IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, J BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.3017/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 TATA INFOTECH LIMITED .. APPELLANT (AMALGAMATED WITH TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD W.E.F. 1.4.2005) 9 TH FLOOR, NIRMAL BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. PA NO.AAACT 0176 VS ADDL. CIT-7(3) ,. RESPONDEN T AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: P.J.PARIDWALA & AASIFA KHAN, FOR THE APPELLANT KUSUM INGALE, FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 9.12.2009, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE INC OME FROM INTEREST WAS INCLUDIBLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES WHEREAS THE SAME WAS INCLUDIBLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. I.T.A NO.3017/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 TATA INFOTECH LIMITED 2 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR THE DECISION ON THE AFORESAID GROUND WILL NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL IMP ACT. HOWEVER, HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE FACT THAT THIS GRIEVANCE IS NOT BEING PRES SED IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOULD NOT BE PUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE OTHER ASSESS MENT YEARS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING THE GRIEVANCE NOT BECAUSE OF LACK OF MERITS BUT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, AS POINTED OUT ABOVE, IT HAS NO MATERIAL IMPA CT IN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR. 4. IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT SO MADE BY LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE TREAT THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED THOUGH WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE FACT OF THE ASSESSEE NOT HAVING PURSUED THE ABOVE GRIEVANCE IN THIS YEAR SHALL NOT AFFECT THE ASSESSEES RIGHT TO PURSUE THE MATERIAL ON MERITS, IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS, AS THE ASSESSEE MAY DEEM FIT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE GRIEVAN CE BEING DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED IN THIS PARTICULAR YEAR, SHALL NOT PREJUDICE THE A SSESSEES INTEREST ON MERITS. 5. GROUND NO.1 IS THUS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GRIEVANCE: THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE COM MON MANAGEMENT EXPENSES OUGHT TO BE ALLOCATED TO ALL THE DISTINCT ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY INCLUDING TO THE ACTIVITIES, THE INCOME OF WHICH IS EXEMPT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94, 1994-95 AND 1996-97 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT A GITATED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE MATTER HAS THUS ATTAINED FINA LITY. IT IS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO NOT PRESSED. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, SECOND GROUND OF APPE AL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. I.T.A NO.3017/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 TATA INFOTECH LIMITED 3 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2011 SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),-13MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,7 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH J, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI