CASE NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI V. JCIT (OSD) CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3669/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3043 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVI CHANDRAN
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3); 37; 154

Judgement Text

1 , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -CBENCH MUMBAI , . . , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C. N. PRASAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA/3669/MUM/2013, /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 CASE NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS L&T CASE EQUIPMENT LTD.) B-1,207,BOOMERANG, CHANDIVALI FARM ROAD, NEAR CHANDIVALI STUDIO, ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI-400 072. PAN:AAACL 4176 B VS. JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-2(2) MUMBAI. ./ITA/7020/MUM/2011, /ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 L&T CASE EQUIPMENT LTD. (NOW CASE NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI-400 072. PAN:AAACL 4176 B VS. DCIT (OSD) CIRCLE-2(2) MUMBAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K. RAVI CHANDRAN - DR ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI HARSH SHAH & PARAS SAVLA -AR / DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.09.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-5,MUMBAI THE ASSESS EE HAD FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL FOR THE TWO MENTIONED AY.S.AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED ARE COMMON FOR BOTH THE YEARS WE ARE ADJUDICATING THE M ATTER BY PASSING A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU FACTURING AND SALE OF EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENTS.THE DETAILS OF DATES OF FIL ING OF RETURNS, RETURNED INCOME, ASSESSED INCOME ETC. CAN BE SUMMARISED AS U NDER :- A.Y. ROI FILED ON RETURNED INCOME(RS.) ASSESSMENT DT. ASSESSED INCOME(RS.) DT. OF ORDERS OF CIT(A) 2007-08 29.10.2007 19,29,28,538/- 24.11.2010 19,59, 99,753/- 21.07.2011 2008-09 24.09.2008 58,95,39,693/- 05.12.2011 60,70, 81,000/- 22.02.2013 7020/M/11 (2007-08) : 366 9/M/13-NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) P VT. LTD. 2 3. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.91.18 LAKHS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF WARRANTY.DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.91,18,120/- UNDER THE HEAD PROVISION FOR PRODUCT WARRANTY, THAT IT HAD CLAIMED THAT PROVISIO N WAS MADE WITH REGARD TO A LIABILITY THAT HAD BEEN QUANTIFIED BASED ON A SCIEN TIFIC AND ACCEPTED METHOD OF VALUATION.BY A LETTER DT. 16.11.2011 THE ASSESSEE S TATED THAT PROVISION WAS WORK -ED OUT BASED ON WARRANTY COST INCURRED IN THE EARL IER YEARS, THAT THE WARRANTY WAS PART OF CONDITION OF SALES, THAT IT WAS LEGALLY BOUND FOR WARRANTY CLAIM AND CLAIM WAS MADE IN CONFORMITY WITH AS-29. HOWEVER, T HE AO HELD THAT LIABILITY HAD NOT CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR,THAT WHATEVER BE THE METHOD FOR ASCERTAINING THE LIABILITY IT DID NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE E XPENDITURE.HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS AND HELD THAT LIABILITY TOWARDS PRODUCT WARRANTY WAS NOT A CERTAINTY IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ,THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THAT FREE REPLACEMENT WOULD BECOME NECESSARY IN THE CASE OF ANY PARTICULAR CUSTOMER/S,THAT TO EQUATE PR ODUCT RELATED WARRANTY WITH LIABILITY ARISING IN RELATION TO EMPLOYEES WAS MISP LACED, THAT THE WARRANTY PROVISION WAS CONTINGENT IN NATURE,THAT WARRANTY PR OVISION WAS CREATED ON CERTAIN PERCENTAGE TO BASIC SALES VALUE, THAT IT WA S DEBITING WARRANTY EXPENSES AS AND WHEN INCURRED. FINALLY, HE HELD THAT CLAIM OF A SSESSEE MADE UNDER THE HEAD WARRANTY PROVISION( RS.91.18 LAKHS)WAS NOT ALLOWABL E. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM,IT WAS AR GUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MANUFACTURING EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENTS,THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE WARRANTY TO ITS CUSTOMERS AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE WA RRANTY,THE WARRANTY WAS GIVEN ON THE SALES OF THE FINISHED GOODS OF THE CUS TOMERS, THAT IT WAS INTEGRAL PART OF SALES PRICE,THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS P ROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMER WERE MENTIONED IN THE OPERATING MANUAL OF GOODS DELIVERE D TO THE CUSTOMERS,THAT IT WOULD APPROVE WARRANTY COST UPON SALES,PRODUCT WARR ANTY COST WAS BASED ON 366 9/M/13-NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) P VT. LTD. 3 CALCULATION MADE BY IT KEEPING IN VIEW EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SERVICE WARRANTY COST IN THE PAST ADJUSTED FOR CURRENT TREND, THE AC TUAL CLAIMS PASSED DURING THE YEAR WERE DEBITED TO WARRANTY ACCOUNT, THAT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR SALES PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WERE BASED ON PERCENTAGE DERIVED TECHN ICALLY BASED ON PAST TREND, THAT IT FOLLOWED A SCIENTIFIC METHOD FOR MAKING WAR RANTY WHICH WAS CONTINU - OUSLY UNDER REVIEW,THAT THERE WAS NO AD HOC AMOUNT PROVIDED IN THE BOOKS FOR WARRANTY CLAIMED, THAT FOR AY 2007-08 WARRANTY PROV ISION WAS MADE AT RS.91. 18 LAKHS AS AGAINST TOTAL WARRANTY EXPENSES INCURRE D RS.1.15CRORES,THAT IT ALREADY UTILISED ENTIRE WARRANTY PROVISION FOR 2007 -08 IN 2008-09, THAT IT HAD INCURRED RS.97.81 LAKHS AS WARRANTY EXPENSES UPTO 3 1.3.07ON ITS SALES PERTAINING TO THE FY.2005-06,THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE 0.59% OF TOTAL SALES OF 2005-06, THAT BASED ON PAST TREND AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAK EN BY IT WARRANTY WAS ESTIMATED @0.43% OF THE SALES FOR 2007-08 AS COMPA RED TO 0.59% FOR THE EARLIER YEAR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND ASSESSMENT ORDER,THE FAA HELD THAT THE PROVISION WERE NOT MADE ON ANY SCIENT IFIC RATIONAL AND WERE PURELY AD HOC IN NATURE, THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE WHAT SHOULD BE CERTAIN WAS INCURRENCE OF LIABILITY, THAT IT FAILED TO PROVE ACTUAL INCURRENCE OF LIABILITY UNDER WARRANTY CLAUSE, THAT IN ABSENCE O F ANY DETAILS OF ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM MADE ON PERCENTAGE BASIS COULD NOT BE ALLOWE D, THAT PERCENTAGE WAS DERIVED ON ESTIMATION RATHER THAN SCIENTIFIC BASI S, THAT THE PRODUCT SOLD BY ASSESSEE WOULD SUFFER FROM SAME TYPE OF DEFECT/S. H E PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF INDIAN MOLASSES CO.(P) LTD.(37ITR66) AND HELD TH AT IT HAD CREATED THE PROVISION ON ADHOC BASIS, THAT THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ARBITRARY THAT IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION . 5. BEFORE US THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR)STATED THAT PRODUCT WARRANTY COST WAS BASED ON ESTIMATE MADE BY THE COMPANY KEE PING IN VIEW THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SERVICE WARRANTY COST IN TH E PAST, THAT SIMILAR EXPENDI - 366 9/M/13-NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) P VT. LTD. 4 TURE WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE EARLIER AND SUBSE QUENT YEARS WHILE PASSING THE ORDERS U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THAT EXCEPT FOR TWO AY.S THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY IT. HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA P. LTD.(314ITR62); WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA LTD. (321 I TR 147); SONY INDIA P. LTD.(160 TAXMAN 397); HADEN INTERNATIONAL GROUP IND IA P.LTD. (20 SOT 305) AND SIMPSON & CO. LTD. (10 ITR (TRIB.) 283) AND AL SO REFERRED TO PG NO. 25-26 OF THE PB. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOLLOWING ANY SCIE NTIFIC METHOD, THAT IT WAS A CONTINGENT LIABILITY.HE RELIED UPON THE CASE OF IND IAN MOLASSES CO. (P) LTD. (SUPRA). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PROVISIONS FOR WARR ANTY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI -DERATION,THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO IT WAS MAK ING SUCH PROVISIONS,THAT AFTER FINALISATION OF ACCOUNTS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR NECESSA RY ENTRIES WERE MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ABOUT WARRANTY,THAT IT WAS FOLLOW ING THE SAID METHOD AND THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE METHOD IN SUBSEQUENT AND EARLIE R YEARS WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3)OF THE ACT.PAGES 25 AND 26 GIVE THE DETAILS OF WORKING OF WARRANTY I.E.PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AND ACTUAL E XPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FY.S.2000-01TO 2009-10.THUS,THE AS SESSEE WAS FOLLOWING A SET METHOD FOR LAST MANY A YEARS AND HAD FOLLOWED IN TH E SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO.EXCEPT FOR ONE YEAR THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE WAS ALWAYS MORE THAN THE PROVISIONS.PROVISION WAS BASED ON TOTAL SALES.IN OU R OPINION,IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HISTORICAL TREND. 6.1. WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTRO LS INDIA P.LTD. (SUPRA).IN THAT MATTER THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS DEALT THE ID ENTICAL ISSUE.FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE USED TO SELL VALVE ACTU ATORS. AT THE TIME OF SALE IT 366 9/M/13-NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) P VT. LTD. 5 PROVIDED A STANDARD WARRANTY WHEREBY IN THE EVENT O F ANY ACTUATOR OR PART THEREOF BECOMING DEFECTIVE WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM TH E DATE OF COMMISSIONING OR 18 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF DISPATCH, WHICHEVER W AS EARLIER, IT UNDERTOOK TO RECTIFY OR REPLACE THE DEFECTIVE PART FREE OF CHARG E. RIGHT FROM THE AY.1983-84 THE CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCE OF THIS WARRANTY HAD BEEN A LLOWED. FOR THE AY. 1991- 92, IT HAD MADE A PROVISION FOR WARRANTY OF RS.10,1 8,800/- AT THE RATE OF 1.5 % OF THE TURNOVER.SINCE THIS PROVISION EXCEEDED THE A CTUAL EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEE REVERSED RS. 5,00,246/- AS REVERSAL OF EXC ESS PROVISION, AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE NET PROVISION OF RS.5,18,554/-.BUT ,THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS MERELY A CONTINGENT LIABI LITY. THE HIGH COURT ON APPEAL HELD THAT NO OBLIGATION WAS CAST ON THE DATE OF SALE AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS NO ACCRUED LIABILITY.DECIDING THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD AS UNDER: THE VALVE ACTUATORS, MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESS EE, WERE SOPHISTICATED GOODS AND STATISTICAL DATA INDICATED THAT EVERY YEAR SOME OF THESE WERE FOUND DEFECTIVE ; THAT VALVE ACTUATOR BEING A SOPHISTICATED ITEM NO CUSTOM ER WAS PREPARED TO BUY A VALVE ACTUATOR WITHOUT A WARRANTY. THEREFORE, THE WARRANT Y BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SALE PRICE ; IN OTHER WORDS, THE WARRANTY STOOD ATT ACHED TO THE SALE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT. IN THIS CASE THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS HAD T O BE RECOGNIZED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD A PRESENT OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF PA ST EVENTS RESULTING IN AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES AND A RELIABLE ESTIMATE COULD BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE OBLIGATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A LIABILITY DU RING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961. THE PRESENT VALUE OF A CONTINGENT LIABILITY, LIKE T HE WARRANTY EXPENSE, IF PROPERLY ASCERTAINED AND DISCOUNTED ON ACCRUAL BASIS CAN BE AN ITEM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 . THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTIMATION OF THE CON TINGENT LIABILITY IS NOT THE NORMAL RULE. IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS , THE NATURE OF SALES, THE NATURE OF THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURED AND SOLD AND THE SCIENTIFI C METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD ALSO DEPEND UPON THE HIST ORICAL TREND AND UPON THE NUMBER OF ARTICLES PRODUCED. 366 9/M/13-NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) P VT. LTD. 6 A PROVISION IS A LIABILITY WHICH CAN BE MEASURED ON LY BY USING A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE OF ESTIMATION. A PROVISION IS RECOGNIZED WHEN : (A) AN ENTERPRISE HAS A PRESENT OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF A PAST EVENT ; (B) IT IS PROBABLE THAT AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE OBLIGATION, AND (C) A RELIABLE ESTIMATE CAN BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE OBLIGATION. IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE N OT MET, NO PROVISION CAN BE RECOGNIZED. THE PRINCIPLE IS THAT IF THE HISTORICAL TREND INDIC ATES THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF SOPHISTICATED GOODS WERE BEING MANUFACTURED IN THE PAST AND THE FACTS SHOW THAT DEFECTS EXISTED IN SOME OF THE ITEMS MANUFACTURED A ND SOLD, THEN PROVISION MADE FOR WARRANTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH SOPHISTICATED GOODS WOU LD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS UNDER SECTION 37 . 6.2. IN OUR OPINION,THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A RIGHT CLAIM AND THE AO.S.IN THE EARLIER AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS HAVE RIGHTLY ACCEPTED IT.NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ORDERS U/S.147 OR 154 OR 26 3 WERE PASSED FOR THE EARLIER OR SUBSEQUENT YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOWING THE WARR ANTY EXPENDITURE.THUS,THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSES SEE AND THE METHOD ADOPTED BY IT.IT IS TRUE THAT PRINCIPLES OF RES JUD ICATA DO NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS.BUT,IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT RULE OF CO NSISTENCY APPLIES TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS.IT IS SAID THAT THE CONSISTENCY EXPECT ED ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE IN TAXATION MATTERS IS NOT UNKNOWN,BUT RATHER IS EX PECTED SO AS TO MAKE THE ASSESSEE AWARE ABOUT THE TAXABLE LIABILITY. IF THE LEGAL POSITION IS CHANGED OR THERE IS COGENT MATERIAL AVAILABLE, THE REVENUE CAN TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND OR MAKE A VALID DEPARTURE BUT AT THE SAME TIME,IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY, ANY MATERIAL LEADING TO A DI FFERENT CONCLUSION OR CHANGE IN THE LEGAL POSITION,THE CONSISTENCY ON THE PART O F THE REVENUE SHOULD BE ADHERED TO.IN THE CASE OF GALILEO NEDERLAND BV,(367 ITR319),THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: .DECISION ON AN ISSUE OR QUESTION THOUGH NOT BI NDING, SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AND NOT IGNORED UNLESS THERE ARE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT RE ASONS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THUS, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO D EPART FROM THE FINDING OR A DECISION IN ONE YEAR AS IT IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE ONLY IN R ELATION TO THE PARTICULAR YEAR FOR WHICH IT IS MADE BUT WHEN A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERV ADING THROUGH DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT IN ONE WA Y OR THE OTHER, IT WOULD 366 9/M/13-NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) P VT. LTD. 7 INAPPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED I N A SUBSEQUENT YEAR PARTICULARLY WHEN THE FINDING HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THE PRINCIPLE I S ALSO BASED UPON THE RULES OF CERTAINTY AND CONSISTENCY THAT A DECISION TAKEN AF TER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY AS THIS LEADS TO CERTAINTY , UNLESS THERE ARE VALID AND GOOD REASONS FOR DEVIATING AND NOT ACCEPTING THE EARLIER DECISION. IN THE MATTER OF ARONI COMMERCIALS LTD.(362 ITR 403 )THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THOUGH THE PRINCIPLE OF RE S JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TAX MATTERS AS EACH YEAR IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT,N EVERTHELESS WHERE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL FROM YEAR TO YEAR,THERE HAS TO BE UNIFORM ITY AND CONSISTENCY IN TREATMENT. 6.3. WE FIND THAT THE AO OR THE FAA HAS NOT BROUGHT ON R ECORD AS TO HOW THE FACTS OF EARLIER YEARS WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACT S OF YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR AS TO HOW THE LEGAL POSITION HAS CHANGED.IN SHORT,T HERE IS NOTHING TO PROVE THAT FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR ARE DIFFERENT.SO,THE RE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISTURBING THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN E ARLIER YEARS.REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA/3669/MUM/2013 AY : 2008-09 : 7. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE YEAR UNDER A PPEAL ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE AY.2007-08,SO,FOLLOWING THE ORD ER FOR THAT AY.,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE AY.S. STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016. 21 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . / C.N. PRASAD ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 21.09.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 366 9/M/13-NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) P VT. LTD. 8 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.