ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATEOF LATE Mr. E.F. DINSHAW, MUMBAI V. ITO (I.T) - 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 347/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3984 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANT LAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI E BENCH BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN (VICE PRESIDENT) & SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.347/MUM/2007 - A.Y 2003-04 ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATE OF LATE MR. E.F.DINSHAW, 412, CHURCHGATE CHAMBERS, 5, SIR VITHALDAS THACKERSEY MARG, MUMBAI 400 020 PAN: AAEPD 8394 A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1 (1), MUMBAI . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HEMANT LAL. O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, AM: IN THIS CASE AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED 4-10 -2010 HAD BEEN MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REASON GI VEN FOR SEEKING THE ADJOURNMENT WAS THAT THE PERSON WHO IS LOOKING AFTER THE TAX MATTERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. FROM THE RECORDS IT WAS NOTICED THAT IN THIS CASE ADJOURNMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE ON TEN EARLIER OCCASION S STARTING FROM 6-11- 2008 ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE OTHER. THEREFORE, APPLIC ATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO GROUNDS IN THIS APPE AL OUT OF WHICH GROUND NO.2 WAS NOT PRESSED AND, THEREFORE, SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT[A] ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 94(7) AND SETTING OFF DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` `` ` .97,90,628 OF 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AGAINST THE SHORT TERM CAPI TAL LOSS OF ` `` ` .1,06,03,428 OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE LEARNED CIT[A] ERRED IN REDUCING THE APPELLANT S CLAIM FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS BY ` `` ` .97,90,628 ON THE GROUND THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 94(7) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ITA) ARE APPLICABLE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT DUR ING ASSESSMENT THE PROCEEDINGS AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CL AIMED TOTAL SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AMOUNTING TO ` `` ` .4,88,43,957/- AFTER SET OFF OF THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, IT WA S NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED 3560228.461 UNITS OF SUN F&C MON EY VALUE FUND AMOUNTING TO ` `` ` .4,70,00,000/- ON 21-3-2002 AND RECEIVED A DIVIDEND OF ` `` ` .9790628.27 ON 22-3-2002, WHICH WAS CLAIMED U/S.10( 33) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE ENTI RE UNITS ON 16-4- 2002 AND CLAIMED SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AMOUNTING TO ` `` ` .1,06,03,428/- WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AS UNDER: SUN F&C MONEY VALUE FUND NO.OF UNITS . DT. OF PURCHASE COST OF PURCHASE DT. OF SALES SALE PROCEEDS STCL 3560228.451 21-3-2002 4,70,00,000 16-04-2002 3,63,96,577 1,06,03,428 ON QUERY THAT WHY THIS LOSS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWE D IN VIEW OF SEC.94(7), IT WAS SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 17-2- 2006 THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS SHOUL D BE DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND RECEIVED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS SUM OF ` `` ` .97,90,628/- WAS DISALLOWED. 4. BEFORE THE CIT[A] IT WAS MAINLY ARGUED THAT MAND ATE OF SEC.94(7) SHOWS THAT THE LOSS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED BY THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND OR INCOME RECEIVED ON SUCH SECURITIES OR U NITS REFERRED TO IN 3 THE SAID SECTION. SINCE THE DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED I N F.Y 2001-02 WHEREAS SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OCCURRED IN F.Y 200 2-03, THEREFORE, SAME COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE UNITS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REDEEMED BY THE MUTUAL FU NDS, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT SAME HAVE BEEN SOLD BECAUSE REDEMPTION OF UNITS WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF TRA NSFER. 5. THE LD. CIT[A] AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS O BSERVED THAT PERUSAL OF SEC.94(7) REVEALS THAT THE DIRECTIONS CO NTAINED IN THIS SECTION IS TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT OF LOSS BY THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND OR INCOME EARNED ON SUCH SECURITIES AND THE SECTION DOES NOT TALKS OF ANY RESTRICTION THAT DIVIDEND SHOULD BE EARNED IN THE S AME YEAR. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS EARNED AN D IS EXEMPT THEN SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS TO THAT EXTENT IS TO BE DIS ALLOWED. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ARGUMENT REGARDING TRANSFER, IT WAS OBSER VED THAT TRANSFER HAS BEEN DEFINED IN SEC.2(47) OF THE ACT AND WOULD INCLUDE SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF ASSETS OR EXTINGUISHM ENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN. ACCORDING TO HIM, REDEMPTION OF UNITS BY T HE MUTUAL FUNDS WOULD AMOUNT TO RELINQUISHMENT AND IT WOULD ALSO BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF EXTINGUISHMENT. IN ANY CASE, THE REDEMPTION OF U NITS BY MUTUAL FUNDS IS ONLY A BUY BACK OF THE UNITS AND AS SUCH A MOUNTS TO TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS. FOR THIS HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. PARVIZ WANG CHUK BASI VS. JCIT [102 ITD 123]. 4 6. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN EMP HASISED THAT DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22-3-2002 I.E. IN THE A.Y 2002-03, WHEREAS THE LOSS FROM SALE OF UNITS AROSE IN THIS YEAR I.E. A.Y 2003-04 AND, THEREFORE, THE DIVIDEND CANNOT BE REDU CED FROM THE LOSS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SEC.94(7) ENVISAGES SALE OF UNITS AND SALE CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH REDEMPTION AND, THEREFORE, T HIS PROVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SEC.94( 7) WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2001 AND WAS MADE EFF ECTIVE W.E.F. 1-4- 2002. HE SUBMITTED THAT RECENTLY THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS PVT . LTD. (326 ITR 1) HAS ALREADY HELD THAT SEC.94(7) WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2002 AND LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE IGNORED BY THE AO. HE THEN INVITED OUR ATT ENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.94(7) AND SUBMITTED THAT A PLAIN READING OF THE SECTION WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMEN T IS THAT ONCE A PERSON ACQUIRE SECURITIES OR UNITS WITHIN THREE MON THS FROM THE RECORD DATE AND SAME ARE SOLD OR TRANSFERRED WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM SUCH DATES, THEN DIVIDEND OR INCOME FROM SUCH SECURITIES HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE LOSS WHICH ARISES ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OR TR ANSFER OF SUCH UNITS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION THAT DIVIDEND SH OULD BE RECEIVED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. FURTHER, THE PROVISION USES BOTH T HE EXPRESSIONS I.E. SALE AND TRANSFER AND, THEREFORE, EVEN REDEMPTI ON WOULD BE COVERED BY THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER. HE STRONGLY PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE 5 DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. PARVIZ WANG CHUK BASI VS. JCIT [SUPRA] AND ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANARKALI SARABHAI VS. CIT [224 ITR 422]. 8. IN THE REJOINDER, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE SALE WAS THAT OF PREFERENCE SHARES AND TH AT IS WHY THE DEFINITION GIVEN FOR TRANSFER WAS APPLIED. WHEREAS FOR UNITS THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER UNDER THE GENERAL LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. ADMITTEDLY, THE UNITS OF SUN F&C MONEY VALUE FUND WERE PURCHASE D ON 21-3-2002, DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED ON 22-3-2002 FOR WHICH EXEMPT ION U/S.10(33) WAS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED. THE UNITS WERE SOLD ON 16- 4-2002. SECTION 94(7) READS AS UNDER: SEC.94( 7) WHERE ( A ) ANY PERSON BUYS OR ACQUIRES ANY SECURITIES OR UNI T WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE RECORD DATE; [( B ) SUCH PERSON SELLS OR TRANSFERS ( I ) SUCH SECURITIES WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS A FTER SUCH DATE; OR ( II ) SUCH UNIT WITHIN A PERIOD OF NINE MONTHS AFTER SU CH DATE;] ( C ) THE DIVIDEND OR INCOME ON SUCH SECURITIES OR UNIT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY SUCH PERSON IS EXEMPT, THEN, THE LOSS, IF ANY, ARISING TO HIM ON ACCOUNT O F SUCH PURCHASE AND SALE OF SECURITIES OR UNIT, TO THE EXTENT SUCH LOSS DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF DIVIDEND OR INCOME RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE ON SUCH SECURITIES OR UNIT, SHALL BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPU TING HIS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX.] A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SECTION SHOWS THAT THE RE IS NO RESTRICTION THAT DIVIDEND OR INCOME ON SUCH SECURITIES OR UNITS SHOULD BE RECEIVED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. THE RESTRICTION IS THAT SUCH DIVIDEND OR INCOME SHOULD BE EXEMPT AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT 6 THAT SINCE THE DIVIDEND WAS RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER , THEREFORE, THIS PROVISION CANNOT BE APPLIED. 10. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N THE RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WALFORT SHARE AND S TOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. [SUPRA] AS UNDER: HELD, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, (I ) THAT ON FACTS IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS A SALE, THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED A DIVIDEND, AND THAT DIVIDEND WAS TAX-FREE. THE ASSESSEE HAD MA DE USE OF THE SAID PROVISION OF SECTION 10(33) AND SUCH USE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE ABUSE OF LAW. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE TRANSACTION WA S PRE-PLANNED THERE WAS NOTHING TO IMPEACH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN CASE OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE APRIL 1, 2002, I.E., BEFO RE THE INSERTION OF SECTION 94(7) LOSSES PERTAINING TO EXEMPTED INCOME COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, AFTER APRIL 1, 2002, SUCH LOS SES TO THE EXTENT OF THE EXTENT OF THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF SECTION UNDER S ECTION 94(7). APPLYING SECTION 94(7) TO CASES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S FALLING AFTER APRIL, 1, 2002, THE LOSS TO BE IGNORED WOULD BE ONL Y TO THE EXTENT OF THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED AND NOT THE ENTIRE LOSS. IN OTHER WORDS, LOSSES OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF RECEIVED WOULD STILL BE ALL OWED FROM WHICH IT FOLLOWED THAT PARLIAMENT HAD NOT TREATED THE DIVIDE ND STRIPPING TRANSACTION AS SHAM OR BOGUS. AFTER APRIL 1, 2002, LOSSES OVER AND ABOVE THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED WOULD NOT BE IGNORED UN DER SECTION 94(7) THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS PRO VISION IS APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 2002 I.E. A.Y 2002-03. 11. WE AGAIN FIND NO FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION THAT S INCE IT IS A CASE OF SALE OF UNITS, THEREFORE, DEFINITION OF TRANSFER IS NOT APPLICABLE. THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SAID THAT TH E REDEMPTION WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE TERM SALE BUT UNDER THE GE NERAL LAW BUT HE DID NOT POINT OUT WHICH GENERAL LAW HE WANTED TO RE LY. SECTION 2(47) READS AS UNDER: SEC.2: IN THIS ACT, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, SUB-SEC.(47): [TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUD ES, 7 ( I ) THE SALE , EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE AS SET ; OR ( II ) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN ; OR ( III ) THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEREOF UNDER ANY LAW ; OR ( IV ) IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSET IS CONVERTED BY THE OWN ER THEREOF INTO, OR IS TREATED BY HIM AS, STOCK-IN-TRADE OF A BUSINE SS CARRIED ON BY HIM, SUCH CONVERSION OR TREATMENT ;] [OR] [( IVA ) THE MATURITY OR REDEMPTION OF A ZERO COUPON BOND; OR] [( V ) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POS SESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF 1882) ; OR ( VI ) ANY TRANSACTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF BECOMING A MEM BER OF, OR ACQUIRING SHARES IN, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, COMPAN Y OR OTHER ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR BY WAY OF ANY AGREEMENT O R ANY ARRANGEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER) WHIC H HAS THE EFFECT OF TRANSFERRING, OR ENABLING THE ENJOYMENT O F, ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSES ( V ) AND ( VI ), IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE ( D ) OF SECTION 269UA ;] THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN PLACED U/S.2 WH ICH CONTAINED THE DEFINITION AND AS NOTED ABOVE THE OPENING LINE OF S EC.2 MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS DEFINITION WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO A LL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. FURTHER, SEC.94(7)(B) CLEARLY MENTIONS BOTH TH E WORDS SALES AND TRANSFER. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DEFINIT ION TRANSFER WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC.94(7) OF THE ACT. 12. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF ANARKALI SA RABHAI VS. CIT [SUPRA], WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HELD 297 REDEEMABLE P REFERENCE SHARES OF UNIVERSAL CORPORATION LIMITED, THE FACE VALUE OF THESE PREFERENCE SHARES WAS ` `` ` .1000/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PREFEREN CE SHARES FOR ` `` ` .2,66,550/-. THE COMPANY DECIDED TO REDEEM THE PREFERENCE SHARES AND ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF ` `` ` .2,97,000/- I.E. THE 8 FACE VALUE OF THE SHARES HELD BY HER. THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER THIS COULD BE TAXED. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED THAT THIS P ROFIT COULD NOT BE TAXED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOLD OR TRANSFER RED THE ASSET. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFER IN SECTION 2(47) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION. CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (47) OF SECTION 2 SPEAKS OF 'SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHME NT OF THE ASSET'. THIS IMPLIES PARTING WITH ANY CAPITAL ASSET FOR GAI N WHICH WILL BE TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE ACT. WHEN PREFERENC E SHARES ARE REDEEMED BY THE COMPANY, THE SHAREHOLDER HAS ABANDO N OR SURRENDER THE SHARES IN ORDER TO GET THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN L IEU THEREOF. THERE IS, THEREFORE, ALSO A RELINQUISHMENT WHICH BRINGS T HE TRANSACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT. THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED PREFERENCE SHARES IN A COMPANY AT LESS THAN THEIR FACE VALUE AND HELD THEM AS CAPITAL ASSE TS. THE COMPANY REDEEMED THEM AT THEIR FACE VALUE: ULTIMATELY, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HELD AS UNDER: HELD ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUM RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON REDEMPTION OF THE SHARES AND THE S UM EARLIER PAID BY HER FOR PURCHASING THEM, WAS TAXABLE AS CAPITAL GAI NS. 13. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO AN OC CASION TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF MRS. PARVIZ WANG CHUK BASI VS. JCIT [SUPRA]. IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LONG TER M CAPITAL GAINS OF ` `` ` .1,17,921/- ON REDEMPTION OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT BON DS MATURING DURING THE YEAR. AO HELD THAT REDEMPTION OF BONDS C OULD NOT CONSTITUTE TRANSFER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN OR LOSS. THE CIT[A] CONFIRMED THIS VIEW. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL REVERSED THIS DECISION BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF ANARKALI SARABHAI VS. CIT [SUPRA]. 14. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO THE UNITS HAVE BEEN REDEEMED THEREFORE SAME WOULD DEFINITELY CONSTITUTE TRANSFER FOR THE PURPOSE OF 9 SEC.94(7). IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IN THE CASE OF ANARKALI SARABHAI VS. CIT [S UPRA] AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MRS. PARVIZ WANG CHUK BASI VS. JCIT [SUPRA]. IN ANY CASE BEFORE THE AO ASSESSEE HA S CONCEDED THAT LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMESH CHANDRA & CO. VS. CIT [168 ITR 375] HAS ALREADY HELD THAT APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME ON TH E BASIS OF ADMISSION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 15. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG I N THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT[A]. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) (T.R.SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI:27 TH OCTOBER, 2010. P/-* 10