FLAGSHIP INDIAN INVESTMENT COMPANY ( MAURITIUS ) LTD, MUMBAI V. ADIT (IT) 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4075/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7231 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P J PARDIWALA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH L : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, (JM) AND SHRI B. RAMAKO TAIAH ,(AM) ITA NO.4075/MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 FLAGSHIP INDIAN INVESTMENT COMPANY (MAURITIUS) LIMITED C/O., S.R. BATLIBOI & CO. 18 TH FLOOR, EXPRESS TOWERS NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400 021. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AAACF 1225 B) VS. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTL. TAXATION)-3(2) SCINDIA HOUSE BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI-400 038. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.J. PARDIWALA AND SHRI NITESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. M. KESHKAMAT O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 27.3.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IS INCORPORATED AND A TAX RESIDENT OF MAURITIUS. THE ASSE SSEE IS REGISTERED WITH SEBI AS A SUB-ACCOUNT OF JP MORGAN FLEM ING ASSET MANAGEMENT, WHICH IS REGISTERED WITH SEBI AS A FOREIG N INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR. THE RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME A T RS. NIL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS INTERALIA OBSERVED BY THE AO FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME, SCHEDULE-E, STATEMENT OF LOSSES & ALLOWANCES BROUGHT FORWARD FROM PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND CARRIED FORWARD, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CARRY FORWA RD OF CAPITAL LOSSES PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 OF RS.87,06,49,335/-. ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 13 D TTA BETWEEN INDIA AND MAURITIUS, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT CAPITAL LOSS IS ALSO EXEMPT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NOT CORRECT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM CARR Y FORWARD OF SUCH CAPITAL LOSS, WHICH MAY, FOR INSTANCE, COULD BE SET OFF WITH CAPITAL GAINS ON IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAID LOSSES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO AF TER TREATING THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. NIL ASSESSED INTEREST RECEIVED FROM GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.-ULTRA TECH OPEN OFFER CONSID ERATION RS.21,67,471/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT RS.21,67,471/- VID E ORDER DATED 5.12.2007 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 3 1961(THE ACT). ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGAR D TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES BROUGHT FORWARD FRO M EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHILE CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.90(1 ) OF THE ACT, ARTICLE 13(4) OF THE INDIA-MAURITIUS TAX TREATY, DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COUT IN UNION OF INDIA VS. AZADI BACH AO ANDOLAN (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC), CIT VS. P.V. A.L. KULANDAGAN CHETTIAR (2004) 267 ITR 654(SC) AND BOARD CIRCULAR NO.333 DATED 2.4. 1982 OBSERVED IN PARA-6.6 OF HIS ORDER THAT .... THAT THE INCOME ARISING OUT FROM TRANSFER OF SECURITIES CAN BE ASSESSED ONLY IN THE STATE IN WHI CH THE ASSESSEE IS A TAX RESIDENT. IT IS MADE VERY CLEAR THAT THE INCOME CAN NOT BE TA XED IN THE OTHER STATE. SO IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE INCOME OR LOSS ARISING OUT O F TRANSFER OF SECURITIES IN INDIA IS TAXABLE ONLY IN MAURITIUS BECAUSE THE APPELLANT IS A TAX RESIDENT OF MAURITIUS. AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OR LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSFER OF SECURITIES IN INDIA AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US TAKING FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND OF APPE AL. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT THE RIGHT TO CARRY FORWARD THE CAPITAL LOSSES BROUGHT F ORWARD FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, TO SUBSEQUENT YE ARS, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 4 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN SCHEDU LE-E, STATEMENT OF LOSSES & ALLOWANCES BROUGHT FORWARD FROM PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND CARRIED FORWARD HAS CLAIMED CARRY F ORWARD OF CAPITAL LOSSES PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 OF RS.87,06,49,335/- WHICH WERE ASSESSED U/S.143(1) IN THAT A SSESSMENT YEAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER THE TAX TREATY AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT HAVE ANY CAPITAL GAINS ASSESSABLE TO TAX FOR THE YEAR. HE FURT HER SUBMITS THAT EVEN, IN THE ABSENCE OF CAPITAL GAINS CHARGEABLE T O TAX, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD THE BROUGHT FORWARD CAPITAL LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YEARS TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE FURTH ER SUBMITS THAT ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CLAIMING CAPITAL GAINS EARNED FROM SALE OF SHARES IS EXEMPT FROM TAX IN INDIA, IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT CA PITAL LOSS IS ALSO EXEMPT AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO DENIED THE BROUGHT FORW ARD LOSSES OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AS THE SAME COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005-06. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE AT LENGTH WHILE OBSERVING THAT INCOME ARISING OUT FROM TR ANSFER OF SECURITIES CAN BE ASSESSED ONLY IN THE STATE IN WHICH THE A SSESSEE IS A ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 5 TAX RESIDENT AND CANNOT BE TAXED IN OTHER STATE HELD THAT LOSS ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER OF SECURITIES IN INDIA IS TAXABLE ONLY I N MAURITIUS BECAUSE THE APPELLANT IS A TAX RESIDENT OF MAURITIUS AND SINCE THE LOSS IS NOT ASSESSABLE IN INDIA THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLA IM THE CARRY FORWARD THE SAME LOSS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. HE FURT HER SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THAT SUCH LOSS TO BE SET OFF FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREFORE, THE AO AND L D. CIT(A) HAVE ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING CARRY FORWARD OF SUCH SET OFF OF LOSS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. MANMOHAN DAS (1966) 59 ITR 699(SC) THE LD . SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE LO SS IN ANY YEAR MAY BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THE SAME HA S TO BE DETERMINED BY THE AO WHO DEALS WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF T HE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . A DECISION RECORDED BY THE AO WHO COMPUTES THE LOSS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR THAT THE LOSS CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSE QUENT YEAR IS NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID D ECISION THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM T O CARRY FORWARD THE CAPITAL LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS BE ALLOWED. THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED IN DY. CIT(PUNE) VS. PATNI COMPUTER SYSTEMS LTD. IN I TA ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 6 NO.726/PUNE/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 DATED 29.6.2007 IN THIS REGARD. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR WHILE RELYING ON TH E ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO DI SPUTE THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AND HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT AS PER ARTICLE -13 OF THE TAX TREATY, SUCH CAPITAL GAINS ARE T AXABLE ONLY IN MAURITIUS AND NOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX IN INDIA. HE FURTH ER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE CLAIMING CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES SHOULD HAVE FIRST SET OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES ARISING FROM TH E PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. UNDER THE ACT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAIN ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE BEING NON- RESIDENT AND TO CLAIM CARRY FORWARD OF BROU GHT FORWARD LOSSES OF PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT HA S TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HENCE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURT HER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WAS COMPL ETED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, IN THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION THE AO WHILE CONSIDERING THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE H AS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER U/S. 143(3) THAT THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORW ARD OF BROUGHT ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 7 FORWARD LOSSES IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITS T HAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE UP HELD. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS A NON- RESIDENT COMPANY AND NOT SUBJECTED TO TAX ON CAP ITAL GAINS IN THIS YEAR IN INDIA. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL LOSSES AMOUNTING TO RS.87,06,49,335/- IN TH E RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND HAS CLAIMED THE SAME TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, IT W AS DENIED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GA INS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER THE TREATY, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF CARRY FORWARD OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPH ELD THE VIEW OF THE AO . SECTION 72 OF THE ACT DEALS WITH THE PROVISI ONS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES. SEC.157 OF THE ACT P ROVIDES THAT WHEN, IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOM E OF ANY ASSESSEE, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT A LOSS OF PROFITS OR GAINS HAS TAKEN PLACE WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE SET OFF UNDER PROVI SIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE AO SHALL NOTIFY TO THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER IN WRITING THE AMOUNT OF LOSS AS COMPUTED BY HIM FOR THE PURPOSES OF TH IS SECTION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE AMOUNT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LO SS OF ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 8 RS.87,06,49,335/- TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS IS NOT IN DISPUTE AS PER INTIMATION U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS AS TO WHETHER THE SE T OFF CAN BE CONSIDERED OR DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IT MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWA RD TO THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. IN CIT VS. MOHAN DAS (1966) 59 ITR 699 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD (PAGE 700 HEADNOTES) AS UNDER : (IV) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING A VOCATION AN D HIS REMUNERATION HAD TO BE COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 10 AN D THE LOSS OF PROFITS SUFFERED IN THAT VOCATION IN AN Y YEAR COULD BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT YEAR TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. WHETHER THE LOSS IN ANY YEAR MAY BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND SET OFF AGAINST T HE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR UNDER SECT ION 24(2) HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R WHO DEALS WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. A DECISION RECORDED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WHO COMPUTES THE LOSS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR THAT THE LOS S CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQU ENT YEAR IS NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN CIT VS. WESTERN INDIA OIL DISTRIBUTING CO. LTD. (2001) 249 ITR 517(SC) THEIR LORDSHIPS FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN CIT V S. MOHAN DAS (SUPRA), HAVE OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER (PAGE 517 HE ADNOTES): FROM THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT (SEE [1980] 12 6 ITR 498) THAT, SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND THAT THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 1943-44 TO 1953-54, BUT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 195 4- ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 9 55, THE ASSESSEE HAD SECURED A PECUNIARY ADVANTAGE BY REASON OF ITS INCOME BEING ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', AND FOR THAT REASON BE NEFIT OF CARRY FORWARD WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHILE RETAINING THAT ADVANTAGE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO REAGITATE THAT QUESTION AND SUBMIT THA T THE INCOME FOR THAT YEAR HAD TO BE REASSESSED UNDER THE CORRECT HEAD 'BUSINESS' UNDER SECTION 10, AND, THER EFORE, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEARS 1943-44 T O 1953-54 COULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST BUSI NESS INCOME ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1959-60 TO 1 962- 63, BUT NOT THAT RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 54-55, THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEALS TO THE SUPREME COU RT. THE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE APPEALS AFFIRMING T HE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT THAT IF THE QUANTIFICATIO N OF LOSS IS PROPERLY AND DULY NOTIFIED BY FOLLOWING THE PRES CRIBED PROCEDURE, SUCH QUANTIFICATION MAY BE IMPRESSED WIT H THE PRINCIPLE OF FINALITY, BUT THE PRINCIPLE OF FINALIT Y DID NOT APPLY TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE SOURCE OF INCOME AND TO A DECISION WHETHER THE LOSS CAN OR CANNOT BE ALLOWE D TO BE CARRIED FORWARD BY REASON OF THE DETERMINATION O F THE SOURCE. 9. THE CBDT HAS ALSO CLARIFIED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE VIDE CIRCULAR NO.22 OF 1944 DATED 29.7.1944, PARA-2 (PAGE 1408 OF DIRECT TAX CIRCULAR INCOME TAX BY CHATURVEDI & PITHISARIAS IN COME TAX LAW (5 TH EDITION) (10 TH VOL.)AS UNDER : NON-RESIDENTS INDIAN LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD A ND NOT SET OFF AGAINST FOREIGN INCOME TOTAL INCOME IS DEFINED AS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF IN COME, PROFITS AND GAINS REFERRED TO IN THE SUB-SECTION(1 ) OF SECTION 4 * COMPUTED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF A NON-RESIDENT, HIS FOREIGN INCOME I S NOT INCLUDED IN HIS TOTAL INCOME WHICH IS TO BE COMP UTED SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24 * . IF THE TOTAL INCOME IS A LOSS, IT HAS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD SUB JECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(2) * AND CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST ANY INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. OTHERWISE, A NON-RESIDENT WOULD NOT GET A NY ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 10 RELIEF IN INDIAN TAXATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LOSS IN CURRED BY HIM IN INDIA. ( * OF THE 1922 ACT.) 10. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE THEIR LORDSHIPS, TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE C BDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR OR THE SAME HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUSTED . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS F ULLY JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING THE CARRIED FORWARD OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES O F THE EARLIER YEARS TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND THE AO AND THE LD. CI T(A) HAVE ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SAME. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CARRY FORWARD OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS TO TH E SUBSEQUENT YEARS ACCORDING TO LAW. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE I S, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.3.2010. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 23.3.2010. JV. ITA NO.4075/M/08 A.Y:05-06 11 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 15.3.10 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17.3.10 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 23.3.10 SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 26.3.10 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER