JAI CORP LTD, MUMBAI V. CIT CEN -III, MUMBAI

ITA 3991/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8240 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIVYA VAJPAI
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 80IB; 10B; 6; 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE : SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI SANJAY GARG, J M ITA NO. 3990 / MUM/20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 09 ) M/S JAI CORP LTD., 11 - B, MITTAL TOWER, B - WING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 VS. CIT(CENTRAL) - III, MUMBAI - 400020 PAN/GIR NO. : A A ACJ 2591 A ( APPE LLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) AND ITA NO. 3991/ MUM/20 13 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR :200 9 - 10 ) M/S JAI CORP LTD., 11 - B, MITTAL TOWER, B - WING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 VS. CIT(CENTRAL) - III, MUMBAI - 400020 PAN/GIR NO. : AA ACJ 2591 A ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA /REVENUE BY : MS. DIVYA VAJPAI DATE OF HEARING : 27 TH AUG , 201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 ST OCT, 201 4 O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA ( A .M.) : TH ESE ARE THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT U/S.263 , DATED 26 - 3 - 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 AND 2009 - 1 0 , IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.153A OF TH E I.T. ACT . 2 . THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR A.Y.2008 - 09 (ITA NO . 39 9 0/MUM/2013) HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - ITA NO. 3990 &3991 /1 3 2 THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 26/3/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (CENTRAL) - III, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'CIT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ON THE FOLLOWING AMONG OTHER GROUNDS: 1.THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT IS I LLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, ULTRA VIRES AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THEIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOL DING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.WS.153A DATED 29/12 / 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143 (3) R. W. S. 153A. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION ON PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT APPORTIONING ANY PART OF ITS COMM ON EXPENSES/HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES/ CORPORATE EXPENSES / OTHER INDIRECT EXPENSES TOWARDS ITS 10B UNIT WITHOUT CARRYING PROPER INQUIRY AND THEREBY RENDERING THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT REDUCING MISCELLANEOUS OTHER INCOME RS.10,980 / - AND WASTE AND SCRAP SALES RS.14,32,129/ - WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AND TH EREBY RENDERING THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - COMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S.10B AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUN T HEAD OFFICE 1 CORPORATE EXPENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND WASTE AND SCRAP SALES. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - VERIFY THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,16,147 / - ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO ESIC, PF, MLWF ETC. AND TO VERIFY WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL FOR A.Y.2009 - 10 (ITA NO.3991/MUM/2013) , THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 26/3/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (CENTRAL) - III, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER ITA NO. 3990 &3991 /1 3 3 REFERRED TO AS 'CIT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009 - 10 ON THE FOLLOWING AMONG OTHER GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW, ULTRA VIRES AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN TH EIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.WS.153A DATED 29/1212010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 I S ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R. W.S.153A. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION ON PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT APPORTIONING ANY PART OF ITS COMMON EXPENSES/HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES / CORPORATE EXPENSES / OTHER INDIRECT EXPENSES TOWARDS ITS 10B UNIT WITHOUT CARRYING PROPER INQUIRY AND THEREBY R ENDERING THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT REDUCING MISCELLANEOUS OTHER I NCOME OF RS.4,29, 995/ - AND WASTE & SCRAP SALES RS.7,93,353/ - WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AND THEREBY RENDERING THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND' IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - COMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S.10B AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HEAD OFFICE/CORPORATE EXPENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND WASTE AND SCRAP SALES. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - VERIFY THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,23,265/ - ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO ESIC, PF, MLWF ETC. AND TO VERIFY WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID WITHIN THE GRACE PER IOD ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT IN THE AY 2008 - 09, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A. IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263, THE CIT FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BIFURCATED COMMON EXPENDITURE TOWARDS UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B. THE CIT ALSO OBSERVED THAT ITA NO. 3990 &3991 /1 3 4 THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS.10,980/ - AND WASTAGE AND SCRAP SALES OF RS. 14,32,129/ - , WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.10B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, T HE CIT PASSED ORDER U/S.263 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S.10B AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HEAD OFFICE/CORPORATE EXPENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME AND ALSO INCOME FROM WASTAGE AND SCRAP SALES. 4 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY COMPRISE OF VARIOUS UNITS, SOME OF WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B, HOWEVER, SOME OF THE UNITS WERE N OT ELIGIBLE FOR ANY DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED SOME COMMON EXPENDITURE FROM CORPORATE OFFICE. HOWEVER, NO ALLOCATION OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS MADE BETWEEN THE UNIT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10B AND OTHER UNITS. HOWEVER, WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U /S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A, THE AO HAD REDUCED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB BY APPORTIONING THE CORPORATE/HEAD OFFICE EXPENDITURE TO THE 80IB UNITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. ,75,00,000/ - . HOWEVER, W HILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S.263, DATED 26.3.2013 , THE CIT HELD THAT THE ORD ER OF AO WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS HE HAS NOT ALLOCATED SUCH CORPORATE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS 10B UNIT. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.263 OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS QUANTIFIED SUCH CORPORATE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,27,75,000/ - . SINCE, THE AO HAS ALREADY APP ORTIONED CORPORATE/HEAD OFFICE EXPENDITURE TO 80IB UNIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,75, 00, 000/ - WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A , ANY FURTHER ALLOCATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ITA NO. 3990 &3991 /1 3 5 APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,75,00,000/ - TO THE 80IB UNITS WIL L AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF CIT PASSED U/S.263 TO THE EXTENT THAT WHILE APPORTIONING THE CORPORATE EXPENDITURE TO THE 10B UNITS , THE AO SHOULD EXCLUDE RS. 1,75,00,000/ - . WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6 . SO FAR AS THE ACTI ON OF THE AO FOR NOT REDUCING MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS. 10,980/ - AND WASTAGE AND SCRAP SALES OF RS. 14,32,129/ - IS CONCERNED, WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.10B, THE CIT HELD THAT SUCH INCOME ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10B SINCE THESE INCOME ARE N OT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE INTEREST INCOME FROM SURPLUS FUNDS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10A & 10B, HAS ALREADY BEEN UPHELD BY H O N BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 11 - 12 - 2013 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 428/2007 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH INCOME PARTING THE CHARACTER OF PROFIT AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS. THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE H O N BLE HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER : - BY FINANCE ACT, 2001, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2001, THE PRESENT SUB - SECTION (4) IS SUBSTITUTED IN THE PLACE OF OLD SUB - SECTION (4). NO DOUBT SUB - SECTION 10(B) SPEAKS ABOUT DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS DERIVED FROM 100% EOU FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE . THEREFORE, IT EXCLUDES PROFIT AND GAINS FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES. BUT SUB - SECTION (4) EXPLAINS WHAT IS THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES AS MENTIONED IN SUB - SECTION (1). THE SUBSTITUTED SUB - SECTION (4) SAYS THAT PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORT OF ART ICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE SHALL BE THE ACCOUNT WHICH BARES TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING AND NOT THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES. THEREFORE, PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES IS DIFFERENT FROM TH E INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING. THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING INCLUDES THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM EXPORT OF THE ARTICLES AS WELL AS ALL OTHER INCIDENTAL INCOMES DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTA KING. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT SIMILAR PROVISIONS ARE NOT THERE WHILE DEALING WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 3990 &3991 /1 3 6 SOHHC. ON THE CONTRARY, THERE IS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS LIKE SECTION SOHHB WHICH EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES THIS TYPE OF INCOMES. THEREFORE, I N VIEW OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT, WHAT IS EXEMPTED IS NOT MERELY THE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES BUT ALSO THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING. 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% EOU, WHICH HAS EXPORTED SOFTWARE AND EARNED THE INCOME. A PORTION OF THAT INCOME IS INCLUDED IN EEFC ACCOUNT. YET ANOTHER PORTION OF THE AMOUNT IS INVESTED WITHIN THE COUNTRY BY WAY OF FIXED DEPOSITS, ANOTHER PORTION OF THE AMOUNT IS INVESTED BY WAY OF LOAN TO THE SISTER CONCERN WHICH IS DERIVING INTEREST OR THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM SALE OF THE IMPORT ENTITLEMENT, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE INTEREST RECEIVED AND THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY SALE OF IMPORT ENTITLEMENT IS TO BE CONS TRUED AS INCOME OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING. THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THIS INCOME AND THE INCOME OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING. THOUGH IT DOES NOT PAR TAKE THE CHARACTER OF A PROFIT AND GAINS FROM THE SALE OF AN ARTICLE, IT IS THE INCOME WHICH IS DERIVED FROM THE CONSIDERATION REALIZED BY EXPORT OF ARTICLES. IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF 'INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS' INCORPORATED IN SUB - SECTION (4), THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION OF THE SAID AMOUNT AS CONTEMPLATED U NDER SECTION 10 B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXTENDING THE BENEFIT TO THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS ALSO. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE APPEALS. THEREFORE, THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW RAISED IN ITA NO. 428/2007 IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IN IT A NO. 447/2007 IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FOLLOWING THE SAME ANALOGY, WE HOLD THAT INCOME GENERATED OUT OF SALE OF SCRAP GENERATED IN THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION BEARS THE CHARACTER OF INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNIT. THUS, W E DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF CIT FOR DIRECTING THE AO TO EX CLUDE THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SCRAP FROM THE ELIGI BLE INCOME FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B. 7 . SO FAR AS MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS.10,980/ - IS CONCERNED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT FOR DIRECTING THE AO TO EX CLUDE SUCH INCOME WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.10B. 8 . 5 TH GROUND IS CO NSEQUENTIAL TO GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4. ITA NO. 3990 &3991 /1 3 7 9 . WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE FOR DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESI, PF AMOUNTING TO RS.1,16,147/ - , WE FOUND THAT THE AO IN HIS ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S.263 HAS NOT ADDED THE SAID EXPEN SES. THUS, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 1 0 . SIMILARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE CIT HAS DIRECTED FOR ALLOCATION OF COMMON EXPENSES/HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD CORPORATE OFFICE EXPENSES. FROM THE RECOR D, WE FOUND THAT THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT, DATED 29.12.2010, WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE ORDER OF CIT U/S.263 HAD ALREADY REDUCED THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB BY APPORTIONING THE CORPORATE/HEAD OFFICE EXPENDITURE TO THE 80IB UNITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,85,00,000/ - . ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT TO THE EXTENT THAT WHILE APPORTIONING THE CORPORATE EXPENSES TO THE 10B UNIT, THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,85,00,000/ - SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. 1 1 . THE ISSU E W ITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION OF CIT TO EXCLUDE WASTAGE AND SCRAP SALES OF RS. 7,93,353/ - WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.10B, HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTOROLA INDIA ELECT RONICS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) , THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR EX CLUSION OF INCOME FROM SALE OF SCRAP WHICH IS BUSINESS INCOME ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.10B. SINCE NO BIFURCATION OF MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS. 4,29,995/ - WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, WE RES TORE THE ISSUE TO AO AND DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE NATURE OF SUCH MISCELLANEOUS INCOME BEFORE EX CLUDING THE SAME WHILE ITA NO. 3990 &3991 /1 3 8 COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 10B, AS PER THE VERDICT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. (SU PRA) . 1 2 . WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 2,23,265/ - , WE FOUND THAT WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S.263,THE AO HAS NOT ADDED THE SAID EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEAL S OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN PART, IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 1/1 0 / 201 4 . 3 1/1 0 / 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( SANJAY GARG ) ( ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER MUMBAI ; DATED 3 1/1 0 / 2014 /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//