GREAVES COTTON LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 279/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8335 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL K JHA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Earning of tax free income; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Capital receipt; Revised return; TDS; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 92B; 14A; 115JB; 144C; 13

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 279/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ) ITA NO. 1007/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ) GREAVES COTTON LTD. INDUSTRY MANOR, APPASAHEB MARATHE MARG, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025 . PAN: AAACG2062M VS. ACIT CIRCLE-6(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 754/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DCIT CIRCLE- 6(3), ROOM NO. 522, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. VS. GREAVES COTTON LTD. INDUSTRY MANOR, APPASAHEB MARATHE MARG, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025 . PAN: AAACG2062M APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SMT. ARATI VISSANJI WITH SHRI AMOL PATANKAR (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL K. JHA (CIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING : 14.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 17.01.2020 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS SET OF THREE APPEALS, OUT OF WHICH TWO CROSS A PPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) R.W.S. 144C PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTION OF LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (LD. DRP). MUMBAI ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 2 DATED 04.09.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND DA TED 28.10.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. IN ALL APPEAL S, THE PARTIES HAVE RAISED CERTAIN COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THEREFORE, ALL TH E APPEALS WERE CLUBBED, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE. IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATED WITH VARIOU S ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES: GROUND A: DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) - RS.3,46,618/-. GROUND B : DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A- RS. 91,30,772/- GROUND C: DISALLOWANCES OF POOJA EXPENSES - RS. 11,86,451/- GROUND D: DISALLOWANCES OF CLUB EXPENSE - RS.1,11,125/- GROUND E: TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT FOR CORPORATE GUARANTEE RS. 16,78,495/-. GROUND F: CAPITAL RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF TDR TREAT ED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. GROUND G: UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDIT OF RS. 22721044/-. GROUND H: INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A. GROUND I: INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D. GROUND J: ADDITION TO BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB ON DISA LLOWANCE OF SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS GATHERED FROM THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURIN G OF MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL GEAR BOXES, DIESEL ENGINES, GENERATING S ETS ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 84.53 CRORE UNDER NORMAL PROVISION AN D BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 126.83 CRORE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 115JB. WHILE FI LING THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE REPORTED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT IONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 3 ENTERPRISES (AE) INCLUDING OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE O F ITS AE IN GERMANY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE T O TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP). T HE TPO PASSED ITS ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) ON 28.10.2011 AND DIREC TED TO CHARGE A COST OF GUARANTEE OF 6% OF THE GUARANTEE OF RS. 16.78 CRORE . AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER OF TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C (1) DATED 26.12.2011 AND MADE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 67,13,980/- ON ACCOUNT OF GUARANTEE COMMISSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF RS. 3,64,618/-, DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF RS. 91,30,772/-, DISALLOWANCE OF POOJA EXPENSES OF RS. 11,86,451/-, CLUB EXPENSES OF RS. 1 ,11,125/- AND ADDED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 91,30,772/- UNDER SECTION 14A T O BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) DECLARED BY ASSESSEE ON SALE OF TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT (TDR) IS NOT TAXABLE GAIN, ON THE BASIS OF TH E DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. B.C. SRINIVASA SHETTY (128 ITR 294). THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE ASSESSEE EXERCISED ITS OPTION FOR FILING OBJECT ION BEFORE THE LD. DRP. THE DRP AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE GRANTED PARTIAL RELI EF ON GUARANTEE COMMISSION RESTRICTING THE SAME @ 1.5% OF THE LOAN AMOUNT. HOWEVER, ALL OTHER ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE UPHELD. ON RECEI PT OF DIRECTION OF LD. DRP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSM ENT ORDER UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 4 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) DATED 21.11.2012. AGGRIEVED B Y THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES MADE IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTION OF LD. DRP, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) F OR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OU TSET OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT MOST OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F TRIBUNAL EITHER IN CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS OR OTHER DECISIONS OF TR IBUNAL OR HIGHER COURTS. 5. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 3 6(1)(III). THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 7424/MUM/2010 DATED 07.06.2019 . THERE IS NO VARIANCE IN THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) IS CONCERNED. THE LD. AR F URTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE GAVE ADVANCE TO ITS SUBSIDIARY IN A.Y. 199 8-99, OUT OF ITS OWN FUND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE IN EARLIER YEARS, WHICH HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE HAVE NOTED THAT ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT S IMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 5 MADE IN A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 AND ON APPEAL THE DI SALLOWANCE WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING OR DER: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 6.57 CRORE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY F OR INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL AND TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE OWN FUNDS AND THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE MADE TO SISTER CONCERN OF RS. 4.73 CRORE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY AND STATED THAT THE INTEREST DEBITE D IN PROFIT & LOSS WAS PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSI NESS. THE ADVANCE PAID TO SUBSIDIARY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCIES. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22,42,759/- UNDE R SECTION 36(1)(III). THE LD. DRP GRANTED THE PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE LOAN AND ADVANCES GIVEN TO GREAVES LEASING COMPANY HOLDING THAT THE A DVANCES WERE GIVEN TO SUPPLY OF EQUIPMENT, THEREFORE, IT WAS IN NORMAL BU SINESS OPERATION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO MODIFY THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ACCORDINGLY. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUND CONSISTI NG OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVE AND SURPLUS WAS RS. 175.11 CRORE. THE ASSES SEE HAS GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCE TO IS SUBSIDIARIES I.E. DEE GREAVES OF RS. 2,13,55,159/- ONLY. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITY & POW ER LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH, INT EREST-FREE AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR LOANS ARE TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD AR ISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST-FREE FUND GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF JURISDICTION HIGH COURT AS REFERRED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUF FICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NO INTER EST DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) WAS JUSTIFIED. HENCE, THE GROUND A (1&2) OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) ARE DELETED. ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 6 9. GROUND NO. B RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF RS. 91,30,772/-. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 2.41 CRORE FROM SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AN D RS. 23,849/- FROM MUTUAL FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED SUO MOTO DISALLO WANCE OF DMAT CHARGES OF RS. 105,400/- AND RS. 100,128/- BEING .4% OF EXE MPT INCOME AS PER THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARL IER YEARS. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE SUBMISSI ON DATED 18.10.2011 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT OWN FUND , INVESTMENT WAS NOT MADE OUT OF BORROWING AND INTEREST DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE SAME AS IN PRECEDING YEAR E XCEPT INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH REDUCED TO RS. 12.73 CRORE FROM RS. 25.26 CRORE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITS T HAT SECTION 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INVESTMENT IN GROWTH FUND AS HELD BY TRIBUNAL IN MANUGRAPH INDIA LTD. ITA NO. 4761/MUM/2013. FURTHER , IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND A.Y. 2007-08, THE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE SIMIL AR DISALLOWANCE TO 2% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT SIMILA R ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 MAY BE FOLLOWED. IN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSIO NS THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INDIRECT EXPENSES MAY BE RE STRICTED TO .5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IS TO BE COM PUTED AS PER THE ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 7 METHODOLOGY PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 8D. THE LD. AR SU BMITS THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. (3 28 ITR 81) HAS UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF RULE 8D. THUS, THE DECISION OF TRIB UNAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 IS NOT HELPFUL TO THE ASSESSEE AS RULE 8D W AS INTRODUCED FROM A.Y. 2008-09. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE M AKING DISALLOWANCE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D(2)( II) OF RS. 71,83,118/- AND UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF RS. 19,47,654/- BEING .5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. THE LD. DRP UPHELD THE ACTION OF ASSESS ING OFFICER BY TAKING VIEW THAT RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE NOTED THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT INVESTMENTS ARE MADE OUT OF THE PROFIT GENERATED FROM THE OPERATION AND NOT FROM BORROWED MONEY. THE RESERVE & CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RS. 332.63 CRORE (PAGE NO. 189/197 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 70.26 CRORE AND REM AINING OF RS. 80.75 CRORE WERE INVESTED IN PRECEDING YEAR. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT FROM ITS OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS FO R THE EARNING EXEMPT INCOME OR THE INVESTMENT MADE ARE FROM THE INCOME G ENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO INTEREST DISALL OWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) IS WARRANTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS DISALL OWANCE UNDER SECTION RULE 8D(2)(III) IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE MADE DISALLOWANCE @ ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 8 .5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. IN OUR VIEW, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF INDIRECT EXPENSE S BY APPLYING THE FORMULA OF RULE 8D. THEREFORE, WE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE O F .5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SETOFF OF SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, TH E ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO. C RELATES TO POOJA EXPENSES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISI ON OF TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08, WHEREIN ON SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS ALLOWE D SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN A.Y. 2007-08, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY CO-ORDINATE BENC H BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIE S AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED POOJA EXPENSES OF RS. 7,05,806/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED THE EXPENSES BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. DR P CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS E OF BUSINESS. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE DISALLOWED POOJA E XPENSES OF RS. 8,41,279/- IN AY 1998-99, ON APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) THE DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCES ALLOWED VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2003. THE TRIBUNAL C ONFORMED THE ORDER OF LD ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 9 CIT(A) VIDE ITA NO. 7123/M/2003 VIDE ORDER DATED 15 .04.2008. THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOR C HALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 50 OF 2010. HOWEVER, THE REVENU E HAS WITHDRAWN THE SAID APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER 2010. THE COPY OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ORDER IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSE E. HENCE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE POOJA EXPENSES. IN THE RESULT THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED. 15. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR GR OUND OF APPEAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR PRECEDING YEAR WHEN NO VARI ANCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE D IRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF POOJA EXPENSES. 16. GROUND NO. D RELATES TO CLUB EXPENSES OF RS. 1,11,1 25/-. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08, WHEREIN ON SIMILAR DISAL LOWANCE WAS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN A.Y. 2007-08, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY CO-ORDINATE BENC H BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIE S AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CLUB EXPENSES OF RS. 79,170/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CLUB EXPENSES OF RS. 7,07,477/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES BY FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. DRP DIRECTED THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ALLOW THE CLUB ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 10 MEMBERSHIP FEES ONLY. THE CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEES WAS ONLY RS. 6,04,00/-, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE B ALANCE AMOUNT (RS. 7,07,477 6,04,000). WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR A.Y. 1982-83 SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WAS ALLOWED VIDE ORDER DATED 21 ST JANUARY 1992 IN R.A NO. 2569(BOM.)/1991 IN ITA NO. 6154/BOM/1987. SIMILAR R ELIEF WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1990-91 IN ITA NO. 7619 /BOM/1993 DATED 13.02.2002. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT AFTER THE DE CISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN OTIS ELEVATOR CO. LTD. (SUPRA), THIS ISSUE IS NO MORE RES-INTEGRA WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING TH E QUESTION OF LAW ABOUT THE ALLOWANCE OF CLUB FEES INCURRED/PAID TO EMPLOYEES, ALLOWED THE QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN OTIS ELEVATOR CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1982-83 AND 1990-91, T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 19. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR GRO UND OF APPEAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR PRECEDING YEAR WHEN NO VARI ANCE IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE D IRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLUB EXPENSES. 20. GROUND NO. E RELATES TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT FOR CORPORATE GUARANTEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT CORPORATE G UARANTEE IS NOT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND THE AMENDMENT MADE IN THE ACT IS APPLICABLE FROM A.Y. 2012-13. IN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION, THE L D. AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE GIVEN A CORPORATE GUARANTEE FOR EURO 24500 00/- TO ABN AMBRO BANK IN INDIA FOR CREDIT FACILITY EXTENDED TO AE OF ASSESSEE IN GERMANY. THOUGH, THE TRANSACTION WAS REPORTED IN FORM 3CEB. THE TPO HELD THAT A BENEFIT WAS GIVEN TO AE AND ARMS LENGTH COMPENSATIO N WAS REQUIRED TO BE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. THE TPO ESTIMATED 6% OF THE L OAN AMOUNT AND ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 11 SUGGESTED ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 67,13,980/-. HOWEVER, L D. DRP RESTRICTED THE CORPORATE GUARANTEE ADDITION TO 1.5% OF THE LOAN AM OUNT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 16,78,495/ -. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT IF ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED, IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTE D TO .5% OF AMOUNTED GUARANTEE AND FOR THE PERIOD, THE GUARANTEE WAS GIV EN. IN SUPPORT OF HER SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN EVEREST CANTO CYLINDERS LTD. ( 378 ITR 57) AND DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN IL & FS TECHNOLOGY LTD. (20 19) 105 TAXMANN.COM 117 (MUM TRIB.). 21. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SO FAR AS CONTENTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROVISION OF GUARANTEE IS NOT INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US. IN OUR VIEW AFTER INTRODUCTION OF EXPLANATION 1 (C) TO SECTION 92B WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2002, THE PROVISION OF GUARANTEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN EVEREST CANTO CYLINDER LTD. (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CHARGE/ADD GUARANTE E COMMISSION @ 0.5% P.A. FOR THE PERIOD OF GUARANTEE. IN THE RESULT, TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 12 23. GROUND NO. F RELATES TO TREATMENT OF RECEIPT RECEIV ED ON TRANSFER OF TDR. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12.2011 REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOT TO ADJUST THE GAIN ON SALE OF TDR. THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACC EPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DRP UPHELD THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED COST OF ACQUISITION AND DECLARED A LTCG IN THE RETURN AND THE PRAYER OF ASSESSEE OF ASSESSEE IS TH AT CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT TAXABLE WAS REJECTED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SU BMITS THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD THE ASSESSEE SOLD TDR FOR RS. 5 CRO RE. THE DETAILS OF PURCHASER IS PLACED ON RECORD AS PER DETAILS ON PAG E NO. 290 OF PAPER BOOK. OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TDR CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS P AID TO TWO COMPANIES NAMELY FOSECO LTD. OF RS. 56,44,445/- AND PREMIUM E NERGY TRANSMISSION LTD. OF RS. 82,22,255/- AS PART OF TDR BELONGS TO T HOSE COMPANIES. BALANCE CONSIDERATION DECLARED IN THE RETURN AND LTCG ADJUS TED AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD CAPITAL LOSSES. THUS, CAPITAL GAIN WRITTEN WAS DECLARED NIL. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 26.12.2011 REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO ADJUST THE GAIN ON SALE OF TDR. THE LD. AR FURTH ER SUBMITS THAT ACQUIESCENCE CANNOT TAKE AWAY FROM A PARTY, THE REL IEF, WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO WHERE THE TAX IS LEVIED OR COLLECTED WITHOUT AUTHOR ITY OF LAW AS HELD BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN NIRMALA L MEHTA [269 I TR 1 (BOM)] AND BALMUKAND ACHARYA [310 ITR 310 (BOM)]. ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 13 24. ON THE RATIO THAT APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVE JURISDIC TION TO CONSIDER REVISED CLAIM IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKER & SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD. [349 ITR 336 (BOM)] AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION [229 ITR 383(SC)]. ON THE POINT T HAT NO COST OF ACQUISITION OF TDR, CAPITAL GAIN NOT TAXABLE, THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN C IT VS. SAMBHAJI NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [370 ITR 325]. 25. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMI TS THAT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RELIEF WITHOUT FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF COMP UTED COST OF ACQUISITION AND DECLARED INCOME IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL GAIN. TH E LD. DR SUBMITS THAT IN CASE, THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMIT TED THEN THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMI NATION OF FACTS AFRESH. 26. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE RAISED CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT TAXABLE. THE CONTENTION OF ASS ESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN AND ADJUSTED AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD CAPITAL L OSS. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE ADDITIONAL CLAIM BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 14 OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCEPT REVISED CLAIM WIT HOUT FILING OF REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, HOWEVER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CO NTENTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAVE JURISDIC TION TO CONSIDER REVISED CLAIM AS HELD BY JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN PRUTH VI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDER LTD. (SUPRA). WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUB MISSION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ACQUIESCENCE CANNOT TAKE AWAY THE RIG HT OF THE PARTIES FOR THE RELIEF THAT HE IS ENTITLED, WHERE TAX IS LEVIED OR COLLECTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND/CLAIM RAISED BY ASSESSEE ABOUT THE RECEIPT O F INCOME RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET/TDR. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ADMITS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND/CLAIM OF ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO ORDER THAT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 27. GROUND NO. G RELATES TO UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDIT OF RS. 2.27 CRORE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS GROUND OF APPE AL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08, WHEREIN SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 15 28. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT SIMILAR GROUND OF A PPEAL IN A.Y. 2007-08 WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMI NATION OF ISSUE AFRESH BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2.91 CRORE. THE LD. DRP ALSO FOLLOWED THEIR ORDER F OR EARLIER YEARS. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN ITS ORDER DATED 15.03.2019 IN ITA NO. 24 82/MUM/2015 SET-ASIDE THE ORDER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAM INATION OF FIGURES FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE FOR RECONCILIATION OF STATEMENTS. THERE FORE, CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AN D PASS THE ORDER BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 15.03.2019. I N THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 30. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON SIMILAR SET OF FACT FOR A.Y. 2007-08, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 31. GROUND NO. H RELATES TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A AND GROUND NO. I RELATE TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D. THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE SUBMITS THAT INTEREST OF RS. 74,16,934/- SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 244A INSTEAD OF RS. 2904767/- AND FURTHER INTEREST OF RS. 2,66,719/ - SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234D INSTEAD OF RS. 11,19,423/-. ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 16 32. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THESE GR OUNDS MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECOMPUTATION OF INTEREST AFRESH. 33. CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES, BO TH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RESTORED THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOM PUTE THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A AND 234D IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NECESSARY DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE RESULT, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 34. GROUND NO. J RELATES TO ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE UN DER SECTION 14A TO BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITS THAT IN A.Y. 2007-08, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THAT COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 115JB(2) IS TO BE MADE W ITHOUT RESORTING TO COMPUTATION/DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. 35. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT SIMILAR GROUND OF A PPEAL IN A.Y. 2007-08, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER:- 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE NO TED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECI SION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN VIREET INVESTMENT (P) LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL THAT THE COMPUTATION UNDER CLAUSE (F) OF EXPLANATIO N 1 TO SECTION 115JB (2), IS TO BE MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO COMPUTATION AS C ONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THEREFORE, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF VIREET INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND PASS THE ORDER FOR ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 17 36. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007- 08 WHEREIN THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN VIREET INVESTMENT (SUPRA) WAS FOLLOWED. THEREFORE, THE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH AND RECOMPUTE THE ADJUSTMENT UNDER SE CTION 115JB. 37. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ITA NO. 1007/MUM/2014 BY ASSESSEE 38. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT FOR CORPORATE GUARANTEE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTIC AL TO THE GROUND NO. E IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN WE HAVE DIRECTED T HE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO TO CHARGE/ADD .5% OF LOAN AMOUNT BY FOL LOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN EVEREST CANTO CYLINDER S LTD. (SUPRA). THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION FOR A.Y. 2008-0 9, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 39. GROUND NO. B RELATES TO POOJA EXPENSES OF RS. 10014 60/-. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROU ND NO. C IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHICH WE HAVE ALLOWED. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 40. GROUND NO. C RELATES TO ISSUE OF TRANSFER OF TDR. W E HAVE NOTED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND NO. F I N APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHICH WE HAVE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF A.Y. 2008-09, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 18 41. GROUND NO. D RELATES UNUTILIZED CENVAT CREDIT. WE H AVE NOTED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND NO. G I N APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHICH WE HAVE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFF ICER. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF A.Y. 2008-09, T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 42. GROUND NO. E RELATES TO SHORT CREDIT OF TDS, GROUN D NO. F IS MISSING, GROUND NO. G RELATES TO EXCESS CHARGE OF EDUCATION CESS, GROUND NO. H RELATES TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN CREDIT OF TDS OF RS . 22,92,403/-. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF GROUNDS WITH REGARD TO VA RIOUS INTERESTS AND CHARGE OF EDUCATION CESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTE D TO VERIFY THE FACT AND GRANT NECESSARY ADJUSTMENT AND RECOMPUTE THE INTERE ST ACCORDINGLY. 43. GROUND NO. J RELATES TO BOOK PROFIT UNDER MAT. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT PROVISION FOR EXPENSES OUGHT NOT TO BE ADDED. IN EARLIER YEAR S, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPENSES WERE NOT ADDED IN THE BOOK PROFIT. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECO MPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 115JB. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 754/MUM/2014 BY REVENUE 44. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINS T RESTRICTING THE GUARANTEE COMMISSION TO 3%. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN ASSE SSEES APPEAL ON SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL, WE HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO CHARGE GUARANTEE COMMISSION @ .5% OF THE LOAN AMOUNT BY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF HONBLE ITA NO. 279 M 13, 1007 & 75 4 MUM 2014-GREAVES COTTON LTD. 19 BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN EVEREST CANTO (SUPRA), THEREFO RE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 45. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/01/2020. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 17.01.2020 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI