STAROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS & FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3246/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0246 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Rule of consistency
• Section: 14A; 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.3246 & 3247/M/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. STANROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LIMITED, 57-A, VIJAYALAXMI MAFATLAL CENTRE, DR. G. DESHMUKH MARG, PEDDAR ROAD, MUMBAI-400 026 PAN: AACS5513K VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 3(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MARHARSHI KARVE MARG, MUMBAI 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KETAN VED, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI V. JUSTIN, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 30.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.02.2018 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2012 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,84,593/- O N LEASED ASSETS. 2. NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LONG TER M CAPITAL LOSS AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,39,062/- U/S.14A OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 ITA NOS.3246 & 3247/M/2012 M/S. STANROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LIMI TED 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS DOMESTIC COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROV IDING ASSETS ON LEASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BLOCK ASSETS CONTAIN VARIO US ASSETS CLASSIFIED AS PLANT & MACHINERY WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN EARLIER YEARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THEM ON LEASE. THE ASSESSEE W HILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAIN FROM THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT . THE ASSETS SO PURCHASED WERE PROVIDED ON LEASE BASED ON CONDITION MENTIONED IN LEASE COVENANT. THE LEASE COVENANT ASSIGNED ALL TH E RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. THE EQUIPMENT WAS IN TH E NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING NAME PLATE OF THE COMPANY. THE LES SEE AGREE TO HOLD THE EQUIPMENT AS A BAILEE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEA SE COVENANT ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE LEASE EQUIPMENT AT ALL TIMES WIL L REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT T O REPOSSESS THE LEASED ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FOLLOWED AS-1 9 ACCOUNTING STANDARD OF INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF I NDIA. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE AO) DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSTS IN A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO DISMISSED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMI TTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2004-05 AND AO THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.3246 & 3247/M/2012 M/S. STANROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LIMI TED 3 7. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUED HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL IN ITA NO.5440/M/2009 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNA L HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 2.3 AS UNDER: 2.3.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF I.C.D.S.(SUPRA),THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS DELIBERATED UPON THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION OF T HE LEASED ASSETS IN DETAILS. SO, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT. FACTS OF THE CASE WERE NOTED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS FOLLOW: 'THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY ENG AGED, INTER ALIA, IN THE BUSINESS OF HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASING. THE A SSESSEE PURCHASED VEHICLES AGAINST DIRECT PAYMENT TO THE MANUFACTURER S AND, AS A PART OF ITS BUSINESS, LEASED OUT THESE VEHICLES TO ITS CUST OMERS AND THEREAFTER, HAD NO PHYSICAL AFFILIATION WITH THE VEHICLES. THE LESSEES WERE REGISTERED AS THE OWNERS OF THE VEHICLES. THE AGREE MENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE CUSTOMER SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THA T (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS THE EXCLUSIVE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AT ALL POINT S OF TIME () IF THE LESSEE COMMITTED A DEFAULT, THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPOWE RED TO RE- POSSESS THE VEHICLE (AND NOT MERELY RECOVER MONEY F ROM THE CUSTOMER) ; (III) AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE LEASE PE RIOD, THE LESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO RETURN THE VEHICLE TO THE ASSESSEE ; (IV ) THE ASSESSEE HAD THE RIGHT OF INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLE AT ALL TIMES . IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-92 TO 1996-97, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION IN RELATION TO THE VEHICLES FI NANCED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THIRD PARTIE S. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RATE ON THE GROU ND THAT THE VEHICLES WERE USED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING ON HI RE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIMS, BOTH OF DEPRECIATION AND HIGHER RATE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S USE OF THESE VEHICLE S WAS ONLY BY WAY OF LEASING OUT TO OTHERS AND NOT ACTUAL USER OF THE VEHICLES IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING THEM ON HIRE. ON APPEALS, THE C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AGREED WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT DID NOT ALLO W ITS CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION AT THE HIGHER RATE AND ON APPEALS BY B OTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT THE TRIBUNAL AGREED WITH THE ASS ESSEE OIL THE COUNTS RECORDING A FINDING THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LEASING AND HIRING OF VEHICLES AND OTHER MACHINERY AND NOT A HIRE PURCHASE. ON APPEAL THE HIGH COURT HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH COUNTS.' ON APPEAL, REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT, THE APEX COURT HELD AS UNDER: ITA NOS.3246 & 3247/M/2012 M/S. STANROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LIMI TED 4 'THE PROVISION ON DEPRECIATION IN THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, READS THAT THE ASSET MUST BE OWNED, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY THE A SSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS'. THEREFORE, IT IM POSES A TWIN REQUIREMENT OF 'OWNERSHIP' AND 'USAGE FOR BUSINESS' FOR A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. THE SECTION REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST USE THE ASSET FOR THE 'PURPOSES OF BUSINESS'. IT DOES NOT MANDATE USAGE O F THE ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. AS LONG AS THE ASSET IS UTILIZED F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTIO N 32 WILL STAND SATISFIED, NOTWITHSTANDING NON-USAGE OF THE ASSET I TSELF BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DEFINITIONS OF 'OWNERSHIP' ESSENTIALLY MAKE OWN ERSHIP A FUNCTION OF LEGAL RIGHT OR TITLE AGAINST THE REST OF THE WOR LD. HOWEVER, IT IS 'NOMEN GENERALISSIMNUMN ', AND ITS MEANING IS TO BE GATHERED FROM THE CONNECTION IN WHICH IT IS USED, AND FROM THE SU BJECT-MATTER TO WHICH IT IS APPLIED. AS LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO RETAIN THE LEGAL TITLE AGAINST THE REST OF THE WORLD, IT WOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE ASSET IN THE EYES OF LAW. SECTION 2(30) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,IS A DEEMING PROVISION THAT CREATES A LEGAL FICTION OF OWNERSHIP IN FAVOUR OF THE LESSEE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT ACT, NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAW IN GENERAL. IT MUST BE READ IN CONSONANCE WITH SUB-SECTIONS (4) AN D (5) OF SECTION 51 OF THAT ACT, WHICH MANDATES THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF LEASE, THE VEHICLE BE REGISTERED, IN THE CERTIFICATE OF REGIST RATION, IN THE NAME OF THE LESSEE AND, ON CONCLUSION OF THE LEASE PERIOD, THE VEHICLE BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE LESSOR AS OWNER. THE SECTION LEAVES NO CHOICE TO THE LESSOR BUT TO ALLOW THE VEHICLE TO BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE LESSEE. ..THE ASSESSEE WAS A LEASING COMPANY WHICH LEASED OUT THE TRUCKS THAT IT PURCHASED. THEREFORE, ON A COMBINED READING OF S ECTION 2(13) AND (24) OF THE ACT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM LEASING OF THE TRUCKS WOULD BE BUSINESS INCOME, OR INCOME DERIVED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, AND HAD BEEN SO ASSESSED. HENCE, IT FULFILLED THE REQUIREME NT OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSET MUST BE USED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE DID USE THE VEHICLES IN THE COURSE OF ITS LEASING BUSINESS. THE FACT THAT THE TRUCKS THEMSELVES WERE NOT USED BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SECTION. (II) THAT A SCRUTINY OF THE MATERIAL FACTS AT HAND RAISED A PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE VEHICLE , ALONG WITH ITS KEYS, WAS DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE UPON WHICH, THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CUSTOMER. THE FACT THAT AT THE END OF THE LEASE PERIOD, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE V EHICLE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE LESSEE AT A NOMINAL VALUE DID NO T MAKE THE ASSESSEE IN EFFECT A FINANCIER. NO INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AS TO OWNERSHIP OF THE LEG AL TITLE OF THE VEHICLE, IF THE LESSEE WAS IN FACT THE OWNER, HE WOULD HAVE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE VEHICLES, WHICH, AS SPECIFICALL Y RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WAS NOT THE CASE. ITA NOS.3246 & 3247/M/2012 M/S. STANROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LIMI TED 5 (III)THAT THE ENTIRE LEASE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME IN ITS HANDS AND THE ENTIRE LEASE R ENT PAID BY THE LESSEE HAD BEEN TREATED AS DEDUCTIBLE REVENUE EXPEN DITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE LESSEE. THIS REAFFIRMED THE POSITION T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE, IN SO FAR AS SECT ION 32 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED. (IV)THAT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLES. AS THE OWNER, IT USED THE ASSETS IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSI NESS, SATISFYING BOTH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT AND, HENCE, W AS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE TO THE TRUCKS, WHICH WERE LEASED OUT. (V)THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM TO THE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM 'PURPO SES OF BUSINESS', USED IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 32(1) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THAT ASCRIBED TO IT UNDER SECTIO N 32(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FULFILLED EVEN THE REQUIREM ENTS FOR A CLAIM OF A HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION AND WAS ENTITLED THER ETO. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE AS WELL AS CORPORATE LEND ING AND FINANCING(ASSESSMENT ORDER PG-L).CONSIDERING THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASING AND FINANCE AND THAT THE AO IN THE SUBSEQUENT AND IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAD ALLOWED DEPRECIATION O F LEASED ASSETS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FAA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DE NYING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. RULE OF CONSISTENCY STIPULATES THAT UNTIL AND UNLESS NEW FA CTS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD THE AO SHOULD NOT DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF EA RLIER YEAR/(S). IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO/FAA HAS NOT DISCUS SED ANYTHING THAT PROVES THAT THE FACTS OF THE EARLIER YEARS HAD MATE RIALLY CHANGED DURING THE YEAR TO THAT EXTENT THAT THERE WAS NO OTHER WAY THAN TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER S/JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE DR. IN OUR OPINION AFTER JUDGMENT OF HO N'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ICDS THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS OF A FINANCE COMPANY STANDS SETTLED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE DECIDE SECOND GROUND OF A PPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL WE ALLOW THE APPEAL IN BOTH THE YEARS. 10. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BEING SALE PROCEEDS, THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLAIMING LOSS OF RS.63,07, 267/- WHICH IS ITA NOS.3246 & 3247/M/2012 M/S. STANROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LIMI TED 6 CARRIED FORWARD AND ELIGIBLE FOR SET UP AGAINST BUS INESS PROFIT FOR FUTURE ASSESSMENT YEAR. ASSESSEE COMPANY DERIVED I NCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 64,904/- AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.33,365/- AND RS.31,246/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 11. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. FAIR LY CONCEDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISALLOWED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS INCURRED IN A.Y. 2004-05. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ALSO MAY BE DISMISSED. 12. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E AND FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y . 2006-07. 13. GROUND NO.2 OF A.Y. 2005-06: ADDITION OF RS.1,72,925/- BEING SALE PROCEEDS OF L EASED ASSETS. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN BUSINESS OF PROVIDE ASSETS ON LEASE AND EARNING LEASE RENTAL IN COME. THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PRO FIT AND GAIN FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION UN DER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. THE AO TREATED THAT AFTER EXPIRY OF THE L EASE BLOCK OF ASSETS WERE ADJUSTED FOR ASSETS OF TRANSFER TO LESSEE. IN ORDER TO ARRIVE THE DEPRECIATION THE CHARGE OF PREVIOUS YEAR THE BLOCK OF ASSETS WERE REDUCED BY RS.1,72,925/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF DEPR ECATION OF LEASED ASSETS. HOWEVER, THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) TREATED THE LEASE AS FINANCE LEASE AND ADDED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME . ITA NOS.3246 & 3247/M/2012 M/S. STANROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LIMI TED 7 14. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBM ITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT IN ITA NO.1540/M/2009 THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL VIDE PARA 3 AND 3.1 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3.THIRD GROUND DEALS WITH ADDITION OF RESIDUAL SAL E PRICE OF LEASED ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1.67 LAKHS. THE FAA CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO HAD HELD THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED DEPRECIATIO N, THAT RESIDUAL SALE PRICE OF LEASED ASSETS WAS IN NATURE OF REVENUE RECEIPT. 3.1.WHILE DECIDING THE EARLIER GROUND, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS LEASED OUT, THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE AS WELL AS CORPORATE LEND ING AND FINANCING. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT O RDER OF THE FAA CANNOT BE ENDORSED WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RESIDUAL SALE P RICE OF LEASED ASSETS. SO, REVERSING THE SAME, WE DECIDE THIRD GROUND OF APPEA L IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. THE LAST GROUND RELATES TO THE LOSS DISALLOWANC E UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS EX EMPT INCOME. HOWEVER, NO EXPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME. THE AO HELD THAT AS PER SECTION 1 4A NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE COMPANY IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF T OTAL INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THA T ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE BUT AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.15,20,977/- IN A.Y. 2005-06 AND RS.9,39,062/- FOR A.Y. 2006- 07. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUB MITTED THAT ISSUE ITA NOS.3246 & 3247/M/2012 M/S. STANROSE MAFATLAL INVESTMENTS AND FINANCE LIMI TED 8 IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 18. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE OWN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE ALLOW THE A PPEAL. 21. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.02.2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K. PRADHAN) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 14.02.2018. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.