ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI V. VIDEOCON D2H LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3693/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1423 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PADMAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: BUPENDRA KARKHANIS
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Block assessment
• Section: 194C; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJEET SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3693/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ACIT 16(1), ROOM NO.439, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI - 20 VS. M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNEL LIMITED), 171/C-WING, MITTAL COURT, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN: AACCB1409R (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BUPENDRA KARKHANIS , A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI S. PADMAJA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.11.2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.283,45,88,076/- BY LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) READ WITH SE CTION 194J OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CONTENT AND OTHER SUPPORT COS T ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENT FOR USE/RIGHT TO USE OF PR OCESS ARE ROYALTY AS PER EXPLANATION 6 TO SECTION 9(1)(VI) HENCE SUCH ITA NO.3693/M/2017 M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNEL LIMITED) 2 PAYMENTS WERE COVERED UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING DIRECT TO HOME SERVICES TO HI S SUBSCRIBERS OF VARIOUS TELEVISION CHANNELS. DURING THE YEAR TH E ASSESSEE PAID RS.283,45,88,076/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONTENT PROCU REMENT CHARGES AND OTHER SUPPORT CHARGES WHICH ARE PAID TO THE BROADCASTERS UNDER DTH AGREEMENT WITH THEM FOR DIST RIBUTING THE CHANNELS KNOWN AS PAY CHANNELS. ACCORDING TO T HE AO THE SAID PAYMENT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ROYALTY AS P ER EXPLANATION 6 TO SECTION 9(1)(VI) AND THEREFORE WERE COVERED UN DER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ISSUED SHOW C AUSE NOTICE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED P ROVISION OF CHAPTER XVIIB BY NOT DEDUCTING TDS UNDER SECTION 19 4J ON THE CONTENT PROCUREMENT CHARGES AND THUS DISALLOWED THE SAME UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALL OWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT (TDS) VS. UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD. ITA NO.2699/M/2012 DA TED 29.10.2014 AND ACIT VS. NGC NETWORKS (I) (P) LTD. ( 2014) 48 TAXMANN.COM 149 (MUMBAI-TRIB.) ITA NO.1382/M/2014 D ATED 09.07.2014. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE BENCH THAT THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN ITA NO.3693/M/2017 M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNEL LIMITED) 3 ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.6795/M/2016 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2018 WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R. AL SO RELIED ON A SERIES OF DECISIONS. 1. DISH TV INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO.3739/MUM/2016 ) (MUMBAI-ITAT) 2. KERALA VISIION LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO.794/COCH./20 13) (COCHIN ITAT) 3. ITO(TDS) VS. WIRE & WIRELESS (INDIA) LD. (2383, 2384 AND 2385/M/2013) (MUMBAI ITAT) 4. KURUKSHETRA DARPANS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT (169 TAXMA N 344) (PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) 6. THE LD. D.R., HOWEVER, STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ARGU MENTS OF THE LD. A.R. BY PLACING RELIANCE ON DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DISH TV INDIA LTD. V S. ACIT (TDS) (2016) 67 TAXMAN.COM 282 (DELHI-TRIBUNAL). THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THAT ANY PAYMENT TO TV CHANNELS TO RECEI VE THEIR PROGRAMMES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTRIBUTION THROUGH ITS OWN DTH NETWORK CONSTITUTES ROYALTY AND ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION 2(V) OF SECTION 9(1)(VI) AND THUS TH E TDS HAS TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 194J AND NOT UNDER SECTION 1 94C. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSU E HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.6795/M/2016 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE PAYMENT TOW ARDS CONTENT PROCUREMENT CHARGES FOR OBTAINING RIGHTS TO TELECAST CHANNELS THROUGH ASSESSEES OWN NETWORK IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF T HE ORDERS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA NO.3693/M/2017 M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNEL LIMITED) 4 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAIL S OF THE EXPENSES OF RS.30,36,11,392/- AS A PROGRAMMING AND OTHER COSTS AND SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA). T HE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY AND CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENT PAID FOR THE PAY CHANNEL CHARGES ARE NOT FOR A RIGHT TRANSFERRED, INFORMATION IMPARTED, ALLOWED USE OF P ATENT, INVENTION, MODEL, DESIGN, TRADEMARK, ETC. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY IN FORMATION, TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE OR SKILL. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT GRANT ED RIGHT TO USE ANY RIGHT, INFORMATION OR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR ANY EQUIPME NT. THE PAYMENT OF CARRIAGE FEES IS NOT FITTING ANYWHERE IN THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTYAND HENCE SECTION 194J IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT EX PLANATION 6 TO SECTION 9(1)(VI) OF THE ACT WAS NOT AT ALL ON STATUTE BOOK DURING THE R ELEVANT PERIOD SO IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO FORESEE SUCH PROVISION AND DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTE NDED THAT THE TERM ROYALTY HAS BEEN DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (V) TO SECTION 40(A)(IA ) TO MEAN TO HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VI) OF SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 9. EXPLANATION 6 HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN DEFINITION O F ROYALTY IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF CHANNEL PLACEMENT FEES U/S 40(A )(IA) BY INVOKING EXPLANATION 6 OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTEN DED THAT THEY HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT OUT OF ABUNDANT CAUTION, AT BES T, ONLY PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF CHANNEL PLACEMENT FEES SHOULD BE MA DE AND NOT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACC EPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE LEGISLATURE HA S ALWAYS INTENDED THAT A PROCESS SUCH AS TRANSMISSION BY SATELLITE (INCLUD ING UP LINKING, AMPLIFICATION, CONVERSION, OR DOWN LINKING OF ANY SIGNAL) CABLE, O PTIC FIBER OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH PROCESS IS A SECRET CONSTITUTE AND EMBEDDED IN THE DEFINITION OF ROYALTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PERUSED THE VARIOUS CLAUSES ON AGREEMENT AND TOOK THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUI RED TO DEDUCT TDS ON DISCOUNT TO DEALERS AND DISTRIBUTORS UNDER SECTION 194H, THE REFORE, THE DISCOUNT TO DEALER AND DISTRIBUTOR AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,36,36,11,392/- WAS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA). 6. THE ASSESSEE URGED THE SIMILAR CONTENTION BEFORE LD. CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE SAID PAYMENT FALLS UNDER THE DEF INITION OF WORK AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 194C. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION TH E ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS PRASAR BHARAT [2007]158 TAXMAN 470 IN CONTEXT THAT WHERE TWO PROVISIONS ARE SIMULTANEOUSL Y INTRODUCED IN THE ACT, ONE IS SPECIFIC AND OTHER IS GENERAL IN TERM THEN THE RESO RT MUST BE TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT T HE WORK OF BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING OF THE PROGRAMME SPECIFICALLY FALLS UND ER THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194C AND SECTION 194J CANNOT APPLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.720 DATED 30.08.1995. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON RELYING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS UTV ENTERTAINMENT, ITA NO. 2699/M/2012 DATED 29.10.2014 AND ACIT VS NGS NETWOR K(I) PVT LTD, ITA NO.1382/M/2014 DATED 09.07.2014, WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT WHEN THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TAXABLE I N INDIA IN UNDER SECTION 9(1)(VI) OR (VII) AS PER THE LEGAL POSITION AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO.3693/M/2017 M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNEL LIMITED) 5 LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE AMOUNT BY I NVOKING SECTION 40(A)(AI) AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN KUR UKSHETRA DARPANS (P) LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE, A CABLE OP ERATOR, ENTERED IN TO A CONTRACT WITH LICENSOR FOR VARIOUS TV CHANNELS FOR OBTAINING TELECAST SIGNALS FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION THROUGH ITS CABLE NETWORK AND PAID SUB SCRIPTION CHARGES TO THE LICENSORS, PAYMENTS MADE TO LICENSOR WOULD ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C, AS LICENSOR IS A PERSON WHO PERFORM WORK WHICH IS COVE RED WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE(B) OF EXPLANATION III TO SECTION 194C(2). 8. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBA I TRIBUNAL IN CHANNEL GUIDE INDIA LTD (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF P ROCESS INTRODUCED IN EXPLORATION 6 TO SECTION 9(1)(VI), INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 JUNE 1976. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT BASED ON A DECISI ON OF LEGAL MAXIM LEX NON COGIT AD IMPOSSIBLIA MEANING THEREBY THAT THE LAW CANNOT POSSIBLY COMPEL A PERSON TO DO SOMETHING WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PERFORM THE TRI BUNAL RELIED ON A DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF KRISHNA SWAMY S PD AND OTH ERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (281 ITR 305SC) AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION PAID BY ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA IN THE HAND OF ASSES SEE AS PER SECTION 9(1)(VI), AS PER LEGAL POSITION, AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND THE ASSESS EE, THEREFORE, WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE SAID AMOUNT PAID BY THEM AND THE REFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(AI). FURTHER IN CASE OF RICH GRAVISS PRODUCTS (P) LIMITE D VERSUS ACIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194J BRING ROYALTY UNDER ITS PURVIEW, HOWEVER, THE TRANSACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE INSERTI ON OF CLAUSE (C) IN SECTION 194J, WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED WITH EFFECT FROM 13 JULY 20 06, WILL NOT BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J ACCORDINGLY SECTION 194J WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED TO THE PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF SOFTWA RE BEFORE 13 JULY 2006. IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE MADE FOR THE PAYMENT OF PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, ON THE BASIS OF AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 9(1)(VI) BY FINANCE ACT 2012 WITH R ETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS IN TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OCCASION TO FORESEE SUCH AMENDMENT AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE H ELD LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. MOREOVER, THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HAR YANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PAYMENT MADE IN CONTRACT WITH LICENSOR FOR VARI OUS TV CHANNELS FOR OBTAINING TELECAST SIGNALS FOR LOCAL DISTRIBUTION THROUGH ITS CABLE NETWORK AND PAID SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES TO THE LICENSORS, PAYMENTS MAD E TO LICENSOR WOULD ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDED O N BOTH THE COUNTS THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CABLE NETWORK AND PAID SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES ARE NOT ROYALTY AND PAYMENTS MADE TO LICENSOR WOULD ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE D UE TO DUE TO SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT IN LAW FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FOR PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR. 9. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED B Y LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IS NOT HELPFUL TO HER, AS THE SAME ARE MORE FAVORABLE TO T HE ASSESSEE. IN VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) HELD THAT PROVISO IN THE FI NANCE ACT, 2003 FURTHER MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SUCH A PROVISION WAS NECESSARY TO PROVID E FOR SURCHARGE IN THE CASES OF ITA NO.3693/M/2017 M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNEL LIMITED) 6 BLOCK ASSESSMENTS AND THEREBY MAKING IT PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THE CHARGE IN RESPECT OF THE SURCHARGE, HAVING BEEN CREATED FOR T HE FIRST TIME BY THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 113, IS CLEARLY A SUBSTANTIV E PROVISION AND HENCE IS TO BE CONSTRUED PROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. THE AMENDMENT N EITHER PURPORTS TO BE MERELY CLARIFICATORY NOR IS THERE ANY MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT IT WAS INTENDED BY PARLIAMENT. FURTHERMORE, AN AMENDMENT MADE TO A TAXING STATUTE CAN BE SAID TO BE INTENDED TO REMOVE 'HARDSHIPS' ONLY OF THE ASSESSEE, NOT OF THE DEPARTMENT. ON THE CONTRARY, IMPOSING A RETROSPECTIVE LEVY ON THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE CAUSED UNDUE HARDSHIP AND FOR THAT REASON PARLIAMENT SPECIFICALLY CHOSE T O MAKE THE PROVISO EFFECTIVE FROM 01.06.2002 AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE OTHER CASE LAW RELIED BY LD DR IN CIT V/S PRASAR BH ARTI (SUPRA), IN CIT V/S UTV ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION LTD. (SUPRA), AND DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ACIT V/S NGC NETWORK (I) (P.) LTD.(SUPRA) ARE MORE FAVORABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. 8. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE DECISION THAT ISSUE I S DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE DECISION RELIED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE O F DISH TV INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT (TDS) (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH PAYMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY COVERED UNDER E XPLANATION 2(V) OF SECTION 9(1)(VI) AND THUS TDS HAS TO BE DED UCTED UNDER SECTION 194J AND NOT UNDER SECTION 194C. BUT SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN CASE, WE ARE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE SAME DECIDE THIS APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BY DISMISSING THE A PPEAL BY THE REVENUE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.11.2018. SD/- SD/- (AMARJEET SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 14.11.2018. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. ITA NO.3693/M/2017 M/S. VIDEOCON D2H LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS BHARAT BUSINESS CHANNEL LIMITED) 7 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASS TT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.