M/s. ARTI DRUGS LTD., MUMBAI V. ADDL. CIT. Rg. - 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3945/MUM/2005

• Counselvise Citation: 394519914 RSA 2005
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VANDANA SAGAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3945 /MUM/2005, A.Y. 2001-02 I.T.A.NO. 3289/MUM/2006, A.Y.2002-03 I.T.A.NO. 3290/MUM/2006, A.Y.2003-04 AARTI DRUGS LIMITED, 109-D, MAHENDRA INDL. ESTATE, ROAD, NO.29, SION(EAST), MUMBAI 400 002. VS. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK RAOD, MUMBAI 400 020 PAN : AA ACA 4410D (APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO.3262/MUM/2006, A.Y. 2002-03 I.T.A. NO.3263/MUM/2006, A.Y. 2003-04 THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 6(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK RAOD, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. AARTI DRUGS LIMITED, 109-D, MAHENDRA INDL. ESTATE, ROAD, NO.29, SION(EAST), MUMBAI 400 002. (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA R E VENUE BY : MS. VANDANA SAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 13/08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .. /08/2015 AARTI DRUGS LIMITED 2 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, A.M: THE CAPTIONED FIVE APPEALS WERE ORIGINALLY DISPOSE D OF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE A COMMON ORDER DATED 27/10/2010. SUB SEQUENTLY, ON A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE , TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER IN MA NOS.255 TO259/MUM/2013 DATED 3/1/2014 PARTIALLY RECALLED THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 27/10/2010 FOR RE- ADJUDICATION ON TWO ISSUES, WHICH IS COMMON IN THE THREE CAPTIONED ASSE SSMENT YEARS. FOR THE AFORESAID PURPOSE, THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE B EEN POSTED FOR HEARING. 2. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 3/1/201 4(SUPRA), WHEREBY IN RELATION TO THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2002-03, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.6 &10 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WERE RECALLED FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. NOTABLY, THE CROSS-APPEALS FO R A.Y. 2002-03 I.E. ITA NO.3289/MUM/06(ASSESSEES APPEAL) AND ITA NO.32 62/MUM/2006 (REVENUES APPEAL) ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER O F CIT(A) DATED 08/03/2006, WHICH IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM THE OR DER OF ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 30/03/2005 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). 3. FOR THE PRESENT, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.6 & 10 OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH READ AS UNDER: AARTI DRUGS LIMITED 3 6. RE: NON CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF DEPB AS EXPORT INCENTIVES FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 6.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB AS EXPORT INCENTIVE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC RELYING ON THE RECENT AMENDMEN T IN SECTION 80 HHC BY VIRTUE OF THE TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005. 6.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E AMENDMENT OF S.80HHC BY THE TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 IS GROSSLY ARBITR ARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR EQUITY. 6.3 THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT UNDER THE NEWLY AMENDED PROVISIONS OF S.28(III) READ WITH S.80HHC IT IS ONLY THE PROFIT O N THE TRANSFER OF DEPB SCHEME WHICH IS COVERED BY THE AMENDED SECTION 80HHC AND THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF DE PB AS COVERED BY THE SAID AMENDMENT. 10.RE: RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC INVOKING SEC. 80IB(13) /S.80IA(9). 10.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING EFFECT TO T HE PROVISIONS OF / S. 80IB(13)/ S.80IA(9) FOR WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80 H HC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO DOUBLE DEDUCTION AS THE TOTAL DEDUCTIONS U/ S. 80IB AND S.80HHC WAS LESS THAT THE PROFITS OF THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING . 10.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE , THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN EXCLUDING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IA FROM COMPUTATION OF PROF ITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80 HHC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE COMPUTATION FORMU LA PROVIDED IN S.80HHC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE COMPUTATION FORMULA PROVIDED IN S. 80HHC CANNOT BE TINKERED WITH BY EXCLUDING THE PROFITS OF THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WITHOUT ADJUSTING THE OTHER FIGURES NAMELY EXPORT TURNOVER, TOTAL TURNOVE R, ETC. 10.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CI T(A) OUGHT TO HAVE EXCLUDED ONLY THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC COMPUTED IN RESPECT OF THE EXPO RTS FROM THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CONSIDERING THE PROFITS OF THE NEW INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKING AS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THAT PROFIT THERE COULD BE DOUBLE DEDUCT ION. 4. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3, IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN RECALLED FOR ADJUDICATION, READS AS UND ER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE AD VANCE LICENCE BENEFIT, DEPB ENTITLEMENT AND DFRC BENEFIT AS COVERED U/S. 28(III B) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 HHC WITHOUT APPREC IATING THAT ONLY THOSE ITEMS OF PROFIT WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE RELE VANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IIIB) CAN BE INCLUDED TO FALL IN THESE CATEGORIES AND THE IT EMS SUCH AS ADVANCE LICENCE BENEFIT, DEPB ENTITLEMENT AND DFRC BENEFIT DO NOT QUALIFY FO R THE SAID PURPOSE. 5. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6, THE ISSUE RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE RELATED TO NON-CONSIDERATION OF PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB LIC ENCES AS AN EXPORT INCENTIVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION AARTI DRUGS LIMITED 4 80HHC OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, THE CIT(A) HAD D ECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, IN THE CROSS-A PPEAL, BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3, REVENUE HAD CONTESTED TH E DECISION OF CIT(A), WHEREBY THE INCOMES ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE LICENCE BENEFIT, DEPB ENTITLEMENT AND DFRC BENEFITS WERE HELD TO BE COVER ED UNDER SECTION 28(IIIB) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. 5.1 IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE AFORESAID CROSS ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US, RELATES TO THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. ON THE EARLIER OCCASION, THE TRI BUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 27/10/2010(SUPRA) HELD THAT THE CONTROVERSY W AS LIABLE TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALPARU COLORS & CHEMICALS, 192 TAXMAN 435(BOM), AND, THEREFORE, REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS. 5.2 PRESENTLY, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT THE ISSUE IS NOW LIABLE TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORT S VS. CIT, 342 ITR 49(SC), WHEREIN THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALPATARU COLORS & CHEMICAL(SUPRA) HAS SINCE BEEN REVERSED. 5.3 IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK AARTI DRUGS LIMITED 5 TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE CONVERGENCE OF THE STANDS THE RIVAL COUNSELS, AND NOTING THAT THE ISS UE RAISED ARE GOVERNED BY THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT (SUPRA), WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE AFORESAID ASPECTS AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDI CATION AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. CIT (SUPRA). NEEDLESS TO MENTION, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER ON THIS ASPECT AS PER LAW. ACCORD INGLY, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CROSS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN SO FAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.10 IN THE ASSE SSES APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THE SAME ALSO RELATES TO THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, THE CONTROVERSY RELATES TO THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE UNDE R SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT, AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80IA/80IB OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(9)/80IB(13) OF THE ACT. ON THE EARLIER OCCASION, THE TRIBUNAL, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AARTI DRUGS LIMITED 6 THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HINDUSTAN MINT & AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,119 ITD 107(DEL) (SB) DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESS EE IN PRINCIPLE. HOWEVER, THE MATTER WAS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION ON U NIT BASIS BECAUSE IF EXPORTS WERE MADE FROM THE NON-ELIGIBLE UNIT WHERE NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED U/S.80IB OF THE ACT, THEN RESTRICTION AP PLIED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AGROVET LTD . VS. ACIT, 290 ITR 252(BOM), 6.1 IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, ASSESSEE C ONTENDED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF HIND USTAN MINT & AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., (SUPRA) HAS SINCE BEEN REVERSED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CAPSULES VS. CIT, 332 ITR 42(BOM) AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NO LONGER A GOOD LAW. THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE BEFO RE US. THUS, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CAPSULES (SUPRA), THE IS SUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT IN THE ABOVE STATED OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.10 IS ALLOWED. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT THE ASSESSEE SUCCEED S. 7. NEXT, WE TAKE UP THE CROSS-APPEALS BY THE ASSE SSEE AND REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 VIDE ITA NOS.3290/MUM/2 006& 3263/MUM/2006 RESPECTIVELY DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-VI, AARTI DRUGS LIMITED 7 MUMBAI DATED 08/03/2006, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 21/04/2005, PASSE D UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN LISTED AS PER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 3/1 /2014(SUPRA) TO ADJUDICATE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 6. RE: NON CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF DEPB AS EXPORT INCENTIVES FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 6.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF DEPB AS EXPORT INCENTIVE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC RELYING ON THE RECENT AMENDMEN T IN SECTION 80 HHC BY VIRTUE OF THE TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005. 6.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E AMENDMENT OF S.80HHC BY THE TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 IS GROSSLY ARBITR ARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR EQUITY. 6.3 THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT UNDER THE NEWLY AMENDED PROVISIONS OF S.28(III) READ WITH S.80HHC IT IS ONLY THE PROFIT O N THE TRANSFER OF DEPB SCHEME WHICH IS COVERED BY THE AMENDED SECTION 80HHC AND THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF DE PB AS COVERED BY THE SAID AMENDMENT. 9. RE: NOT IGNORING THE LOSS FROM TRADING EXPORTS I N WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 9.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE LOSS SUFFERED FROM TRADING EXPORTS FOR WORKING OUT THE OVERALL DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LOSS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS NIL IN WORKING OUT THE OVERALL DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC AND THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITH RESPECT ONLY TO THE EXPORT INCENTIVES UNDER TH E PROVISO TO S.80HHC(3). REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDUCE THE INDIR ECT COST OF THE BUSINESS BY 10% OF THE EXPORT INCENTIVES FOR COMPUTATION OF PROFIT IN RESP ECT OF EXPORT OF TRADING GOODS FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION OF REDUCTION FROM THE INTEREST COST IN TERMS CLAUSE ( E) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80HHC. AARTI DRUGS LIMITED 8 7.2 IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y 2003-04 ARE ALSO LIABL E TO BE DECIDED IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION IN THE CROSS APPEALS FOR A.Y 2002-03 IN THE EARLIER PARAS. THUS, OUR DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 IN EARLIER PARS WOULD APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE CROSS-APPEA LS FOR A.Y 2003-04 ALSO. 8. NEXT, WE MAY TAKE-UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 VIDE ITA NO.3945/MUM/2005/M/2005 DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-VI, MUMBAI DATED 28/03/2005, WHICH IN TURN H AS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 27/02/2004, P ASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN LISTED A S PER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 3/1/201 4(SUPRA) TO ADJUDICATE THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 2. RE: EXPORT INCENTIVES ELIGIBLE U/S. 28(III)(A)( B),(C) NOT CONSIDERED FOR WORKING OUT DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT DEC IDING ON THE GROUND OF ELIGIBILITY OF DEPB SOLD AND RECEIVED, DFRC BENEFITS AND ADVANCE L ICENCE BENEFITS AS EXPORT INCENTIVES U/S.28(III)(A),(B) (C) FOR WORKING OUT D EDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 2.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, 90% OF THE DEPB SOLD AND RECEIVED, DFRC BENEFITS AND ADVANCE LICENCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS UNDER EXPLANATION (BAA) TO S.80HHC. 3.RE: RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC INVOKING S EC. 80IB(13) [ERSTWHILE 80IA (9)] 3.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT DEC IDING ON THE GROUND OF RESTRICTION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC INVOKING SEC. 80IB(13) [ERSTWHI LE 80IA(9)] 8.1 ON THIS ASPECT ALSO, IT WAS A COMMON GROUND B ETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT OUR DECISION IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 AND GRO UND NO.10 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y 2002-03(SUPRA) SHALL COVE R THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.2 & 3 RESPECTIVELY. AARTI DRUGS LIMITED 9 8.2 ACCORDINGLY, OUR DECISION IN RELATION TO GROU ND OF APPEAL NOS.6 & 10 IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y 2002-03 SHALL APPLY MUTATI S MUTANDIS ON THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALSO. 9. RESULTANTLY, THE CAPTIONED PROCEEDINGS ARE ACCOR DINGLY DISPOSED OF. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/08/2015 SD/- SD/- (S ANDEEP GOSAIN) (G.S. PANNU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED :21/08/2015 VM. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 21, MUMBAI 4. CIT- 10, MUMBAI 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI A BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI