ACIT CC 22, MUMBAI V. IDFC SSKI SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3756/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78661 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 02-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK SURI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Speculation loss
• Section: 14A; 28

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . , ! BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND RAJENDRA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.3756/MUM/2012 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-22, ROOM NO.403,4 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. ' ' ' ' / VS. M/S. IDFC SSKI SECURITIES LTD., 803-804, TULSIANI CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. $ ./ % ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACK 1586E ( $& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '($& / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A. NO.2918/MUM/2012 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. IDFC SSKI SECURITIES LTD., 803-804, TULSIANI CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. . ' ' ' ' / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-22, ROOM NO.403,4 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. $ ./ % ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACK 1586E ( $& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '($& / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI HIRO RAI REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK SURI ' ) *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 02/042014 ,-# ) *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/04/2014 ./ I.T.A. NO.483/MUM/2011& ITA NO.8977/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 2 . / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PA SSED BY LD. CIT(A)-39, MUMBAI DATED 22/2/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 . GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: REVENUES GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3756/MUM/2012 : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE LOSS OF RS.2,36,36,821 /- AS BUSINESS LOSS EVEN WHEN THE SAME IS SPECIFICALLY COVERED UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND A ND/OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NEED BE. ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.2918/MUM/20 12: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) , HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,94,594/- U/S. 14A OF INCOME TAX 1961 R.W. RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE I.T.RULE, 1962. REVENUES APPEAL: 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVIT Y OF INSTITUTIONAL STOCK BROKING IN SHARES ETC. A SUM OF RS.2,65,07,464/- W AS CLAIMED ON SALE OF MISDEAL STOCKS. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE S AME. VIDE LETTER DATED 21/12/2010 IT WAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: I. THE LOSS IS ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR TRADE. II. DUE TO DISPUTES WITH THE CLIENT, FOR THE TRANS ACTIONS, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE RELATION OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. THE ASSESS EE FOR BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS CHOOSES NOT TO RECOVER THE LOSSES. III) THESE LOSSES ARE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS SUCH UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. ./ I.T.A. NO.483/MUM/2011& ITA NO.8977/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 3 2.1 THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT AFOREMENTIONED SUBMISSION S FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE ISSUE IS NOT AS TO WHETHER THE SAID LOSS IS A BUSINESS LOSS OR NOT. THE ISSUE IS THE ADJUDICATION OF THE LOSS AS NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS OR SPECULATION LOSS. (B) IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A L OSS. ONE CANNOT CLAIM A LOSS WHICH PERTAINS TO OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE IS A CLAIMA NT OF LOSS MEANING THEREBY THAT THE LOSS BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. (C) THE LOSS HAS ARISEN OUT OF TRANSACTION OF SHARE S BY A COMPANY, I.E. THE ASSESSEE. WHETHER IT IS BY ERROR OR NOT, WHETHER I T IS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT FOR THE TECHNICAL REASONS; THE INDI SPUTABLE FACT REMAINS THAT THE LOSS IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND THE LOSS IS ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS. THE DENIAL OF THE OWNERSHIP BY THE C LIENT FURTHER REINFORCES THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE TRANSACTED SHARES. (D) THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE DONT ADDRE SS THE INSTANT ISSUE AND ARE DISTINGUISHED ON FACTS. 2.2 ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TREATED THE SAID LOSS TO BE HIT BY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AND THE SAID LOSS WAS TREATED AS SPECULA TIVE LOSS AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS AGITATED IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS PLEADED THAT ASSE SSEE IS BROKER FOR RETAIL SALES FOR INSTITUTIONAL CLIENTS WHICH PLACES ORDER FOR TH E TRADE IN BULK, AND THE SAME NEED TO BE EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY WITH ORDER SPECIFIC ATION I.E. QUANTITY, RATE AND TIME. WHILE EXECUTING THE DEAL, THERE ARE ALL THE CHANCES OF COMMITTING ERROR. THE NORMAL NATURE OF ERROR ARE CAUSES OR CAUSES OF DISPUTES AND CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (I) SOME TIMES ORDERS PLACED FOR SALE, AND WHILE D EALER BY MISTAKES EXECUTE TRADE FOR PURCHASE. (II) RATE DIFFERENCE, WHERE THE ORDER PLACED TO BUY / OR SALE AT PARTICULAR RATE, BUT THE TRADE IS EXECUTED AT THE SOME DIFFERE NT RATE. (III) THE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY, SOMETIMES ORDER ( BUY OR SALE) PLACED FOR QUANTITY AND ORDER IS EXECUTED FOR QUANTITY. (IV) SOMETIMES ORDER PLACED ARE FOR HIGHER QUANTIT Y, BUT DURING THE TRADING HOURS, THEY CANCEL OR REDUCE TRADE FOR SMALLER QUAN TITY, BUT BEFORE THE INSTRUCTION IS RECEIVED FOR REDUCTION IN QUANTITY, THE DEAL MUST HAVE BE STRUCK FOR BIGGER QUANTITY TO KEPT THE GOOD RELA TION AND FOR BUSINESS CONSIDERATION, THE LOSS IS TO BE BORNE BY THE APPEL LANT. ./ I.T.A. NO.483/MUM/2011& ITA NO.8977/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 4 2.3 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ABOVE AS PECTS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE DEALER/SALES PERSON BEFORE EXECUTING ANY VO LUME AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE TRADES ARE EXECUTED IN REAL TIME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED. RE LIANCE WAS PLACED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 IS ATTRACTED ONLY WHEN PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY CONSISTS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES; TRA NSACTIONS IN SHARES UNDERTAKEN BY SHARE BROKER AS ITS OWN UNDER COMPUL SION AFTER CERTAIN CLIENTS DISOWNED PART OF SUCH TRANSACTION DID NOT CONSTITU TE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SHARE DEALING AND, THEREFORE, LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH TRANSACTION DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPLANATION TO SE CTION 73. 1. ITO VS. GDV SHARE & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD ., 88 TTJ (CAL) 352 2. M/S.PARKER SECURITIES LTD. VS. DCIT, 102 TTJ (A HD) 235. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL, LD. CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS TO THE ASSESS EE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION IS DELETED. THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS FILED AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS. 3. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD . DR THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WERE APPLICABLE AND LD. CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS . HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET A SIDE AND THAT OF AO BE RESTORED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR TH AT ASSESSEE DID NOT TRADE IN SHARES AT ITS OWN. THE ASSESSEE IS ACTING ONL Y AS A BROKER. DUE TO THE ./ I.T.A. NO.483/MUM/2011& ITA NO.8977/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 5 MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF DEALERS THE ASSESSEE HAS S UFFERED THESE LOSES WHICH ARE NOT HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTIO N 73 AND ALLOWABLE AS LOSS. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH ACCEPTANCE BY LD. CIT(A) IS SUPPORTED NOT ONLY BY AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD.CIT(A) BUT ALSO BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (1) 33 CCH 124 (MUM-TRIB) HSBC SECURITIES & CAPITAL MAR KETS INDIA P. LTD., VS. ACIT (2) 139 ITR 149 (AP), CIT VS. SHAH PRATAPCHAND NOWPAJI (3) 91 TTJ 57 (DEL-TRIB) ACIT VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA SHORE WALA. (4) 50 SOT 592 (AHD-TRIB) ITO VS. RAJIV SECURITIES P. L TD. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR THAT THERE IS NO ERR OR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND HIS ORDER IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED LOSS HAS OCCURRED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ERROR TRADE. DUE TO DISPUTE WITH THE CLIENTS, FOR THE TR ANSACTION, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE RELATION OF PRINCIPAL AND THE AGENT. THE ASS ESSEE FOR BUSINESS CONSIDERATION CHOOSES NOT TO RECOVER THE LOSSES. THESE LOSSES A RE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS SUCH UNDER SECTION 28 OF T HE ACT. ALL THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 3.3. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECOR D TO SUGGEST THAT THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE EITHER FALSE OR IN CORRECT. NO MATERIAL HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THESE LOSSES ARE ON AC COUNT OF ASSESSEES OWN TRADING IN SHARES. IF IT IS SO, THE LOSS ACCRUED T O THE ASSESSEE WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL WHERE CONS ISTENT VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT LOSS OCCURRED TO SHARE BROKER ON ACCOUNT OF CLIENT DISOWNING TRANSACTION IS BUSINESS LOSS AND NOT SPECULATIVE LOSS. THEREFO RE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR IN ACCEPTING TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ./ I.T.A. NO.483/MUM/2011& ITA NO.8977/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 6 ACCORDINGLY, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE AND DEPARTMENT AL APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 5.1 BEFORE PARTING OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IT MA Y BE MENTIONED THAT AMOUNT STATED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS GROUNDS OF A PPEAL IS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS RS.2,36,36,821/-, WHEREAS THE SAME IS RS.2,65,07 ,464/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES APPEAL: 6. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A.Y. 2008-09. THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 8D WAS CALCULATED BY THE AO AT RS.74,42,765/-. THE ASSESEE AT ITS OWN HAD WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWA NCE AT RS.96,524/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF AO OF DISALLOWANCE UN DER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SOME DIRECTIO NS TO AO IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT CALCULATED WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 8D(2)(II) . SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THESE DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE RECORDED IN P ARA-5.10.1 THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE AS SESSEE, AS EXPRESSED BY LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN RESPECT OF PART OF THE AD DITION, WHICH IS CALCULATED WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 8D(2)(III) WHICH COVERS CERTAIN A DMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, SUCH AS CLERICAL, TELEPHONE ETC. INCURRED TOWARDS INVESTMEN T IN TAX FREE INVESTMENT. IT IS THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT FROM THE ACCOUNTS MA INTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND OUT THE EXACT EXPENDITURE ATTRIBU TABLE TO EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. THUS, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO COMPONENT OF ADDITION CALCULATED WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 8D(2)(II I) NO INTERFERENCE IN THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IT WAS SU BMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) BY THE AO IS STATED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA (II) WHERE THE REASON STAT ED IS AS ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNTS PRECLUDING POSSI BILITY TO ESTABLISH ONE TO ONE ./ I.T.A. NO.483/MUM/2011& ITA NO.8977/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 7 NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENSES AND EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING I NVESTMENT, HE IS SATISFIED ON AN OBJECTIVE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE T O ESTABLISH THE CORRECTNESS OF ITS CLAIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS IN THIS MANNER THE AO HAS DISCARDED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISALLOWABLE AMOUNT CALCU LATED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.96,524/- WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NON-MAINTENANCE OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME DOES NOT DEBAR THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THAT DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 8D(2)(III). 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. THE CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO IS AS UNDER: THE DISALLOWANCE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- A = RS. 3,15,22,321/- B = RS. 27,89,18,820/- C = RS. 1,45,36,90,551/- DISALLOWANCE = (A*B/C) + 0.005*B = RS.74,42,765/- THEREFORE, A SUM OF RS. 74,42,765/- IS ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.1 ADMITTEDLY, ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WHERE THE EXPENSES RELATING TO TAX FREE INCOME ARE ATTACHED. THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(III) READ AS UNDER: (III) AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE-HALF PER CENT OF THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE AS SESSEE, ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 9.2 ACCORDING TO AFOREMENTIONED PROVISIONS THE THIR D COMPONENT TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A AS DESCRIBED IN RULE 8D(2)(III) IS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO % OF THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT, I NCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR WAS NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, AS APPEARIN G IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ./ I.T.A. NO.483/MUM/2011& ITA NO.8977/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 8 ASSESSEE, ON THE FIRST DAY AND THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ACCORDING TO SUCH MECHANISM THE THIRD COMPONENT WHICH TO BE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE CALCULATING THE DISALLOWANCE IS PRESCRIBED IN THE RULES. IN ABSENCE OF CONCRETE MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE T O SHOW THAT SUCH COMPONENT WAS NOT WARRANTED, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.. ACCORDING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH CONCRETE MAT ERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO COME OUT OF THE COMPONEN T DESCRIBED IN RULE 8D(2) (III) TO CONTENT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT APPLICABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY LD . CIT(A) AND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/04/2014 . . ) ,-# / 0'1 02/04/2014 - ) 2 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) . . (I.P.BANSAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 0' DATED 02/04/2014 . ' . .VM , SR. PS . . . . ) )) ) '*3 '*3 '*3 '*3 43#* 43#* 43#* 43#* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. '($& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 5 / CIT 5. 362 '*' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 27 8 / GUARD FILE. .' .' .' .' / BY ORDER, (3* '* //TRUE COPY// 9 99 9 / : : : : (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI ./ I.T.A. NO.483/MUM/2011& ITA NO.8977/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 9 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 02/04/2014 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02/04/2014 SR.PS/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/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER