ALD AUTOMOTIVE P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 15(1), MUMBAI

ITA 309/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78674 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B P AGARWAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 309/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. 13 TH FLOOR, MAKER CHAMBER IV, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 / VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 15(1), ROOM NO. 203, 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400 007 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAFCA 0924 K ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) # $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. P. AGARWAL !' # $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. L. PERUMAL % &'( # )* / DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2014 +,- # )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.04.2014 . / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 11.11.2011, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 2005-06 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.12.2007. 2 ITA NO. 309/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THE MAINTAINABILITY IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE DISALLOW ANCE OF THE LOSS OF RS.36,63,262/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER CHAPTER IV-D OF THE A CT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E-COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 11.02.2005 TO CARRY ON: A) THE BUSINESS AS OPERATORS OF CARRIERS, TRANSPORT VE HICLE, AGRICULTURAL VEHICLES, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, AND VEHICLES OF ALL OTHER DESC RIPTIONS; AND B) THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING SERVICES AND FACILITI ES OF LETTING ON HIRE, BUYING, SELLING, HIRING, LICENSING, REPAIRING, MAINTAINING, ETC. OF VEHICLES OF ALL DESCRIPTIONS AS WELL AS EQUIPMENT, ACCESSORIES AND SPARE PARTS. THE RETURN OF INCOME (ROI) FOR THE YEAR WAS FURNISH ED ON 30.10.2005, CLAIMING THE BUSINESS LOSS AT RS.31,16,350/- AND DEPRECIATION AT RS.5,46,912/-, BOTH FOR BEING CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR/S IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCOME, OR RECEIPT OR FOR THAT MATTER FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE BASICALLY FOR OR TOWARD: 1) SCHOOL FEES OF THE CHILDREN OF THE DIRECTOR; 2) RENT PAID FOR THE DIRECTORS RESIDENCE; AND 3) COMMISSION PAID TO THE BROKER FOR RENTAL PREMISE S. SIMILARLY, THE ADDITION TO THE FIXED ASSETS INCLUDE D IN THE MAIN PURCHASE OF TWO CARS. NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE BUSINESS ACTIVI TY HAD STARTED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR WAS PRODUCED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM FO R BUSINESS LOSS AS WELL AS FOR DEPRECIATION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IN APPEAL, THE M ATTER WAS EXAMINED IN DETAIL, WITH EMPHASIS ON THE OBTAINING LEGAL POSITION. THE SAME WAS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS INTER ALIA IN THE CASE OF WESTERN INDIA VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 151 (BOM.) AND CIT VS. L & T MCNEIL LTD. [1993] 202 ITR 662 (BOM.), SO THAT WHEN THE BUSINESS IS ESTABLISHED AND READY TO COMMENCE BUSINESS, IT CAN BE SAID TO BE SET UP. BUT BEFORE IT IS READY TO COMMENCE BUSIN ESS, IT IS NOT SET UP. FURTHER, THERE MAY BE AN INTERREGNUM AND, THEREFORE, A TIME INTERVAL B ETWEEN THE TIME A BUSINESS IS SET UP AND WHEN IT IS COMMENCED, IN WHICH CASE ALL THE EXPENDI TURE INCURRED AFTER THE SET UP OF THE 3 ITA NO. 309/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT BUSINESS WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION, I.E., IN PRINCIPLE. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDUSTRIAL SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS (P.) LTD. [1979] 119 ITR 608 (BOM.); AND CWT VS. RAMARAJU SURGICAL COTTON MILLS LTD. [1967] 63 ITR 478 (SC); THE APEX COURT IN THE LATTER CASES APPROVING AND AP PLYING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN WESTERN INDIA VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA), ALSO STATING THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASES A S WELL AS QUOTING THERE-FROM TO BRING FORTH CLARITY T O THE MATTER. THE LAW WAS, IN FACT, WELL SETTLED, AND THE QUESTION STANDS ANSWERED BY THE HO NBLE COURTS ON THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE, AS WAS IN THE CASE OF SARABHAI MANAGEMENT CORPN. LTD. VS. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 25 (GUJ.), SINCE CONFIRMED BY THE APEX COURT AND RELIE D UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, WHICH DID NOT DIFFER IN RATIO FROM THAT IN WESTERN INDIA VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). THE MATTER WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY HIM FROM THE STAND POINT OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF AN EXPENSE U/S.37 OF THE ACT. A NUMBER OF DECISIONS WE RE RELIED UPON BY HIM, AS UNDER, ALSO STATING THE QUESTION/S REFERRED TO THE HONBLE COUR TS AND THE BASIS OF ITS ANSWER; ALL LEADING TO THE SAME AFORE-STATED RATIO; WHERE THE BUSINESS HAD NOT BEEN SET UP, THE EXPENSE COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS AN EXPENSE OF THE BUSINESS, MUCH LESS AS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, SO AS TO MEET THE MANDATE OF SECTION 37(1): A) T. M. CHACKO AND PARTNERS VS. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 904 (KER) B) J. R. MEHTA VS. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 476 (BOM); C) S. P. V. BANK LTD. VS. CIT [1980] 126 ITR 773 (KER); D) CIT VS. OMER KHAYYAM WINERIES (P.) LTD. [1979] 120 ITR 859 (AP); E) CIT VS. FORGING AND STAMPING PVT. LTD. [1979] 119 ITR 616 (BOM); AND F) CIT VS. INDUSTRIAL SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. [1979] 119 ITR 608 (BOM); THE DISALLOWANCE BEING CONFIRMED, THE ASSESSEE, THU S AGGRIEVED, IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 4. BEFORE US, THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES WAS ALON G THE SAME LINES, I.E., AS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. MERELY BECAUSE NO REVENUE HAS BE EN GENERATED WOULD NOT IN ANY MANNER IMPLY THAT BUSINESS HAD NOT BEEN SET-UP. THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CEO AND MD OF THE COMPANY, MR. K. SUJIT REDDY, HAD BEEN FINALIZED , AS APPARENT FROM THE TDS 4 ITA NO. 309/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT CERTIFICATE IN FORM 16 FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR (PB PG S. 13-15). THE PAYMENT OF THE SCHOOL FEE OF HIS CHILDREN IS THUS ONLY A PART OF THE DIRE CTORS REMUNERATION, AND BY ITSELF TO NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCE. THE COMPANY HAD BEEN INCORPORA TED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING OPERATING LEASES OF VEHICLES TO CUSTOMERS AND THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MD ON 15.02.2005 WAS ONLY TOWARD THE SAME (PB PG.12). FUR THER, THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER HAD ALSO BEEN APPOINTED, WITH THE OFFER LETTER BY T HE COMPANY HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY HIM ON 03.03.2005 (PB PGS. 12(A)-12 (D)). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 5.1 THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE SET UP ITS BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND, IF SO, W HEN ? WITHOUT DOUBT EVEN AS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING ITSELF, IF IT HAS, MERELY BECAUSE NO SALES HAVE BEEN MADE OR NO POSITIVE DEAL STRUCK WITH ANY CUSTOMER, GENERATING REVENUE, WOULD NOT OPERATE TO PRECLUDE DEDUCTION OF ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPO SES OF ITS BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E., POST THE ESTABLISHMENT THEREOF (BUSINESS). TH E LAW IN THE MATTER, EVEN AS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO A HOST OF DECISIONS, INCLUDING BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT (REFER PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER), AND TO NO REBUTTAL OR POSSIBLY SO BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, IS WELL SETTLED, WHICH MAY BE CAPSULE IN THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT : (CACHE NOTE) THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PERSON COMME NCING A BUSINESS AND A PERSON SETTING UP A BUSINESS AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE INDIAN INCOME- TAX ACT THE SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS AND NOT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS THAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE BUSINESS IS SET UP THAT THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THAT BUSINESS COMMENCES AND AN Y EXPENSE INCURRED PRIOR TO THE SETTING UP OF A BUSINESS WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. WHEN A BUSINESS IS ESTABLISHED AND IS READY TO COMM ENCE BUSINESS THEN IT CAN BE SAID OF THAT BUSINESS THAT IT IS SET UP; BUT BEFORE IT IS READY TO COMMENCE BUSINESS IT IS NOT SET UP. THERE MAY HOWEV ER BE AN INTERVAL BETWEEN THE SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS AND THE COMM ENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS AND ALL EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THAT INTE RVAL WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTIONS . 5 ITA NO. 309/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT THE FIRST QUESTION, THEN, THAT FALLS FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS WHEN THE BUSINESS CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SET UP. AS EXPLAINED, IT IS WHEN THE COMPANY (ENTITY) CAN DISCHARGE THE FUNCTIONS FOR WHICH IT (THE FIRM) IS ESTABLISHED; T HE APEX COURT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN WESTERN INDIA VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) IN RAMARAJU SURGICAL COTTON MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) TO DECIDE IF IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE SAID CASE COULD THE COMPANYS UNIT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SET UP OR, EQUI VALENTLY SPEAKING, ESTABLISHED, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE IN-AS-MUCH AS T HE MANUFACTURE OF ABSORBENT COTTON WOOL, FOR WHICH THE UNIT WAS BEING SET UP, COULD NO T TAKE PLACE OR BE PRODUCED. IT IS ONLY WHEN IT COULD START FUNCTIONING AS A BUSINESS OR A MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION THAT THE UNIT COULD BE SAID TO SET UP. PRIOR THERETO THE PROCESSE S ARE PREPARATORY IN NATURE. THE HONBLE COURT IN BHODILAL MENGHRAJ & CO. PVT. LTD. VS. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 968 (BOM) HELD THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO HAVE BEEN SET U P ONLY ON THE RECEIPT OF THE POWER CONNECTION AND NOT EARLIER ON THE PURCHASE OF RAW M ATERIAL OR EVEN THE INSTALLATION OF MACHINERY SUBSEQUENTLY, EVEN AS CLARIFIED BY IT EAR LIER IN INDUSTRIAL SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). 5.2 COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE COMPANY CL AIMS TO HAVE APPOINTED MD AS WELL AS CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER, PUTTING THE INFRASTRUC TURE IN PLACE BY ACQUIRING OFFICE PREMISES, STAFF, FURNITURE AND FITTINGS, ETC. NO GR ANT OF ANY OPERATIONAL LEASE BY THE YEAR- END SHOULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. W E AGREE, SO THAT IF THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS INDEED BEEN SET UP AND THE COMPANY IS IN POSITI ON OR IS READY TO GRANT OPERATIONAL LEASES, WHICH IS TO COMPRISE ITS PRINCIPAL BUSINESS AND THAT TOWARD THE COMMENCEMENT OF WHICH LINE OF BUSINESS EFFORTS WERE, AS STATED, BEI NG MADE, IT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE SET UP ITS BUSINESS. HOWEVER, AS ALSO NOTED BY BOTH THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEES CASE IS WHOLLY UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE ONLY MATERIAL ON RECORD IS TOWARD THE APPOINTMENT OF MD, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS SOME DOUBT IN ITS RESPECT INAS MUCH AS THE RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY CONFIRMING HIS APPOINTMENT IS DATED 17.02.2007 (PB PG.12). EVEN SO, WHEN DID THE CHIEF OPERATION MANAGER JOIN? WHEN WAS THE OTHER STAFF, ALONG WITH THEIR NAMES AND REFERENCE TO THE DIFFERENT POS ITIONS/FUNCTIONS THEY ARE TO DISCHARGE? 6 ITA NO. 309/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT WHEN WAS THE OFFICE PREMISES PURCHASED OR TAKEN ON RENT OR HIRE? WHAT IS THE FURNITURE AND FIXTURE - WITHOUT WHICH THE PREMISES CANNOT BE PUT TO USE, ACQUIRED AND WHEN? WE SAY SO AS THE COMPANYS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (PB PG S. 16-24) DO NOT REFLECT THE SAME. HAS THE COMPANY PROCURED THE NECESSARY HARDWARE IN TERM S OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS OR HAS IT ONLY MADE SOME PRELIMINARY PURCHASES THEREOF, I.E., IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP ITS INFRASTRUCTURE? HAS THE COMPANY PROCURED THE NECESS ARY SOFTWARE FOR OPERATING ITS COMPUTER SYSTEMS, EVEN ASSUMING THE SAME TO HAVE BE EN PURCHASED IN THE NUMBERS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE A TRANSACTION OBSERVING THE O PERATING GUIDELINES? HAVE THE OPERATING LICENSES/PERMITS, AS REQUIRED FROM THE RE GULATORY AUTHORITIES, BEEN OBTAINED? WHETHER, THE FIRM ARRANGEMENTS FOR CAPITAL - BOTH O WNED AS WELL AS BORROWED (BY WAY OF LINES OF CREDIT) FOR EITHER OPERATIONAL LEASES OR F LEET MANAGEMENT (WHICH IS ITS OTHER PRINCIPAL BUSINESS), BOTH BEING HIGHLY CAPITAL INCE NTIVE, BEEN FORMALIZED? HAS THE COMPANY ENTERED INTO A RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY VEHICL E SUPPLIER IN-AS-MUCH AS, AS DISTINCT FROM A FINANCIAL LEASE, THE RISK AND REWARD OF THE OWNERSHIP IN CASE OF AN OPERATING LEASE RESTS WITH THE LESSOR, SO THAT THE TERMS OF THE LEA SE COULD NOT BE AGREED UPON (WITH THE CUSTOMERS) UNLESS IT HAS A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING O F THE PRODUCT, THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT THEREOF, INCLUDIN G BY WAY OF INSURANCE, COSTS, APPLICABLE TAXES. WHY, EVEN A FINANCIAL LEASE OR AR RANGEMENT WOULD REQUIRE AN ARRANGEMENT/S OR TIE UP WITH THE VEHICLE SUPPLIER O R MANUFACTURER, ENABLING COMPETITIVE OFFERS TO THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH THEIR PREFERRED FIN ANCIAL CHANNELS. THEN, AGAIN, HAS THE COMPANY UNDERTAKEN STUDY OF THE LEGAL ISSUES INCIDE NT ON ITS BUSINESS, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT THE BUSINESS COULD BE COM MENCED? SO ON AND SO FORTH. NO ANSWERS EMANATE FROM EITHER THE MATERIAL ON RECORD OR THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATIONS, WITH THE EXPENSES AS INCURRED ITSELF REVEALING THE STATE OF PREPAREDNESS OF THE COMPANY TOWARD COMMENCING ITS BUSINESS. IN OUR CLEAR VIEW, THE COM PANY IS CLEARLY IN THE SETTING UP STAGE. BESIDES, CLEARLY, IT IS ONLY THE EXPENDITURE , POST SET-UP, THAT COULD BE CLAIMED AS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, WHILE ADMITTEDLY THE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY IT SINCE INCEPTION, INCLUDING AS IT APP EARS EXPENDITURE ON ITS INCORPORATION ITSELF, WHICH ARE ONLY, LIKE WISE, CAPITAL COSTS. A LTERNATIVELY SPEAKING, THE IMPLICATION OF 7 ITA NO. 309/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT NO INCORPORATION EXPENSES OR THE COMPANY BEING ESTA BLISHED ON THE VERY DATE OF ITS INCORPORATION, ARE BOTH UNSUPPORTED AS WELL AS BIZA RRE PROPOSITIONS. NO CASE FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S. 37(1) OR SEC TION 32(1), AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS ACCORDINGLY MADE OUT. 5.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED SOME CASE LAW IN ITS CO MPILATION, TO WHICH NO REFERENCE THOUGH WAS MADE DURING HEARING. THE SAME ACCORDINGL Y CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE TRIBUNALS RECORD IN TERMS OF RULE 18 OF THE AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. WE HAVE NEVERTHELESS PERUSED THE SAME, AND REITERATE OUR UN DERSTANDING OF THE LAW AS EXPLAINED HEREINBEFORE, BEING IN FACT WELL-SETTLED, SO THAT T HE ISSUE IN EACH CASE TURNS OUT ON THE APPLICATION OF THOSE PRINCIPLES UPON A FACTUAL AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS, I.E., CONFIRMS TO THE ISSUE BEING PRIMARILY FACTUAL, AS WOULD BE APPARENT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE HONBLE COURTS BY BOTH THE PARTIES, AND INDEED AFFIRMED BY THEM, AS IN THE CASE OF FORGING AND STAMPING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). FURTHER, IN FACT, THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CONSIDER THOSE BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SARABHAI SONS PVT. LTD. [1973] 90 ITR 318(GUJ); CIT VS. SAURASHTRA CEMENT AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. [1973] 91 ITR 170 (GUJ) AND SARABHAI MANAGEMENT CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOUND THE ASSESSEES CASE TO BE FACTUAL LY WHOLLY UNSUBSTANTIATED AND, THUS, UNPROVED, IF NOT DISPROVED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. /-)0 &12/) # / # ) 34 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 17, 201 4 SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % ( MUMBAI; 5& DATED : 17.04.2014 '.&../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 ITA NO. 309/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % 6) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % 6) / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 9':; !)&<1 , * <1- , % ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;=2 >( / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % ( / ITAT, MUMBAI