COBRA INDIAN BEER P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2761/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 276119914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PREMANAND J
• Assessee Lawyers: M P LOHIA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 92E; 37(1)

Judgement Text

, K IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , !' # $, % & BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM . / ITA NO.2761/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 ) COBRA INDIAN BEER PRIVATE LTD. 603, CENTRAL PLAZA, 166, CST ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI-400 098 .. / APPELLANT V/S D IT CIRCLE 3 (1) , R. NO.607 AYKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI .... / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.3050/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 ) DIT CIRCLE 3(1), R. NO.607 AYKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI .. / APPELLANT V/S CO BRA INDIAN BEER PRIVATE LTD. 603, CENTRAL PLAZA, 166, CST ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI-400 098 .... / RESPONDENT . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AABCC7215K APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.P. LOHIA (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI PREMANAND J. (DR) ! ' #$ / DATE OF HEARING 08.06.2015 %& '( ' #$ / DATE OF ORDER 12 .06.2015 COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 2 # / ORDER . . , ' / PER B.R. BASKARAN , A.M. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 17.02.2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-26, MUMBAI AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF IMPORT AND TRADING OF BEER AND WINES, WHICH ARE IMPORTED FROM ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES NAMED M/S. COBRA BEER LTD. U.K. IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED LOSS OF RS.1.07 CRORES. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESEE HAD CARRIED OUT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED CONCERN, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT PRESCRIBED IN FORM NO.3CEB A S REQUIRED U/S.92E OF THE ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WI THOUT REFERRING THE MATTER TO TPO FOR DETERMINING ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF I NTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE AND ADDED 10% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. 3. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) CALLE D FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFO RE LD CIT(A) THAT THE PURCHASE VALUE OF BEER AND WINE HAS BEEN APPR OVED BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE PRICE ACCEPTED BY THE CUSTOMS A UTHORITIES HAS GOT NO RELEVANCE IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. ACCORD INGLY, HE STOOD BY THE ADDITION OF 10% OF THE PURCHASE VALUE MADE BY H IM. THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE AO CAN NOT MAKE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT BRINGING COMPARABLE CASES, PARTI CULARLY WHEN THE COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 3 CUSTOM AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE PURCHASE VALUE. THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING THIS DECISION OF LD CIT(A). 4. BEFORE US, LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT NO ADJU STMENT TO PURCHASE VALUE IS REQUIRED, SINCE THE CUSTOMS AUTHOR ITIES HAVE APPROVED THE IMPORTED VALUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE SHOULD BE DETERMINED UNDER ANY OF THE ME THODS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF CA COMPUTER ASSOCIATES (P) LTD REPORTED IN (2010)(37 SOT 306). 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE P URCHASE VALUE APPROVED BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES HAS GOT NO RELEV ANCE UNDER INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND THE ARMS LENGTH VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD D.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF REPORTED IN CASE OF SERDIA PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) (P.) LTD. V. ACIT 44 SOT 391. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF CA COMPUTER ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) WAS WITH REGARD TO THE BAD DEBT ADJUSTMENT AND HENCE THE SAID DECISION HAS NO RELEVAN CE TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CA COMPUTER ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE THAT THE ALP SHOULD BE DETERMINED ONLY UNDER ANY OF TH E METHODS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF M AKING ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSOCIATE CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SELLING B EER AND WINE AT UNIFORM RATE OF 3.50 AND 17 PER CASE RESPECTIVELY ALL OVER THE WORLD AND HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF UNDER/OVER INVOICIN G. ACCORDINGLY COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 4 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE ASSESS EE WAS AT ARMS LENGTH AND HENCE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO SHOULD BE DELETED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO NS WHICH ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERN AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURN ISH THE REPORT FROM ACCOUNTANT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM CONTAINING THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92E OF THE ACT. H ENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BY DISALLOWING 10% OF TH E PURCHASE VALUE. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THA T THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE HAS TO BE DETERMINED ONLY IN THE MANNER P RESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. FURTHER, WHEN THE ACT PRESCRIBES A PAR TICULAR PROCEDURE, IT IS THE DUTY OF BOTH THE PARTIES TO ADHER E TO THOSE PROCEDURES. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE OF CASE FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AS SESSEE TO FURNISH THE REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT BEFORE THE AO IN THE SET A SIDE PROCEEDINGS AND THERE AFTER THE AO SHALL PROCEED TO E XAMINE THIS MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE CONTESTED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE RELATES TO PARTIAL RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF PRODUCT LAUNCH EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO CONTESTING THE ADDITION PARTIALLY SUSTAINED BY CIT(A). THUS THIS ISSUE IS COMMON IN TH E APPEALS FILED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE FAC TS RELATING TO THE SAME ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A SUM OF RS.30.60 LAKHS AS PRODUCT LAUNCH EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 5 BENEFIT OF THE SAID EXPENSES WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 20% AND DISALLOWED REMAINING 80% OF THE EXPENSES. I N THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED 1/3 RD OF THE EXPENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 2/3 RD OF THE EXPENDITURE. 8. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCEPT OF TREATING EXPENDITURE AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. ON MERITS, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO GUARANTY THAT THE BENEFIT OF PRODUCT LAUNCH EXPENSES WOULD EXTEND FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. THE LD. AR, ACCORDINGLY, SUBMITTED THAT THE PRODU CT LAUNCH EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ITSELF. IN THIS REGARD THE L D. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH REFERR ED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. KOPRAN LTD. (2011) 137 TTJ (MUM) (UO) 35. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PRODUCT LAUNCH EXPENSES CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCOUNT FOR 60% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CL AIMED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HENCE THE SAME DEFIES TH E MATCHING PRINCIPLE, I.E., THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE REVENUE GENERATED. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING ONLY 1/5 TH OF EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA BEFORE LD CIT(A) TO ALLOW 1/ 3 RD OF EXPENDITURE AND HENCE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAI M ACCORDINGLY. THE LD D.R, ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S PRECLUDED TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, SINC E THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 6 9. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE CONCEPT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES IS NOT GENERALLY FOLLOWED IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, WE MAY GAINFULLY REFE R TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MADRAS INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION (225 ITR 802)(SC), WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ORDINARILY, REVENUE EXPEN DITURE WHICH IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS MUST BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCU RRED. HOWEVER, IF THE FACTS JUSTIFY CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE OVER THE YE ARS AND IF THERE IS CONTINUING BENEFIT TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE OV ER THE PERIOD, THEN THE EXPENDITURE MAY BE SPREAD OVER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES THE PRODUCT LAUNCH EXPENSES INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE AO HAS TREATED THE SAME AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE ONLY ON THE REASONING T HAT THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSE E IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF LD A.R THAT THERE IS NO GUA RANTEE THAT THE BENEFIT OF THE EXPENSES WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD D.R POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS AGREED BEFORE LD CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING 1/3 RD OF EXPENDITURE ONLY DURING THE INSTANT YEAR. HOWEVER, IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPELS AGAINST THE LAW AND HENCE THE ALTERNATIVE CON TENTION PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, WOULD NOT BE BINDING IT, SINCE THE SAID CONTENTION IS AGAINST TH E PRINCIPLES OF THE TAXATION PROVISIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO ALLOW THE PRODUCT LAUNCH EXPENSES IN FULL IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 7 10. THE NEXT ISSUE CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE RELA TES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLIC RELATION EXPE NSES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN BEERS AND WINES AND SINCE TH E ADVERTISEMENT OF ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS ARE BANNED BY GOVERNMENT OF IN DIA, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, APPARENTLY BY INVOKING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPEN SES ARE HIT BY THE EXPLANATION GIVEN U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE SAID EXPLANATION READS AS UNDER:- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED TH AT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW SHALL NOT BE D EEMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFES SION AND NO DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE IN RESPECT OF S UCH EXPENDITURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT, BU T IT WAS INCURRED FOR ORGANIZING PRIVATE EVENTS/PRESS CONFERENCE ETC. FURTHER EXPENSES WERE ALSO INCURRED ON CONSULTANCY CHARGES TO RELEVAN T PROFESSIONALS, DESIGNING ADVERTISEMENT STALLS, PHOTOGRAPHER CHARGES ET C. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR PROMOTING SALE OF PRODUCTS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH ESE EXPENSES WERE NOT COVERED BY THE RESTRICTION PLACED BY THE GOVE RNMENT REGULATIONS. 12. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN A GENERALIZED VIEW T HAT THE ADVERTISEMENTS HAVE BEEN BANNED BY GOVERNMENT REGULATI ONS AND COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 8 HENCE THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. IN FACT, THE TAX AUTHORITIES SEEM TO HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE BREAK-UP DETAILS OF THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED ON PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENTS. THE AS SESSEE HAS FURNISHED RELEVANT REGULATIONS IN PAGES 81 TO 115 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WOULD SHOW THAT THE RESTRICTION IS PLACED ON THE NEWS PAPERS AND CABLE TV OPERATORS IN CARRYING ADVER TISEMENT OF LIQUORS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT ADVERTISEMENT IN NEWS PAPERS AND CABLE TV CHANNELS, WHICH IS IN FACT PROHIBITED. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT HIT BY THE EXPLANATION GIVEN UNDER SEC. 37(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THIS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE NEXT ISSUE CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE REL ATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXCISE VEND FEE AND OCTROI DUTY. TH E ASSESSEES PURCHASES INCLUDED EXCISE VEND FEE PAYMENT AND OCTR OI DUTY PAYMENT. ON VERIFICATION OF THOSE PAYMENTS, THE AO N OTICED THAT EXCISE VEND FEE OF RS.2,32,406/- AND OCTROI DUTY OF RS.73,813/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEES DISTRIBUTOR NAMED M/S WINE ENT ERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS REIMBURSED THE ABOVE SA ID AMOUNTS TO M/S WINE ENTERPRISES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, MEANIN G THEREBY THE ABOVE SAID EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY M/S WINE ENTERP RISES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PAID THESE EXPENSES ON ITS OWN. FURTHER THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE ABO VE SAID COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 9 EXPENSES WERE NOT CLAIMED BY M/S WINE ENTERPRISES. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE AMOUNTS CITED ABOVE, WHICH WERE PAID B Y M/S WINE ENTERPRISES. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 14. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDIN G TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ABOVE SAID PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY M/S WINE EN TERPRISES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IT HAS ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAME AND REIMBURSED THE AMOUNTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HOWEV ER, THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE TAX AUTHOR ITIES. AT THE SAME TIME, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BY FURNISHING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND I T HAS ALSO FAILED TO SHOW THAT M/S WINE ENTERPRISES HAS NOT CLAIMED THE IM PUGNED PAYMENTS AS ITS EXPENDITURE. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO. ACCO RDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTOR E THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIA TE ITS CLAIM. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS TREATED AS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DAY OF JU NE, 2015. SD/- SD/- - !' # $ % AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER - . . B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, () DATED:12.06.2015 PATEL COBRA INDIAN BEER PVT. LTD. 10 %& ' #)* +*# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) ,# / THE ASSESSEE; (2) - / THE REVENUE; (3) .#( ) / THE CIT(A); (4) .# / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) *1 #2, $ 2, ! / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) 14 5! / GUARD FILE. * # # / TRUE COPY %& / BY ORDER 6 / 7 - / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) $ 2, ! / ITAT, MUMBAI