MEREDITH TRADERS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 2(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3436/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 343619914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D EVI SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND SONDE
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) & SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHA VAN (JM) I.T.A.NOS.3435 & 3436/MUM/2010 (A.YS. 2005-06 & 2004-05) M/S. MEREDITH TRADERS PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, VICTORIA HOUSE, PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013. PAN: AAACM3504E VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-2(2)(3), R.NO. 344, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ARVIND SONDE. RESPONDENT BY SHRI D EVI SINGH. O R D E R PER R.S. SYAL, AM : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S.263 ON 24-03-2010 IN RELATION TO THE ASSTT. YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BASED ON IDENTI CAL FACTS AND COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AL SO PASSED A COMMON ORDER, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM BY THIS CONSOLIDA TED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT. YEARS 2004-05 AND 20 05-06, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE CIT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S.154 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 AND THAT U/S. 143(3) FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2005-06 WERE E RRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THE REASON FOR SUCH DECIS ION BY THE LD. CIT WAS THAT THE ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 2 LOSSES PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR PRIOR TO 1998- 99 WERE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF BY THE AO, WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE AS PER SE CTION 79 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). A SHOW CA USE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, WHICH FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN PARA-4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263, THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YE AR RELEVANT TO ASSTT. YEAR 1998- 99 THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE SHAREHOLDING PATTERN O F THE COMPANY. THUS, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSTT. YEAR 1998-99, THE AO DID NOT ALLOW CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES ON ACCOUNT OF PROHIBITION CONTAIN ED IN SEC. 79 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY WHO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND DIRECTED TO ALLOW CARRY FORWAR D OF LOSSES. THE DECISION OF CIT(A) WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPARTMENT WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 20-0 4-2009, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR T HE AO TO GIVE A FINDING ON THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 79 IN THAT YEAR AS THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. KEEPING THESE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION, THE LD. CIT HELD THAT IN THE ASSTT. YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06, THE A.O. HAD WRONGLY ALLOWED THE SET OFF OF THE BRO UGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF ASSTT. YEAR 1996-97. RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANMOHANDAS (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC) , THE LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT THE QUESTION OF ALLOWABILITY OF LOSSES WAS TO BE DE TERMINED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LOSSES WERE CLAIMED. AS THE ASSE SSEES CASE FELL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC. 79, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE YEARS UN DER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS SO HELD BECAUSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TOOK PLACE IN THE S HAREHOLDING PATTERN OF THE ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 3 ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 1998-99. FINALLY, THE LD. CIT HELD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE, THAT SEC. 79 DID NOT APPLY TO IT, WAS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. THE ASSESSEES ARGU MENT THAT IT WAS A DEEMED PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY WAS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT TO BE CORRECT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, BUT THE SA ME WAS HELD TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE WHILE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961. HE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDERS PASS ED BY THE A.O. FOR BOTH THE YEARS BY HOLDING THEM AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO R EDO THE ASSESSMENT AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT HAS OPINED THAT THE BROUGHT FO RWARD LOSSES OF AN EARLIER YEAR DID NOT QUALIFY TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME O F THE YEARS IN QUESTION BECAUSE OF THE OPERATION OF SEC. 79. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT W OULD BE APT TO REPRODUCE SEC. 79 AS UNDER : CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSSES IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN COMPANIES. 79. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTE R, WHERE A CHANGE IN SHAREHOLDING HAS TAKEN PLACE IN A PREVIOU S YEAR IN THE CASE OF A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC AR E SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED , NO LOSS INCURRED IN ANY YEAR PRIOR TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHA LL BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF T HE PREVIOUS YEAR UNLESS (A) ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY CARRYING NOT LESS THAN FIFTY-ONE PER CENT OF THE VO TING POWER WERE BENEFICIALLY HELD BY PERSONS WHO BENEFICIALLY HELD SHARES OF THE COMPANY CARRYING NOT LESS THAN FIFTY-ONE PER CENT OF THE VO TING POWER ON THE LAST DAY OF THE YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH THE LOSS WAS INCURRED : PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A CASE WHERE A CHANGE IN THE SAID VOTING POWER TAKES PLACE IN A PREVIOUS YEAR CONSEQUENT UPON THE DEATH OF A SHAREHOLDER OR ON AC COUNT OF TRANSFER OF SHARES BY WAY OF GIFT TO ANY RELATIVE OF THE SHAREH OLDER MAKING SUCH GIFT : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ANY CHANGE IN THE SHAREHOLDING OF AN INDIAN COMPANY WHICH IS A ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 4 SUBSIDIARY OF A FOREIGN COMPANY AS A RESULT OF AMAL GAMATION OR DEMERGER OF A FOREIGN COMPANY SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT FIFTY-ONE PER CENT SHAREHOLDERS OF THE AMALGAMATING OR DEMERGED FOREIG N COMPANY CONTINUE TO BE THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE AMALGAMATED OR THE RE SULTING FOREIGN COMPANY. 4. A BARE PERUSAL OF SEC. 79 DIVULGES THAT IF A CHANGE IN THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE COMPANY TAKES PLACE IN A PREVIOUS YEAR, NO LOSS INCURRED IN ANY YEAR PRIOR TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNLESS THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN CL AUSE (A) ARE SATISFIED. THE THING WHICH IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE IS THAT SEC. 79 IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED . IT, THEREFORE, TRANSPIRES THAT SEC. 79 HAS NO A PPLICATION IN THE CASE OF A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED. TO PUT IT IN SIMPLE WORDS, IF IT IS A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, THEN SEC. 79 WOULD APPLY AND VICE VERSA . SEC. 2(18) OF THE ACT DEFINES COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTE RESTED, THE RELEVANT PART OF WHICH IS AS UNDER : (B) IF IT IS A COMPANY WHICH IS NOT A PRIVATE COM PANY AS DEFINED IN THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 1956), AND THE CONDIT IONS SPECIFIED EITHER IN ITEM (A) OR IN ITEM (B) ARE FULFILLED, NA MELY :- (A) (B) SHARES IN THE COMPANY (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITL ED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A FURTHER RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS) CARRYING NOT LESS THAT FIFTY PER CENT OF T HE VOTING POWER HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED UNCONDITIONALLY TO, OR ACQUIRED UNCON DITIONALLY BY, AND WERE THROUGHOUT THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR BENEFICI ALLY HELD BY -- (A) THE GOVERNMENT, OR (B) A CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT, OR (C) ANY COMPANY TO WHICH THIS CLAUSE APPLIES OR ANY SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF SUCH COMPANY IF THE WHOLE OF SUCH SHARE CAPITAL OF SUCH SUBSIDIARY COMPANY HAS ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 5 BEEN HELD BY THE PARENT COMPANY OR BY ITS NOMINEES THROUGHOUT THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 5. AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF SEC. 2(18), A COMP ANY IS SAID TO BE A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED IF IT IS A COMPANY WHICH IS NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY AS DEFINED IN THE COMPANIES ACT, 1 956, AND THE CONDITIONS EITHER IN ITEM (A) OR IN ITEM (B) ARE SATISFIED. `P UBLIC COMPANY HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SEC. 3(IV) OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, T O MEAN A COMPANY WHICH (A) IS NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY; (B) HAS A MINIMUM PAID-UP CAPITAL OF FIVE LAKH RUPEES O R SUCH HIGHER PAID-UP CAPITAL, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; (C) IS A PRIVATE COMPANY WHICH IS A SUBSIDIARY OF A COM PANY WHICH IS NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY. 6. HERE, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ABOVE EXTRACTED CLAUSE (IV) OF SEC. 3 OF THE COMPANIES ACT DEFINING `PUBLIC COMPANY HA S BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY THE COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2000, W.E.F. 13-12-2000 . SEC. 43A DEFINING DEEMED PUBLIC COMPANY WAS AMENDED W.E.F. 13-12-20 00 TO ABOLISH THE CONCEPT OF DEEMED PUBLIC COMPANY. SIMULTANEOUS WI TH THE AMENDMENT IN SEC. 43A, SEC. 3(IV) OF THE COMPANIES ACT WAS ALSO SUBST ITUTED TO PROVIDE THAT A PRIVATE COMPANY WHICH IS SUBSIDIARY OF A COMPANY WH ICH IS NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY SHALL MEAN A PUBLIC COMPANY. FROM THE AB OVE DISCUSSION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHERE A PRIVATE COMPANY IS SUBSIDIARY OF A PUBLIC COMPANY, SUCH PRIVATE COMPANY SHALL ALSO MEAN A `PUBLIC COMPANY. ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 6 7. NOW, WE ADVERT TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. IT IS NOTICED THAT AS ON 31- 03-1997 TWO PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANIES WERE SHAREHOL DERS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SOME CHANGE WAS EFFECTED IN THE SHARE HOLD ING COMPOSITION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY WHICH AS ON 31-03-1998 M/S. GAG AN TRADING CO. LTD. BECAME SHAREHOLDER OF 7,00,000 SHARES OUT OF THE TO TAL SHARE CAPITAL OF 24,00,002 SHARES. AGAIN, SOME CHANGES WERE EFFECTED , AS A RESULT OF WHICH ON 31-03-2003, M/S. GAGAN TRADING CO. LTD. HELD 12,01 ,001 SHARES OUT OF THE TOTAL CAPITAL OF 24,00,002 SHARES. IT IS THUS SEEN THAT M/S. GAGAN TRADING CO.LTD. HELD MORE THAN 50% OF THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY AS AT THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31-03-2003. 8. TESTING THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS WELL AS THE COMPANIES ACT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE HITHERTO CHARACTER OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY WAS CHANGED TO THAT OF A PUBLIC COMPANY IN THE PRECEDING YEAR BY REASON OF M/S GAGAN TRADING CO. LTD.( A PUBLIC COMPANY IN ITSELF) ACQUIRING MO RE THAN FIFTY PER CENT OF THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ALTHOUGH THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY WAS ORIGINALLY REGISTERED AS A PRIVATE COMPANY, BUT BECAME PUBLIC COMPANY BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 3(IV)(C) OF THE COMPANIES ACT. IN ORDER TO BE CATEGORIZED AS A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTER ESTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 2(18) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, IT IS SINE QUA NON THAT NOT ONLY THE COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE A PRIVATE COMPANY AS PER THE COMPANIE S ACT BUT ALSO IT SHOULD FULFILL THE CONDITIONS DEFINED EITHER IN ITEM (A) O R ITEM (B). 9. IT IS NOTICED IN THE PRECEDING PARA THA T THE FIRST CONDITION, BEING THE ASSESSEE NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY HAS BEEN SATISFIED . NOW IT NEEDS TO BE ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 7 EXAMINED WHETHER THE SECOND CONDITION IS ALSO FULFI LLED OR NOT. IT IS ONLY WHEN BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED THAT THE CHARACTER OF A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED IS AD ORNED. WE CAN NOTICE FROM ITEM (B) OF SEC. 2(18)(B) THAT THE SHARES IN SUCH A COMPANY WHICH IS NOT A PRIVATE COMPANY CARRYING NOT LESS THAN 50% OF THE VOTING POWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED UNCONDITIONALLY TO, OR ACQUIRED UNCON DITIONALLY BY, AND BE BENEFICIALLY HELD BY ANY COMPANY TO WHICH THIS CLAU SE APPLIES THROUGHOUT THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS SATISFYING THIS CONDITION AS WELL INASMUCH AS M/S. GAGAN TRADING CO. LTD. HELD 12,01,001 SHARE S OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ON 31-03-2003, WHICH CONTINUED TO BE HELD DURING THE WHOLE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN QUESTION. IT SHOWS THAT MORE THAN 50% OF T HE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE HELD BY M/S. GAGAN TRADING CO. LTD., A S A RESULT OF WHICH THAT COMPANY BECAME THE HOLDING COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, IT IS EXPLICIT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BY FULFILLING T HE REQUISITE CONDITIONS, BECAME A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INT ERESTED AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, ONCE IT IS HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, APPL ICATION OF SEC. 79 IS AUTOMATICALLY RULED OUT BECAUSE THIS SECTION APPLIE S ONLY IN THE CASE OF COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTAN TIALLY INTERESTED. 10. THE LD. CIT HAS ALBEIT HELD THAT THE AS SESSEE IS A DEEMED PUBLIC COMPANY AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT, BUT HE HELD THA T THE SAME COULD NOT BE TRUE WHILE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THERE IS A BASIC FALLACY IN THIS POINT OF VIEW FOR THE REASON THAT SEC. 79 OF THE ACT IS NO T APPLICABLE TO THE COMPANIES IN WHICH PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED. THE DEFI NITION OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED HAS BEEN GIVEN IN SECTION 2(18), WHICH ITSELF ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 8 REFERS TO THE DEFINITION OF PRIVATE COMPANY AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT. IT IS HERE THAT THE DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION COMES INTO PLAY. AS THE DEFINITION OF A `PRIVATE COMPANY AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT HAS BEEN BODILY L IFTED AND INCORPORATED IN SECTION 2(18) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THEN WHAT EVER IS ITS MEANING IN THAT ENACTMENT, WILL APPLY WITH FULL FORCE TO SEC. 2(18 ) AND IN TURN SECTION 79 OF THE ACT. IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE A DEEMED PUBLIC COMPANY AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT, BUT WOULD NOT BE SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE IT ACT. ONCE A COMPANY IS FOUND TO BE NOT A PRIVAT E COMPANY AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS A PRIV ATE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 79 READ WITH SECTION 2(18) OF T HE ACT. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SURANA STEELS (P) LIMITED VS DCIT & ORS (1999) 237 ITR 777 (SC) 11. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS OBVIOU S THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SEC. 79 AND AS SUCH TH E LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS ALLOWING SET OFF OF THE BR OUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF AN EARLIER YEAR AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE, THEREFORE, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 201 1. SD/- SD/- (SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 27TH MAY, 2011. NG: ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 9 COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT-2, MUMBAI. 4. ADDL. CIT,RANGE 2(2),MUMBAI. 5. DR,B BENCH,MUMBAI. 6. MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NOS.3435 & 3436/M/10 MEREDITH TRADERS P. LTD. 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNA TION 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 24-05-2011 SR.PS/ 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26-05-2011 SR.PS/ 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/ AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER *