THE SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI V. M/S. ITO 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4155/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8545 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 56(2); 80HHC; 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4155/M/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-2004 M/S. SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL LTD., 1008, MAKER CHAMBER V, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. PAN:AAACCS5756L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAKESH RANJAN, DR DATE OF HEARING: 25.9.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 19.10.2012 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE 11.6.2008 IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-XXXII, MUMBAI DATED 29.2.2008 IN RELATION TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004. 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS B Y UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ITO IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC FOR RS. 22,42,102/- OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ITO FOR RS. 45,894/- BEING EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND U/S 56(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ITO ON ACCOUNT OF MOTOR CAR LOANS INTERES T U/S 36(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS PROP ERLY THAT THE CAR PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ARE APPRECIATING IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AS THE PART OF THE COMPANYS ASSET IN HIS U SED COMPLETED BY THE COMPANY FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE PARTIAL RELI EF GRANTED WHICH IS MUCH MORE DETAILED OUT IN THE CIT APPEALS ORDER. 4. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ITO OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES. 2 M/S. SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL 5. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ITO SPENT FOR FOREIGN TRAVELLING OF SHRI RAMESH KOKHANI AND SNEHALATA KOKHANI WERE HAVING VASE EXPERIENCE IN THE BUSINESS AND WAS HELPING THE COMPANY TO PROMOTE HIS EXPORT B USINESS. IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED AND THER E IS NO CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF FACTS AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER Y EARS HENCE MAJOR CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE ITO SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AND PRINCI PLE OF CONSISTENCY IN THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. 6. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ITO OUT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND VOLUME OF THE BUSINESS. 7. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ITO BEING DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR UNDER THE GUISE THAT THE MOTOR CARS ARE NOT OWNED BY THE COMP ANY AND THE SAME ARE HELD IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTORS WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH E FACTS THAT MOTOR CARS ARE APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, SHR I DHARMESH SHAH , LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE R EQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS VIDE LETTER DATED 17.8.2011 AND NOW HE PROPOSED TO WITHDRAW THE SAME. CONSIDERING THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE PRELIMINARY REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE STAND S DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DECLARING IN COME OF RS. NIL AFTER CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80-HHC. THE SAME WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 45,63,885/-. AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND ALSO AO DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ON ACCOUN T OF EXPORT INCENTIVES IN VIEW OF NEGATIVE EXPORT PROFITS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) AND SUCCEEDED IN GETTING A PART RELIEF. AG GRIEVED WITH THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT (A), ASSESSEE FILED PRESENT APPEAL BE FORE US WITH 7 GROUNDS AND THE GROUND WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 5. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-HHC IN RESPECT OF DEPB. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, LD COUNSEL MENTIO NED THAT THE CIT (A) AS PER THE 3 M/S. SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 3.2 OF HIS ORDER, DENIED T HE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION FOR THE REASONS OF FAILURE TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES MENTION ED IN THE P & L A/C VIS--VIS FIGURES MENTIONED IN FORM NO.10-CCAC. AS SUCH, THIS IS THE CASE OF CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-HHC ON ACCOUNT OF NEGATIVE EXPORT PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE US, ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE FIGURES. THE BENC H REQUESTED THE LD COUNSEL TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES AND HE COULD NOT SUCCEED. IN STEAD, LD COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO GO TO THE FILES OF AO FOR SUCH RECONCI LIATION AND RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH. IT IS THE REQUEST OF THE LD COUNSEL THAT H E SHALL RECONCILE THE FIGURES AS MENTIONED IN THE SAID PARA 3.2 OF CIT (A)S ORDER B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD DR HAS NOT OBJECTED FOR THE SAME. HOWEVER, HE RELIED O N THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. CONSIDERING THE LD COUNSELS PRAYER F OR THE SAME AS WELL AS NO OBJECTION FROM THE LD DR, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISS UE MUST BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AS PER THE L AW. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.45,894 /- BEING EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROVIDENT FUND U/S 56(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. (321 ITR 508) (DEL); COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS P. M. ELECTRONI CS LTD. (DEL) 313 ITR 161 (DEL) AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (319 ITR 306) AND MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF TH E PAYMENTS, WHICH ARE ACTUALLY PAID BEFORE THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED. CONSIDERING THE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DE DUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NOS. 3, 4 AND 7 RELATE TO THE ALLOWABILIT Y OF CERTAIN CLAIMS RELATING TO THE CARS. THEY ARE THE ALLOWABILITY OF (I) THE INTERES T ON THE CAR LOANS (II) THE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND (III) DEPRECIATION ON CARS. DURING TH E SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, AO DID NOT 4 M/S. SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL ALLOW THE CLAIM OF INTEREST OF RS. 2,33,474/- AND ALSO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN FULL. SO FAR AS MOTOR CAR EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED, AO DISA LLOWED A SUM OF RS. 1 LAKH ON AD- HOC BASIS OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 4,89,269/-. FOR THE SAID DISALLOWANCES, THE AO GAVE THE COMMON REASON THAT THE CARS IN QUESTION WERE HE LD EITHER BY THE DIRECTOR OR BY THE EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEE (SNEHALATA R KOKHANI) OF THE COM PANY. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NAVDURGA TRANSPORT CO. 149 CTR (ALL) 219 AND THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD VS. CIT (1999) 239 ITR 775 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE REGISTERED OWNERSHIP IS NOT NECESSARY AND ACQUIRING THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSET AND FULL RIGHTS TO USE CARS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSI NESS AND PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEPRECIATION U/S 3 2 OF THE ACT. CIT (A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE SAID JUDGMENTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. CIT (A) IS OF THE OPINIO N THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD (SUPRA) WAS DECIDED RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON A BUILDING AND THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NAVDURGA TRANSPORT CO (SUPRA) WAS DECIDED ON THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THE VEHICLES WERE HELD IN THE NAMES OF THE PARTNERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN FULL. FURTHER, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED A SUM OF RS. 50,000/- OUT OF THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 2,33,474/- TOWARDS PERSONAL USE AND ON AD-HO C BASIS. FURTHER, OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED A SUM OF RS. 50,000 /- SUSPECTING THAT THE USE OF VEHICLE FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES CANNOT BE DENIED BY T HE DIRECTORS AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. NO SPECIFIC REASONS WERE GIVEN WHILE SUST AINING THE SAME. 8. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL REL IED ON THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS AND MENTIONED THAT THE CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE RATIOS OF THE SAID DECISIONS AND ALSO RELIED ON SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THE FACTS THAT THE CAR S WERE PURCHASED BY THE COMPANY AND THEY APPEARED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEA D FIXED ASSETS. HE ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE TH E PAYMENTS OF EMI FOR PURCHASE OF THE MOTOR CAR DIRECTLY TO THE BANK AND FINANCIERS A ND, THEREFORE, THE DIRECTOR / 5 M/S. SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYEE HAS NO CLAIM OF THE ASSETS. HE ALSO MENTI ONED THAT THE AO NEVER SUSPECTED THE USE OF THE CAR FOR THE PERSONAL USE OF THE DIRE CTORS OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS ALTHOUGH, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE CIT (A) ALLEGED T HE SAME AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO / CIT (A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON T HE FACTS AND AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING TO THE RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE C ARS FOR PERSONAL USE OF EITHER THE DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE. CIT (A) HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW FACTS ON TO THE RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PERSONAL USE OF THE CARS WAS ALLOWED BY THE COMPANY. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE CARS WERE PUR CHASED BY THE COMPANY IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE IN ORDER TO SAVE I NSURANCE PREMIUM AND VEHICLE TAX AND IT IS TO THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DEMONSTRATED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CARS BY REFERRING TO THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD FIXED ASSETS. FURTHER, WE HAVE PERUSED THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD (SUPRA) AND CIT VS. MET ALMAN AUTO P. LTD. 336 ITR 434 (P & H) AND FIND THAT THE SAME HELPS THE ASSESSEE. TH E RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF METALMAN AUTO P. LTD. (SUPRA) READS AS UNDER: S. 32: DEPRECIATION ASSETS IN THE NAME OF MANAGIN G DIRECTOR EXCLUSIVE USE BY COMPANY DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32 WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE ASSETS WHICH WERE PURCH ASED IN THE NAME OF MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HIS W IFE BUT, USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS (AY: 2004-2005). CIT VS. METALMAN AUTO P. LTD. (2011) 199 TAXMAN 149 (MAG.) / 52 DTR 385 / 336 ITR 434 (P&H) (HIGH COURT). 11. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON CARS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. FURTHER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING BY THE AO THAT THE VEHICLES WERE USED BY THE DIRECT OR OR EMPLOYEE FOR THEIR PERSONAL 6 M/S. SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL USE, THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON MOT OR CAR LOAN AND MOTOR CAR EXPENSES IS UNWARRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 3,4 AND 7 ARE ALLOWED . 12. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO ALLOWABILITY OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE OF SMT. SNEHALATA R KOKHANI (AN EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEE), THE SP OUSE OF SRI RAMESH CHANDRA KOKHANI, THE EARLIER DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. IN T HIS REGARD, IT IS A FACT THAT NO EXPORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO LONDON, UK, THE COUNTRY SHE VISIT ED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS CIT (A) AND EVEN BEFORE US TO PROVE THAT SHE VISITED THOSE COUNTRIES FOR ANY BUSINESS P URPOSE OF THIS ASSESSEE. CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 8 .2 AND THE SAME REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS ABOVE. ALTHOUGH IT IS AGREED THAT SMT. SNEHALATA R. KHOKHANI IS AN EXECUT IVE EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY AND HER HUSBAND SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KOKHANI WAS ALSO A DIRECTOR EARLIER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT NO EXPORT HAVE BEEN MADE TO LONDON WHERE THESE PERSONS HAD TRAVELLED. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE ANY BUSINESS PURPOSE IN RESPECT OF THE TOUR OF THESE PE RSONS TO LONDON WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. FROM THE AOS ORDER IT IS EV IDENT THAT EVEN THE NAME AND OTHER DETAILS OF ANY PARTY WHOM THESE PERSONS MET F OR THE PURPOSE OF ANY BUSINESS IN LONDON HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE HI M. NO PRIMARY EVIDENCE REGARDING ANY MEETING OR LETTER OF INTENT FOR IMPOR T OF APPELLANTS GOODS / MATERIAL FROM ANY PARTY IN LONDON OR UK HAS BEEN FU RNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. EVEN BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BE EN FURNISHED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT I S NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS. 6,99,708/- WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THIS THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFICUL T TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS HEREBY REJECTED. THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AT RS. 6,99,708/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 13. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS VERY GENERAL AND NO SPECIFIC EXPLANATION WAS FORTHCOMING. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABL ISH THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THEIR VISIT ABROAD. NO PRIMARY EVIDENCE REGARDING ANY MEE TING OR LETTER OF INTENT FOR IMPORT OF ASSESSEES GOODS OR MATERIAL FROM ANY PART IN UK, W AS PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US. IT IS THE RESP ONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPO SES. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES FAILURE 7 M/S. SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL TO DISCHARGE ONUS FULLY AND PROPERLY, IN OUR VIEW, THE OPINIONS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) ARE JUSTIFIED. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO REGARDI NG FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 6,99,708/- CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS P ROPER. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENC E AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE ON BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD, THE AO DISALLOWED RS. 1 ,19,118/- BEING 25% OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.4,76,471/-. FURTH ER, AO DISALLOWED TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS. 94,464/- I.E. 10% OF THE CLAIM. ON APPEAL, CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES TO 10% AND WORKS OUT TO RS. 47,647/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES TO 5% WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 47,232/-, KEEPING IN VIEW THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE BILLS AND V OUCHERS AS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AN D IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E CIT (A) REGARDING BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND THERE FORE, GROUND 6 IS DISMISSED . 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19TH D AY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.L KARWA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 19. 10.2012 AT :MUMBAI OKK 8 M/S. SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR J, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI