ASSET OR ADVANTAGE OF AN ENDURING NATURE; (B) THE EXPENDITURE WAS MADE FOR SECURING THE USE O F MONEY FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD AND (C) IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO CONSIDER THE OBJECT WITH W HICH THE LOAN WAS OBTAINED. CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE COURT HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND WAS LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF T HE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS WHICH IS ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. 30.3 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE RULING OF THE APEX CO URT WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE, THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 3 I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE ON INT EREST ON BORROWINGS TO RS.9,04,91,166 AS AGAINST RS.11,72,64 ,485/- ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 13 (9,04,91,166 + 4,77,56,799 2,09,83,480) INCURRED AND PAID BY THE APPELLANT AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 36( 1)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IN ITA NO.2667/MUM/04 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2000- 01. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REV ENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SET ASIDE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 4 I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OFRS.51,62 ,000/- UNDER PROVISION OF SEC.14A TOWARDS INTEREST COST. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING EXPENSES OF RS.51,62,0 00/- I.E. INTEREST COST HOLDING THE SAME AS INCURRED FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSE. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ONLY EXEMPT INCOME EA RNED IS DIVIDEND INCOME FROM SHARES OF M/S.TITAN INDUSTRIES LTD. AND THERE IS NO EXPENDITURE INVOLVED FOR EARNING OF THI S INCOME. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THIS FACT IF AT ALL ANY EXPEND ITURE IS TO BE ALLOCATED IT COULD BE PRO-RATA INTEREST ON SUM INVE STED IN THESE SHARES AS THERE IS NO OTHER INVESTMENT YIELDI NG ANY EXEMPT INCOME. III) IN ANY CASE THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELLANT, DURING THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS IN LON G TERM INVESTMENTS IN THE NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIE S WHERE DIVIDEND WAS NEVER THE CRITERIA. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THIS GROUND I S IDENTICAL TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2667/MUM/04 FOR THE A SSTT. YEAR 2000-01. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECENT DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOD REJ & BOYCE MFG. CO.LTD. (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, THIS GROUND BY T HE ASSESSEE IS SET ASIDE TO THE ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 14 FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2 010. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (R.K. PANDA) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 30TH SEPT. , 2010. NG: COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2.DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A)-XXIII,,MUMBAI. 4 CIT-7,MUMBAI. 5.DR,J BENCH,MUMBAI. 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA 2667/M/04 & 495/M/08 TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 15 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 23-09-2010 SR.PS/ 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27-09-2010 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/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER