INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3066/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83488 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI JH FOT; IKY JKO U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO U;KF;D LNL; JH FOT; IKY JKO U;KF;D LNL; ,OA ,OA ,OA ,OA JH JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K JH JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K JH JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K JH JKTSUNZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K / ITA NO.3066/MUM/2013 FU/KKZJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 M/S INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. 901, VIKAS CENTRE, DR. C.G. ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400 074. VS.` DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGES 5(2), ROOM NO. 525, 5 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020. PAN:- AAACI3746A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2013 OF CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER {DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5(2)} HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 55,87,154/- U /S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND FURTHER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 9 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DISAL LOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 14,14,642/- UNDER THE PROVISO OF SECTION (36)(1)(II I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ASSESSEE BY / FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS SHRI BRIJMOHAN PURANMAL AGARWAL REVENUE BY/ JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS SHRI VIKASH K. AGARWAL. DATE OF HEARING 28.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.08.2014 M/S INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS 2 | P A G E WRONGLY HOLDING THAT THE CAPITAL WAS BORROWED FOR E XTENSION OF BUSINESS AND FURTHER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) 9 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) (IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DUE TO NON PAYMENT OF TAX AT SOURCE BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5587 154/- ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF TDS BEING AFTER THE END OF FINANCIAL YEA R AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2009. 3. ON APPEAL, CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWIG THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARATI SHIPYARD VS. DCIT (2011) 132 ITD 53 (MUM)(S B). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX WAS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) AND, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIRGIN CREATIONS NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40( A)(IA) IS CALLED FOR. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 11.4.2012 IN THE CASE OF SHRI PIYUSH C. MEHTA VS. ACIT IN INCOME TAX ACT NO. 1321/2009 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONS IDERING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA H IGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARATI SHIPYARD VS/ DCIT (SUPRA). M/S INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS 3 | P A G E 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CARE FUL PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS LIMITE D ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2010 TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE T HAT SPECIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHARATI SHIPYARD VS. DCIT ( SUPRA) HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2010 W ITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM THE A.Y. 2010-11 AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE RETROSPEC TIVE WHEREAS THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIRGIN C REATIONS (SUPRA) WHILE CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT T HE PROVISO INSERTED IS IN THE NATURE OF REMEDY TO MAKE THE PROVISIONS WORKABLE RE QUIRES TO BE TREATED WITH RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. FURTHER AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF PIYUSH C. MEHTA (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL B ENCH IN THE CASE OF BHARATI SHIPYARD AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUT TA HIGH COURT IN PARA 17 TO 19 AS UNDER:- 17. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT THAT AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 AS AFORESAID WAS HELD TO BE RETRO SPECTIVE FROM 1.4.2005. IF THE AMENDMENT IS CONSIDERED AS RETROSPECTIVE FRO M 1.4.2005, THE EFFECT WILL BE THAT PAYMENTS OF TDS TO THE CREDIT OF THE GOVERNMEN T ON OR BEFORE THE LAST DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT AY HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. ADMITTEDLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PAYMENTS WERE SO MADE BEFORE THE SAID DUE DATE AND IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE BY THE AO U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 18. THE QUESTION NOW IS AS TO WHETHER TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH WHICH HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT AMENDME NT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE FROM 1.4.2005 OR THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW. ON THE ABOVE QUESTION , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF TEJ INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. V. DY. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (DEL) 650, WHEREIN IT M/S INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS 4 | P A G E WAS HELD THAT IN THE HIERARCHICAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM T HAT WE HAVE IN INDIA, THE WISDOM OF THE COURT BELOW HAS TO YIELD TO THE HIGHE R WISDOM OF THE COURT ABOVE, AND THEREFORE, ONCE AN AUTHORITY HIGHER THAN THIS TRIBUNAL HAS EXPRESSED ITS ESTEEMED VIEWS ON A AN ISSUE, NORMALL Y, THE DECISION OF THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IS TO BE FOLLOWED. THE BE NCH HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGHER JUDICIAL F ORUM IS FROM A NON- JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DOES NOT REALLY ALTER THI S POSITION, AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GODAVARIDEVI SARAF 113 ITR 589(BOM) 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT THAT AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISION S OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 IS RETROSPECTIVE FROM 1.4.2005. CONSEQUENTLY, ANY PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE DURING PREVIO US YEARS RELEVANT TO AND FROM AY 05-06 CAN BE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT ON OR B EFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. IF P AYMENTS ARE MADE AS AFORESAID, THEN NO DEDUCTION U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT CAN BE MADE. ADMITTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEP OSITED THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETU RN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE DES ERVES TO BE DELETED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY THE ASSES SEE. 7. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.06.2009 AS PER THE DETAILS RECORDED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TAX WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETU RN U/S 139(1). ACCORDINLGY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIRGIN CREATIONS AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BE NCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PIYUSH C. MEHTA, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS DELETED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST ON BORROWED CAPITAL FOR PURCHASE OF NEW OFFICE PREMISES. DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 63,00,000/- TO M/S VASANT VIKAS DEVELOPERS TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW OFFICE AT M/S INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS 5 | P A G E CHEMBUR. THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE TILL THE END OF TH E FINANCIAL YEAR TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THIS OFFICE WAS RS. 2,46,84,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN TERM LOAN FROM NKGSB COOPEARATIVE BANK LTD., TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE SAID PREMISES ON A MONTHLY INTEREST AT 12%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUN D THAT THE OFFICE PREMISES HAS NOT BEEN PUT TO USE TILL THE END OF RELEVANT FINANC IAL YEAR AS PROPERTY WAS NOT READY FOR POSSESSION. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE PRO VISO TO SECTION 36(I)(III) THE INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL BORROWED F OR ACQUISITION OF THIS ASSET WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TOTAL DISA LLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS WORKED OUT AT 14,14,672/-. 9. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. BEFOURE US, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPIAL BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PUCHAS E OF NEW PREMISE IS NOT FOR EXPANSION OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS FO R THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(I)(I II) IS NOT APPLICBALE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SIMBHAOLI SUGAR MILLS LTD V S. ACIT (17 SOT 90) (DELHI) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT VIDE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2003 W.E.F 1.4.2004 TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 36(I)(III), TH EREFORE, THE SAID DECISION RELIED M/S INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS 6 | P A G E UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEREAS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF POWER DRUGS LTD. VS. CIT ( 245 CTR 623) IS APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE INTEREST PAYME NT IN QUESTION IS REGARDING THE BORROWED CAPITAL UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF OFFCIE PR EMISES BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE SAID PREMISES WAS NOT READY T ILL THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AS ON 31.03.2009 AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUEST ION OF PUTTING THE SAID ASSET TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT T HE PURCHASE OF NEW OFFICE PREMISES DOES NOT FALL IN THE SCOPE OF EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAID PREMISES IS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(I)(I II) IS NOT APPLICABLE. HE HAS ALSO PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SIMBHAOLI SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SIMBHAOLI SUGAR MILLS LTD V S. ACIT (SUPRA) PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2000-01, THEREFORE, THE PRE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(I)(III) WERE APPLICABLE FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE TRIBUN AL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE HAS CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION 8 TO SE CTION 43(1) AND ALSO FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF DCIT VS. CORE HEALTHCARE LTD. ( 251 ITR 61). THE SAID DECISION HA S BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN 298 ITR 194). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE MADE A SPECIFIC NOTE IN PARA 11 AS UNDER:- 11. BEFORE CONCLUDING ON THIS POINT WE MAY STATE THAT IN THIS BATCH OF CIVIL APPEALS WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93, 19 93-94, 1995-96 AND 1997-98. A PROVISO HAS SINCE BEEN INSERTED IN SECTION 36(1)(II I) OF THE 1961 ACT. THAT PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4- 2004. HENCE, THE SAID PROVISO WILL NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. FURTHER, IN OUR VIEW, THE SAID PROVISO WOULD OPERATE PROSPECTIVELY. IN THIS CONNECTION IT MAY BE NOTED T HAT BY THE SAME FINANCE ACT, 2003 INSERTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY WAY OF PROVISO IN SECT ION 36(1)(VIIA) BY THE SAME FINANCE ACT WHICH IS ALSO MADE WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2004. S AME IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO INSERTION OF A SUB-SECTION AFTER SECTION 90(2) AND BEFORE THE EXPLANATION. THIS INSERTION M/S INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS 7 | P A G E ALSO OPERATES WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2004. IN SHORT, THE ABOVE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 AND ALL THE SAID AMENDMENTS HA VE BEEN MADE OPERATIONAL WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2004. THEREFORE, THE PROVISO INSERTED IN S ECTION 36(1)(III) HAS TO BE READ AS PROSPECTIVELY AND WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2004. IN THI S CASE, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE LAW AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO 1-4-2004. AS STATED ABOVE, WE A RE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID PROVISO TO SECTION 36( 1)(III) WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2004 IN THE PRESENT CASE. 13. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF PRE-AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(I)(III) AND THE AMENDMENT VIDE FINANCE ACT 2003 W.E.F 1.4.2004 WHER EBY THE PROVISO WAS INSERTED IN SECTION 36(I)(III) HELD TO BE PROSPECTI VE AND NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96 AND 1997 -98 INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. ACCORDINGLY THE D ECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION WHERE THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(I)(III) ARE AP PLICABLE. THERE IS NO QUARREL THAT AFTER INSERTION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 36(I)(III) VI DE FINANCE ACT 2003 W.E.F 1.04.2004 ANY AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF OF CAPIT AL BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF ASSET FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUSINESS IS NOT ALL OWABLE. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A NEW OFFICE PREMISES, THERE FORE, IT IS NOT AN ACQUISITION OF ASSET BY REPLACING THE EXISTING ASSET IN THE BUS INESS BUT IT IS CERTAINLLY AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUSINESS WHICH AMOUNTS TO EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 36(I)(III). THEREFORE, WHEN THE NEW ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY UTIL ISING THE BORROWED CAPITAL BUT WAS NOT PUT TO USE TILL THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEN IT CLEARLY FALLS UNDE R THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(I)(III) AND ACCORDINGLY THE INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF SU CH BORROWED CAPITAL IS NOT ALLOWABLE. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUN JAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF POWER DRUGS LTD VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS APPL ICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPOLD THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELO W QUA THIS ISSUE. M/S INTERPORT GLOBAL LOGISTICS 8 | P A G E 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E 06 -8-2014 SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 06-8 -2014 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI