APM TERMINALS MANAGEMENT B.V. COMMUNICATIONS, MUMBAI V. DDIT (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3621/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9891 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M V RAJGURUSR
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Diversion of income; Permanent establishment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA, A.M. AND SANDEEP GOSAIN,J.M . ./ ././ ./ ITA NO. 3621/MUM/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 APM TERMINALS MANAGEMENT B.V. MAERSK LINE INDIA PVT.LTD. 12 TH FLOOR, TOWER A, URMI ESTATE 95 GANPATRAO KADAM MARG LOWERE PAREL (W) MUMBAI-400 013. PAN: AAHCA 5570 H VS. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION)-1(1) SCINDIA HOUSE, BALLARD PIER NM ROAD, MUMBAI-400 038. ( / // / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI M.V. RAJ GURU-SR.DR ASSESSEE BY: S/SHRI SUNIL MOTILALA/ FENIL BHATT/TUSHAR HATHIRAM ANI / // / DATE OF HEARING: 04/07.2017 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.09.2017 , ,, , 1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , ,, , -PER RAJENDRA,AM: CHALLENGING THE ORDER,DATED 20/02/2015 OF THE CIT(A )-55,MUMBAI THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE,A NON-RESIDENT FOREIGN COMP ANY REGISTERED IN THE NETHERLAND, IS A PART OF A P MOLLER MAERSK(APMM)GROUP.IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING TECHNICAL AND SUPPORT SERVICES TO VARIOUS COMPANIES GLOBALLY,WHICH ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF PORT AND CONTAINER TERMINAL OPERATIONS.IN RESPONSE TO TH E NOTICE ISSUED U/S.142 (1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/03/2001,D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4.51CRORES.THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT,U/S. 143(3)R.W.S.147 AND 144C (3) OF THE ACT,ON 28/01/ 2011, DETERMINING ITS INCOME AT RS. 4 .67 CRORES. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT TAXABILITY OF F EES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES (FTS)/ROYALTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND INDIAN NETHERL AND TAX TREATY.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,67,58,000/-FROM SHANGHAI ZHENHUA PORT MACHINERY COMPANY LTD.,CHINA( ZPMC),THAT IT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME.HE DIRECTED THE ASSESS EE WAS JUSTIFIED AND EXPLAIN AS TO WHY SAID INCOME SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX.AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE,DATED 24/11/2010, HE HELD THAT APMM HAD ENTERED INTO MAIN PURCHASE AGREEMENT (MPA), DATED 13/02/2004 AND 17/06/ 2004 WITH ZPMC, CHINA, THAT A S PER THE AGREEMENT ANY GROUP ENTITY OF 3621/M/15(07-08) APM TERMINALS MANA GEMENT BV 2 APMM WANTING TO BUY THE CRANE FOR ITS OPERATION WOU LD BY THE SAME FROM ZPMC AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, THAT ZPMC WA S REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE OF US DOLLARS 15,000 TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EACH CRANE SOLD THROUGH ITS GROUP COMPANY, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LTD.(GPPL) ENTER ED INTO A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF PLANES FROM ZPMC,THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PART OF A P MOLLER G ROUP AND WAS PAID MONEY THROUGH ZPMC AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN APMM AND ZPMC,THA T AS PER THE AGREEMENTS ZPMC WAS REQUIRED TO PAY CONSULTANCY FEES TO THE ASSESSE E TOWARDS SALE OF CRANES, THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY GPPL,THAT IT WAS ROUTED THROUGH ZPMC,TH AT THE RECEIPT WAS IN NATURE OF INCOME FROM A SOURCE IN INDIA AND WAS LIABLE TO TAX IN IND IA UNDER THE HEAD ROYALTY AS PER THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA) WITH NETHERLAND S,THAT ROUTING THE PAYMENT THROUGH AN ENTITY WOULD NOT TRANSFER THE SOURCE FROM INDIA, THAT THERE WAS A DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLE TO THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE INCOME AC CRUING TO IT IN RESPECT OF SALE OF CRANES IN INDIA BY ZMPC WAS RS.1.67 CRORES AS CALCULATED IN O RDER DATED 24/07/2008 IN THE CASE OF GPPL BY THE AO OF THAT ASSESSEE.HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DESIGN FOR THE CRANE WAS DECIDED BY APMM AND ZPMC,THAT THE GROUP COMPANIES D IDNT HAVE ANY SAY IN CHANGE OF DESIGN OF THE CRANE,THAT ALL THE TECHNICAL ACTIVITI ES WERE CARRIED OUT BY APMM ON BEHALF OF ITS GROUP COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, THAT THE PAYMENT WAS ACT UALLY IN THE NATURE OF FTS.REFERRING TO ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAA,HE HELD THAT HE HELD THAT IN COME HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM INDIA AND WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS FEES FOR TECHNIC AL SERVICES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) AND MADE ELABORATE SUBMIS SIONS.IT ALSO RELIED UPON CERTAIN CASE LAWS.AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL, HE H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO PROVE ITS NON-TAXABILITY OF INCOME WITHOU T HAVING ANY SUPPORT OF LAW OR FACTS,THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT IT HAD CONDUCTED TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES FOR ITS GROUP ENTITIES,THAT THE CONSULTANCY FEES PAID BY ZPMC TO IT WAS IN NATURE O F FTS,THAT THE PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY FEES/RECEIPT WERE LINKED TO INDIA,THAT SAME WAS LIA BLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA AS ROYALTY INCOME AS PER THE INDIA-NETHERLAND TAX TREATY,THAT THE PAY MENT RECEIVED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ZPMC WAS IN FACT MADE BY GPPL,THAT IT WAS R OUTED THROUGH ZPMC,THAT PAYMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA AS ROYALTY INCOME A S PER THE TAX TREATY,THAT THE DESIGN OF THE CRANE WAS ALREADY DECIDED BY APMM AND ZPMC, THAT TH E AO HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE INCOME WAS TAXABLE INDIA.FINALLY,HE UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE AO. 3621/M/15(07-08) APM TERMINALS MANA GEMENT BV 3 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) CONTENDED NEITHER HAD ANY FIXED PLACE OF BUSINESS NOR HAD ANY PE IN INDIA, THAT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE PURCHASE OF CRANES FOR ITS GROUP ENTITIES ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF PORT OPERATIONS, APMM HAD ENTERED INTO MPA,THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE AGREEM ENT WAS TO ENSURE PROCUREMENT OF STANDARDISED CRANES FOR ALL ITS GROUP ENTITIES AND TO FACILITATE TROUBLE-FREE PROCUREMENT OF CRANES,THAT GROUP ENTITIES WERE REQUIRED TO ENTER I NTO SPECIFIC PURCHASE CONTRACT(SPC)WITH ZPMC FOR PROCUREMENT OF CRANES,THAT AS PER THE CLAU SE 22 AND 23 OF THE MPA,ZPMC WAS REQUIRED TO PAY TO THE ASSESSEE A FIXED AMOUNT OF C ONSULTANCY FEES PER CRANE SOLD UNDER THE SPC,THAT GPPL HAD ENTERED INTO SPC WITH ZMPC TOWARD S SUPPLY OF 21 CRANES,THAT PERSUANT TO SPC CERTAIN PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY GPPL AND TO ZM PC TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE CRANES,THAT CONSULTANCY FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE FROM ZMPC FOR RENDERING SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARIS E INDIA AS PER SECTION 5 READ WITH SECTION 9 OF THE ACT,THAT SAME WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA, THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE TAXABILITY OF THE CONSULTANCY FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UN DER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HAD DIRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT SAME WAS TAXABLE IN INDIA A S PER THE TAX TREATY,THAT THE PROVISIONS OF TREATY WOULD BE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THERE WAS A PR IVITY OF CONTRACT BETWEEN AN INDIAN ENTITY AND THE ASSESSEE,THAT AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO BY TO NON-RESIDENTS I.E. APMM AND ZPMC, THAT THERE WAS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND GPPL(THE INDIAN ENTITY),THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RENDERED CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO ZPMC IN CHINA IN DESIGNING BASIC SPECIFICATION AND IMPROVEMENT IN CRANE PERFOR MANCE,THAT IT DID NOT RELATE TO TRANSFER OF INFORMATION CONCERNING INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR SCI ENTIFIC EXPERIENCE, THAT IT WAS NOT IN NATURE OF ROYALTY,THAT THE DESIGNING BASIC SPECIFIC ATION AND IMPROVEMENT IN CRANE PERFORMANCE WAS ONLY TO EQUIPMENT WHICH WAS MANUFAC TURED BY ZMPC IN CHINA.ALTERNATIVELY,IT WAS ARGUED THAT EVEN IF IT W AS ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER OF INFORMATION CONCERNING INDUSTRIAL,COMMERCIAL OR SCI ENTIFIC EXPERIENCE THE SAID INFORMATION WAS TRANSFERRED TO ZPMC AND NOT TO AN ENTITY IN IND IA, THAT IF ANY TAX HAD TO BE PAID FOR THE SAID TRANSACTION IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID IN CHINA. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT EVEN IF IT WAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDIRECTLY RECEIVED THE CONSULTATION FEES FROM GPPL AND THAT SUCH PAYMENT WAS IN THE NATURE OF FTS THE DISPUTED AMOUNT COULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX IN INDIA UNDER THE TREATY.HE REFERRED TO THE PROVISION S OF ARTICLES 12(1)AND 12(2) OF THE TREATY AND STATED THAT FTS ARISING IN INDIA AND PAID TO A TAX RESIDENT OF NETHERLANDS CAN BE TAXED IN INDIA, THAT IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL CONSULTANCY FE ES WERE PAID BY A PERSON NON-RESIDENT IN INDIA I.E. ZPMC, CHINA, THAT THE PAYMENT COULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX IN INDIA AS PER ARTICLES 12 OF THE TREATY, THAT IN VIEW OF RESTRICTED DEFINI TION OF FTS IN ARTICLE 12 (5) (B) OF THE 3621/M/15(07-08) APM TERMINALS MANA GEMENT BV 4 TREATY,THE CONSULTANCY FEES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX IN INDIA, THAT IT WAS NOT MAKING AVAILABLE ANY TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE EX PERIENCE AND SKILL ETC.,THAT IT WAS NOT DEVELOPING OR TRANSFERRING ANY TECHNICAL PLAN OR DE SIGN FOR GPPL,THAT THE PROVISION FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE MIGHT REQUIRE TEC HNICAL SKILL AND EXPERIENCE,THAT IT WOULD NOT ENABLE GPPL OR ZPMC TO APPLY THAT SKILL AND EXP ERIENCE ON THEIR OWN IN FUTURE ACTIVITIES,THAT PURCHASE PRICE WAS TO BE PAID BY GP LL,THAT DISPUTED AMOUNT WAS NOT FTS AS IT WAS PART OF PURCHASE PRICE,THAT IT WAS NOT FIS,THAT AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR..HE REFERRED T O THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GPLL(ITA////)AND STATED THAT EVEN IF THE DISPUTED A MOUNT WAS TO TAXED IT WAS TO BE TAXED IN THE NEXT AY.HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF .THE DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD RENDERED TECHNICAL SERVICES,THAT IT WAS LIABLE TO PAY TAXES FOR THE DISPUTED AMOUNT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 1.67 CRORES FROM ZPMC,THAT AS PER THE MPA,ZPMC HAD SUPPLIED CRANES TO GPPL, THAT THE AO AND THE FAA WE RE OF THE OPINION THAT AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS TAXABLE IN INDIA,THAT THE DISPUTED AMO UNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NEXT AY.,THAT BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD HELD THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF TAX TREATY THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS TAXABLE IN INDIA UNDER THE H EAD FTS/ROYALTY. 5.1. WE FIND THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S.201 R.W.S. 195 OF THE ACT,IN THE CASE OF GPLL(PG.91-125 OF THE PB),THE AO HAD (AT PAGE 123 O F THE PB),SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT TAX WAS DEDUCTIBE ON FIS OR ROYALTY INCOME OF M/S.A PM TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL B.V. THE NETHERLANDS,THAT GPPL WAS TO BE HELD DEFAULTER OF T AX FOR THE AY.2008-09.CLEARLY,THE DISPUTED AMOUNT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 5.1.1. IN THE CASES OF SEIMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,NOCIL,UH DE GMBH(SUPRA),THE TRIBUNAL HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT ROYALTY AND FTS SHOULD BE REC KONED FOR TAXATION ONLY WHEN IT IS RECEIVED AND NOT OTHERWISE.IN THE MATTER OF SEIMENS AKTIENGE SELLSCHAFT,FOLLOWING QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE (I.T. APPEAL NO.124 OF 2010,)BEFORE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT: 'I)WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ROYALTY AND FEES FOR TECHNI CAL SERVICES SHOULD BE TAXED ON RECEIPT BASIS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF STANDARD DRUM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED V/ S. CIT, 201 ITR 391 THAT THE CREDIT ENTRY TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE NON-RES IDENT IN THE BOOKS OF THE INDIAN COMPANY AMOUNTED TO RECEIPT BY THE NON-RESIDENT?' THE HONBLE COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE,ON 22.10.2012,A S UNDER : 3621/M/15(07-08) APM TERMINALS MANA GEMENT BV 5 '2. AS REGARDS FIRST QUESTION IS CONCERNED, THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REFERRING TO PARA-1 TO 3 UNDER ARTICLE IIX-A OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE TREATY WITH THE FEDERAL GERMANY REPUBLIC AS PER NOTIFICATI ON DATED 26TH AUGUST 1985 HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF ROYALTY OR ANY FEES FOR TECH NICAL SERVICES SHOULD BE MADE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVED AND NOT OTHE RWISE. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE, WHICH IN OUR OPINION, HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS IT RELATES TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTIFICATION DA TED 26T1 AUGUST 1985. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE DECISION OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT THE ROYALTY AND FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES SHOULD BE T AXED ON RECEIPT BASIS CANNOT BE FAULTED'. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE COURT IN RESPECT OF AY.S 1997-98,2001-02 AND 2003-04.CONSIDERING THE AB OVE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO TAXABLE INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 5.2. WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE T AX TREATY, WE WANT TO MENTION THAT SAME IS APPLICABLE IF INFORMATION CONCERNING TECHNICAL/I NDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE OR SKILL IS IMPARTED. IT IS A FACT THAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA TO A NON- RESIDENT I.E. ZMPC AND THAT SAME WERE UTILISED IN M ANUFACTURING THE CRANES OUTSIDE INDIA I.E. IN CHINA. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSULTANCY FEES REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CHINESE ENTITY FOR RENDERING SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA CANNOT BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 READ WITH SECTION 9 OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME WOULD NOT BE TAXABLE IN INDIA. INDIA HAS SIGNED THE DD AA WIT H THE NETHERLANDS AND TAXABILITY OF CONSULTANCY SERVICES HAD TO BE EXAMINED FIRST AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAX TREATY. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO, WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE TREATY,HAD APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION,THE STAND OF THE AO/FAA CAN NOT BE ENDORSED,AS THE PROVISIONS OF TAX- TREATIES HAVE TO BE GIVEN PREFERENCE OVER THE PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT. 5.3. BESIDES,THE CONSULTANCY WAS RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA AND EVEN IF SAME HAS TO BE TAXED IT WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THAT COUNTRY AND NOT IN INDIA.THE AO/FAA HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ZMPC WERE IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY.NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD MADE AVAILABLE ANY TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, SKILL TO INDIAN COMPANY.WE A LSO AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR THAT IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL,CONSULTANCY FEES WERE RENDERED TO A PERSON WHO WAS NON- RESIDENT I.E.TO ZMPC.AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTIC LE 12 OF THE TREATY,FTS ARISING IN INDIA AND PAID TO A TAX-RESIDENT OF THE NETHERLANDS CAN BE TA XED IN INDIA.BUT, AS STATED EARLIER,IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL THE PAYMENT WAS PAID TO A CHINESE COMP ANY.CONSIDERING THE ABOVE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONSULTANCY FEES RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE FROM ZMPC CANNOT BE HELD TO BE FTS AND THAT SAME IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA .SO,REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA WE 3621/M/15(07-08) APM TERMINALS MANA GEMENT BV 6 DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.AS THE REMAINING GROUNDS SUPPORT THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS,SO,WE ALLOW THEM FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED. # $%& ' ( )*+,- . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMB ER , 2017. 2017 SD/- SD/- ( /SANDEEP GOSAIN) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; .* /DATED : 06.9.2017 . JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.