THE MANJRI STUD FARM P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT (OSD)-I CITY 2, MUMBAI

ITA 3999/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 129 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9954 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: J D MISTRI NIRAJ D SHETH; K K VED LD ARS
• Keywords: Business income; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.3999/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06) THE MANJRI STUD FARM PRIVATE LIMITED 41/44 SHAPOORJI PALLONJI CENTRE MINOO DESAI ROAD COLABA, MUMBAI-400 005 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-1, CITY-2 AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 ./ PAN : AAACT-194 7-J ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.4127/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2(2) ROOM NO.545, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. THE MANJRI STUD FARM PRIVATE LIMITED 41/44 SHAPOORJI PALLONJI CENTRE MINOO DESAI ROAD COLABA, MUMBAI-400 005 ./ PAN : AAACT-194 7-J ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH, LD. DR ASSESSEE BY : J.D. MISTRI, NIRAJ D. SHETH & K. K.VED, LD. ARS / DATE OF HEARING : 09/10/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/11/2018 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 2 ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 1. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 20 05-06 WHICH CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS)-5 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.IT-159/09-10/447/13-14 DATED 25/03/2014. THE GROUNDS AS RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.3 999/MUM/2014 READ AS UNDER:- 1:0 RE.: DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES: 1:1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.41,40, 241/- OUT OF THE TOTAL REPAIR EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. 1:2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE AND THE LAW PREVAILING ON THE SUBJECT THE REPAIRS AND MAINT ENANCE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS IS DE DUCTIBLE WHILE COMPUTING ITS TOTAL INCOME. 1:3 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY HIM AND TO RECOMPUTE ITS TOTAL INCOME AC CORDINGLY. 2:0 RE.: DISALLOWANCE OF PROJECT EXPENSES: 2:1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.31,80, 777/- OUT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. 2.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE AND THE LAW PREVAILING ON THE SUBJECT THE PROJECT EXPENSES INCURRED WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSINESS AND ARE ALLOWABLE AS A DED UCTION WHILE COMPUTING ITS TOTAL INCOME. 2:3 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE AND TO RECOMPUTE ITS TOTAL INCOME ACCORDING LY. 3:0 RE.: DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES U/S. 36 (1)(III): 3:1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.1,51,1 7,733/- OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3:2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE AND THE LAW PREVAILING ON THE SUBJECT INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS BUSI NESS AND NO DISALLOWANCE WHATSOEVER CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT THEREOF WHILE COMPUTING ITS TOTAL I NCOME. 3:3 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE AND TO RECOMPUTE ITS TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 4:0 RE.: NON-ALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON DISCARDED LIVESTO CK: 4:1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE LOSS INCURRED DURING THE YEAR ON DISCARDED LIVESTOCK. 4:2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE AND THE LAW PREVAILING ON THE SUBJECT, THE WRITE-OFF LOSS OF DI SCARDED LIVESTOCK IS DEDUCTIBLE WHILE COMPUTING ITS TOTAL INCOME. 4:3 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE AND TO RECOMPUTE ITS TOTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 3 ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 THE GROUNDS URGED IN REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.4127/M UM/2014 READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(I II) OF THE IT ACT AND DIRECTING THE AO TO WORK OUT THE QUANTUM OF CAPITALIZATION IGNORING THE FACT THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2001, AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISION TO SECTION 251(1)(A) O F THE IT ACT, THE CIT(A) CANNOT SET ASIDE THE ISSUE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE AND DIRECTING THE AO TO EXA MINE ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION 24(B) OF THE IT ACT IGNORING THE FACT T HAT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2001, AS PER AMENDED PROVISION TO SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE IT AC T, THE CIT(A) CANNOT SET ASIDE THE ISSUE. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO REST ORED 2.1 BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ENTITY ENGAGED IN STUD AND AGRICULTURAL FARM ACTIVITY, RACING ACTIVIT Y AND ENGAGED AS I.T. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE PROVIDER WAS ASSESSED BY LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-I, CITY-2, MUMBAI [AO] U/S 143(3) ON 19/11/2007 WHEREIN THE BUSINESS LOSS, RACING LOSS & LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS.588.12 LACS, RS.33.29 LA CS & RS.46.71 LACS RESPECTIVELY AS AGAINST AGGREGATE RET URNED LOSS OF RS.969.78 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28/10/2005. 2.2 THE FACT ON RECORD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD THREE BUSINESS DIVISIONS I.E. HORSE-RACING, STUD FARM AND AN OZONE IT PARK D IVISION WHICH CONSISTS OF LETTING OUT OF FIT-OUTS / FURNITURE ON HIRE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEVELOPED AND CREATED AN I.T. INFRASTRUCTURE PARK NAMELY OZONE IT PARK AT PUNE WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. THE INCOME FROM HORSE-RACING AND STUD FARM IS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME WHEREAS 4 ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF PREMISES WAS REFLECTED U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY & INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF FURNITURE & FIXTURES WAS REFLECTED AS BUSINESS INCOME. AS EVIDENT FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF R EPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, PROJECT EXPENSES, INTEREST DI SALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) AND LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DISCARDED LIVE ST OCK. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY DIRECTIONS OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY IN RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO. 2.3 THE ASSESSEE, IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT , CLAIMED AGGREGATE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS.88.80 LACS. OUT OF THE SAME, AN AMOUNT OF RS.41.40 LACS HAS BEEN DISALLOWED AFTER EXCLUDING MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT EXPENSES OF RS.41.17 LACS & GUARDING EXPENSES OF STUD DIVISION FOR RS.6.22 LACS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED STATUTORY DEDUCTION OF 30% U/S 24 AGAINST INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY. 2.4 THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.31.80 LACS REPRESENTI NG MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT EXPENSES HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE SAME, IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 2.5 THE THIRD ADDITION IS INTEREST DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) FOR RS.151.14 LACS SINCE THE SAME, IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, WAS TOWARDS CAPITAL WORK-IN- PROGRESS. 2.6 THE LAST ADDITION OF RS.10.27 LACS ON ACCOUNT O F DISCARDED LIVE STOCK WAS MADE SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME TO THE SATISFACTION OF LD. AO. 5 ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 2.7 ALL THESE ADDITIONS, UPON CONFIRMATION BY LD. F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ARE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL, SHRI J.D.MISTRI, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER-BOOK CONTESTED THE ADDITIONS AS SUSTAINED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS BEEN CONTROV ERTED BY LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DOCUMENTS PLACED IN TH E PAPER-BOOK, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS CITED BEFORE US. OUR GROUND- WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS . 5.1 GROUND NUMBERS 1 & 2 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE O F REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND ARE INTER-RELATED GROUNDS. THE TOTAL EXPENDITU RE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS HEAD IS RS.88.80 LACS, OUT OF WHICH DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41.40 LACS HAS BEEN MADE BY LD. AO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR STATUTORY DEDUCT ION OF 30% AGAINST INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHEREAS ANOTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.31.80 LACS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE SAME, IN THE OPINION O F LD. AO, WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND WAS REQUIRED TO BE CAPITALIZED AS CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS. SO FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.31.80 LACS IS CONCERNE D, THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON SEVERAL BUILDINGS, SOME OF WHICH H AVE ALREADY BEEN CAPITALIZED IN EARLIER YEARS AND SOME OF WHICH WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN PLACED ON PAGE NUMBERS 9 & 10 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, THE PERUSAL OF WHICH REVEAL THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.12 ,88,610/- 6 ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 HAVE BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS BUILDING NUMBER-3 WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION DURING THE IMPUGNED AY AND THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE CAPITALIZED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR NATURE, AS RIGHTLY HELD BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE OF RS.17,60, 401/- & RS.1,31,766/- PERTAINS TO BUILDING NUMBERS 2 & 1B RESPECTIVELY WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND CAPITALIZED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THER EFORE, THE SAME WERE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, B EING ROUTINE EXPENDITURE IN NATURE. RESULTANTLY, THE AMOUNT OF R S.12,88,610/- SHALL BE DISALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE & AS A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE ALLOWED TO BE CAPITALIZED WITH UNDER-CO NSTRUCTION BUILDING. THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE OF RS.18,92,167/- WOULD B E CONSIDERED AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND WOULD BE ADDED WITH COMMON REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS.41,40,241/- AS DISALLOWED BY LD. AO. 5.2 SO FAR AS THE ALLOWANCE OF BALANCE AGGREGATE EX PENDITURE I.E. RS.60,32,408/- [RS.18,92,167/- + RS.41,40,241/-] IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2006 -07 ALSO WHICH REACHED UP-TO THE LEVEL OF THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. 2919, 2955/MUM/2011 DATED 28/10/2014 WHEREIN WE FIND THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANC E WAS MADE BY LD. AO. UPON FURTHER APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY APPO RTIONED THIS EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF GROSS VALUE OF ASSETS. THE STAND OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, SINCE A P ARTICULAR MANNER OF APPORTIONMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2006-07, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE LD. AO TO RE-COMPUTE THE 7 ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 DISALLOWANCE AFTER APPORTIONING THEM ON THE BASIS O F GROSS VALUE OF ASSETS. THE WORKING OF THE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED ON PAGE NUMBER 28 OF THE PAPER- BOOK, A PERUSAL OF WHICH REVEAL THAT THE PROPORTION OF BU ILDING IN TOTAL ASSETS IS 45.56% AND ACCORDINGLY, THE PROPORTIONATE DISALL OWANCE WORKS OUT TO BE RS.18,86,364/- WHICH SHALL STAND REVISED TO RS.27,4 8,365/- [45.56% OF RS.60,32,408/-] IN VIEW OF OUR ADJUDICATION IN PREC EDING PARA 5.1. THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE PROPORTION OF THE ASSE TS AND IF FOUND CORRECT, RESTRICT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE TO RS.27,48,365/- TH E ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THE WORKING OF THE SAME TO LD. AO. BOTH THE SE GROUNDS STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. 5.3 THE THIRD DISALLOWANCE OF RS.151.14 LACS IS INT EREST DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III). THE LD. SR. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE ARRIVED AT BY LD. AO IS BASE D ON ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF FACTS ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEES REPL Y DATED 06/11/2007 AND THE WORKING OF THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NEVER PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO SUBMIT THAT ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN RESTORED BY LD. CIT(A) TO LD. AO F OR RE-APPRECIATION OF FACTS BUT STILL THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(III) HAS BEEN UPHELD, WHICH WAS ERRONEOUS AND WAS NOT WARRANTED FOR. WE CONCUR WITH THESE SUBMISSIONS. WHILE UPHOLDING THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESTORIN G THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. AO, WE DIRECT LD. AO TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFTE R RE-APPRECIATION OF FACTUAL MATRIX AND DECIDE THE SAME AS PER LAW WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. THE GROUND STAN D ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL 8 ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 PURPOSES. THE REVENUE, IN ITS APPEAL, IS AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, S INCE THE FINDINGS OF LD. AO IS BASED ON ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF FACTS, THE ISSU E HAS RIGHTLY BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. AO. THE REVENUES APPEA L STAND DISMISSED. 5.4 THE LAST ADDITION OF RS 10.27 LACS STEM FROM TH E FACT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LOSS ON DISCARDED LIVE STOCKS [HORSES] U/S 36(1)(VI). AS PER ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THESE HORSES WERE MEDICALLY UNFIT FOR BREEDING AND HAD NO COMMERCIAL USE. THE ORIGINAL COST OF SUC H LIVESTOCK WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VI). THE SAID CLAIM HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE HORSES HAD NOT DIED AND WOULD FET CH SOME VALUE IN THE MARKET, WHICH ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN DENIED. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE COMPUTATIONAL ERRO RS IN THE WORKINGS MADE BY LD. AO SINCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR R S.29.56 LACS INSTEAD OF RS.10.27 LACS AS ADOPTED BY LD. AO. IN SUPPORT OF T HE SAME, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF REDUCED LOS S BY RS.10.27 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON DISCARDED LIVESTOCK WHEREAS IT C LAIMED TOTAL LOSS OF RS.29.56 LACS AGAINST THIS ITEM, WHICH SUPPORT THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. SR. COUNSEL. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT SUBSTANTIATE THE LOSS TO THE SATISFACTION OF LD. AO. THEREFORE, WE DEEM I T FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO TO RE-APPRECIATE THE COR RECT FACTUAL MATRIX AND RE- 9 ITA NOS. 3999 & 4127/MUM/2014 THE MANJARI STUD FARM PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. THIS GROUND STAND ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. RESULTANTLY, REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.4127/MUM/20 14 STANDS DISMISSED WHEREAS ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 3999/MU M/2014 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH,/ JV.SR.PS /COPY OF THE ORDER COPY OF THE ORDER COPY OF THE ORDER COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO FORWARDED TO FORWARDED TO FORWARDED TO : :: : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ ) ( / THE CIT(A) 4. $ / CIT CONCERNED 5. %&' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &()* / GUARD FILE / // / BY ORDER, / // / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI / ITAT, MUMBAI / ITAT, MUMBAI / ITAT, MUMBAI. .. .