M/s. UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P. LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT CENT. CIR. -43, MUMBAI

ITA 4501/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59873 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2006
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK DOSHI
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 28; 80HHC

Judgement Text

UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P LTD ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2006 (ASST YEAR 2003-04) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI A AA A BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, AM RAJENDRA SINGH, AM RAJENDRA SINGH, AM RAJENDRA SINGH, AM & & & & SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2006 4501/MUM/2006 4501/MUM/2006 4501/MUM/2006 (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR 2003 2003 2003 2003- -- -04 0404 04) )) ) UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P LTD 1001 DALAMAL HOUSE NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021 VS THE DY COMMR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 43 MUMBAI (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT (APPELLANT ) )) ) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. AAACU0615L AAACU0615L AAACU0615L AAACU0615L ASSESSEE BY SH RONAK DOSHI REVENUE BY SH C G K NAIR DT.OF HEARING 27 TH FEB 2012 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 9 TH , MAR 2012 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO, , , , JM JMJM JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 10 TH JULY 2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE G ROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: 1 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AL LOWING ONLY 100% OF RS.32, 46,933/- INSTEAD OF 125% AT RS. 40, 58,666/- AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 35(1) (II). 2. THE LEARNED C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF CONSIDERING SCRAP RS. 26,14,704/-, AS PA RT OF TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC OF TH E ACT. UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P LTD ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2006 (ASST YEAR 2003-04) 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN, CONSIDERING DEP B ENTITLEMENT IN THE NATURE OF RECEIPT COVERED BY CLAUSE (BAA) OF EXPLAN ATION TO SECTION 8OHHC OF THE ACT, AND REDUCING 100% OF THE SAME INSTEAD O F 90% OF THE SAME WHILE WORKING OUT PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR THE PU RPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REDUCING 90% OF INTEREST & BIN DISCOUNTI NG INCOME WITHOUT NETTING IT OFF AGAINST INTEREST PAYMENTS WHILE WORK ING OUT PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT THE DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80 HHC OF THE ACT. 5 THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF NOT INCREASING DEDUCTION U/S8OHHC OF THE ACT BY ADDING 90% OF EXPORT INCENTIVE IN THE NATURE OF DEPB INCOME WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 8OHHC. 3 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISPOSED OFF BY TH IS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH FEB 2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE REVENUE HAS FILED MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.211/MUM/2011 FOR RECALLING OF THE EA RLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS 3, 4 & 5. THEREAFTER, THE TRI BUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 5.10.2011 ON THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS RECALLED THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 9.2.2010 FOR LIMITED PURPOSE O F DECIDING THE GROUND NOS 3,4 & 5 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. ASIAN STAR CO. LTD. R EPORTED IN 326 ITR 56 AS WELL AS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX V. KALPATARU COLOURS AND CHEMICALS REPORTED IN 328 ITR 451. 4 THUS, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US FOR HE ARING AND DISPOSING OFF OF GROUND NO.S 3,4 & 5 IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PAS SED IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5 GROUND NOS 3 & 5 REGARDING DEPB ENTITLEMENT. UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P LTD ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2006 (ASST YEAR 2003-04) 3 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT HIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF M/S TOPMAN EXPORTS VS CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1699 OF 2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 8THE FEB 2012 IN PARAS 20 TO 22 AS UNDER: 20. EXPLANATION (BAA) UNDER SECTION 8OHHC STATES T HAT PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS IN THE AFORESAID FORMULA MEANS THE !PROFI TS OF THE BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION AS REDUCED BY (1) NINETY PER CENT OF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES (IIIA), (IIIB), (IIIC), (IIID) AND (IIIE) OF SECTION 28 OR OF ANY RECEIPTS BY WAY OF BROKERAGE, COMMISSION, INTEREST, RENT, CHARGES OR A NY OTHER RECEIPT OF SIMILAR NATURE INCLUDING ANY SUCH RECEIPTS AND (2) THE PROFITS OF ANY BRANCH, OFFICE, WAREHOUSE OR ANY OTHER ESTABLISHMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE SITUATED OUTSIDE INDIA. THUS, NINETY PER CENT OF TH E DEPB WHICH IS CASH ASSISTANCE AGAINST EXPORTS AND IS COVERED UNDER CL AUSE (IIIB) OF SECTION 28 WILL GET EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE IF SUCH DEPB HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PR EVIOUS YEAR. SIMILARLY, IF DURING THE SAME PREVIOUS YEAR, THE AS SESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE DEPB AND THE SALE VALUE OF SUCH DEPB IS MORE TH AN THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE VALUE OF THE DEPB AND THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB WILL REPRESENT THE PROFIT ON TRAN SFER OF DEPB COVERED UNDER CLAUSE (IIID) OF SECTION 28 AND NINETY PER CE NT OF SUCH PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB CERTIFICATE WILL GET EXCLUDED FROM PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. BUT, WHERE THE DEPB ACCRUES TO THE ASSES SEE IN THE FIRST PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERS THE DEPB C ERTIFICATE IN THE SECOND PREVIOUS YEAR, AS APPEARS TO HAVE HAPPENED I N THE PRESENT BATCH OF CASES, ONLY NINETY PER CENT OF THE PROFITS ON TR ANSFER OF DEPB COVERED UNDER CLAUSE (IIID) AND NOT NINETY PER CENT OF THE ENTIRE SALE VALUE INCLUDING THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB WILL GET EXCLU DED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. THUS, WHERE THE NINETY PER CENT OF T HE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB DOES NOT GET EXCLUDED FROM PROFITS OF THE BUS INESS UNDER EXPLANATION (BAA) AND ONLY NINETY PER CENT OF THE D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB AND THE SALE VALUE OF THE DE PB GETS EXCLUDED FROM PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE GETS A BIGG ER FIGURE OF PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AND THIS IS POSSIBLE WHEN THE DEPB AC CRUES TO THE ASSESSEE IN ONE PREVIOUS YEAR AND TRANSFER OF THE DEPB TAKES PLACE IN THE SUBSEQUENT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE RESULT IN SUCH CASE I S THAT A HIGHER FIGURE OF PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS BECOMES THE MULTIPLIER IN THE AFORESAID FORMULA UNDER SUBSECTION (3)(A) OF SECTION 8OHHC FOR ARRIVI NG AT THE FIGURE OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORTS. 21. TO THE FIGURE OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORTS W ORKED OUT AS PER THE AFORESAID FORMULA UNDER SUB-SECTION (3)(A) OF SECTI ON 8OHHC, THE ADDITIONS AS MENTIONED IN FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH PRO VISO UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) ARE MADE TO PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORTS. UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO, UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P LTD ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2006 (ASST YEAR 2003-04) 4 NINETY PER CENT OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES ( IIIA), (IIIB) AND (IIIC) OF SECTION 28 ARE ADDED IN THE SAME PROPORTION AS EXPO RT TURNOVER BEARS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY TH E ASSESSEE. IN THIS FIRST PROVISO, THERE IS NO ADDITION OF ANY SUM REFERRED T O IN CLAUSE (IIID) OR CLAUSE (IIIE). HENCE, PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB OR DFRC ARE NOT TO BE ADDED UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO. WHERE THEREFORE IN THE PRE VIOUS YEAR NO DEPB OR DFRC ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE, HE WOULD NOT BE ENTIT LED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 8OH HC BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIIB) OF SECTIO N 28 OF THE ACT. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 8OHHC STATES THAT IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE HAVING EXPORT TURNOVER NOT EXCEEDING RS . 10 CRORES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE FIRST PROVISO, THE EXPORT PROFITS ARE TO BE INCREASED FURTHER BY THE AMOUNT WHICH BEA RS TO NINETY PER CENT OF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES (IIID) AND (IIIE) OF SECTION 28, THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER BEARS TO THE TOTA L TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE THIRD PROV ISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) STATES THAT IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE HAVING EXPORT TU RNOVER EXCEEDING RS. 10 CRORES, SIMILAR ADDITION OF NINETY PER CENT OF T HE SUMS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIID) OF SECTION 28 ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE HA S THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT (A) HE HAD AN OPT ION TO CHOOSE EITHER THE DUTY DRAWBACK OR THE DUTY ENTITLEMENT PASS BOOK SCH EME, BEING THE DUTY REMISSION SCHEME; AND (B) THE RATE OF DRAWBACK CRED IT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CUSTOMS DUTY WAS HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF CREDIT ALL OWABLE UNDER THE DUTY ENTITLEMENT PASS BOOK SCHEME, BEING THE DUTY REMISS ION SCHEME. THEREFORE, IF THE ASSESSEE HAVING EXPORT TURNOVER O F MORE THAN RS.10 CRORES DOES NOT SATISFY THESE TWO CONDITIONS, HE WI LL NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE ADDITION OF PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB UNDER THE TH IRD PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 8OHHC 22. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION WOULD SHOW THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS AN EXPORT TURNOVER EXCEEDING RS.10 CRORES AND HAS MADE PROFITS ON TRANSFER OF DEPB UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 28, HE WOULD NO T GET THE BENEFIT OF ADDITION TO EXPORT PROFITS UNDER THIRD OR FOURTH PR OVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 8OHHC, BUT HE WOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF EXCL USION OF A SMALLER FIGURE FROM PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS UNDER EXPLANA TION (BAA) TO SECTION 8OHHC OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NOTHING IN EXPLANATIO N (BAA) TO SECTION 8OHHC TO SHOW THAT THIS BENEFIT OF EXCLUSION OF A S MALLER FIGURE FROM PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE HAVING AN EXPORT TURNOVER EXCEEDING RS.1O CRORES. IN OTHER WO RDS, WHERE THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF AN ASSESSEE EXCEEDS RS. 10 CRORES, HE D OES NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF ADDITION OF NINETY PER CENT OF EXPORT INCENTIVE UNDER CLAUSE (IIID) OF SECTION 28 TO HIS EXPORT PROFITS, BUT HE GETS A HIG HER FIGURE OF PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS, WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTS IN COMPUTATION O F A BIGGER EXPORT PROFIT. THE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, WAS NOT RIGHT IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPORT TURNOVER EX CEEDING RS. 10 CRORES AND AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFIL THE CONDITIONS S ET OUT IN THE THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 8OHHC (III), THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITL ED TO A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8OHHC ON THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF DEPB AND WITH A VIEW TO GET OVER THIS DIFFICULTY THE ASSESSEE WAS C ONTENDING THAT THE PROFITS ON TRANSFER OF DEPB UNDER SECTION 28 (IIID) WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB. IT IS A WELL-SETTLED PRINCI PLE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION OF A TAXING STATUTE THAT A SUBJECT W ILL BE LIABLE TO TAX AND WILL UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P LTD ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2006 (ASST YEAR 2003-04) 5 BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM TAX ACCORDING TO THE STRICT LANGUAGE OF THE TAXING STATUTE AND IF AS PER THE WORDS USED IN EXPL ANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 8OHHC READ WITH THE WORDS USED IN CLAUSES (IIID) AN D (IIIE) OF SECTION 28, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 8OHHC ON EXPORT PROFITS, THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DEDUCTION CANNOT BE DE NIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA). 8 GROUND NO.4 IS REGARDING NETTING OF INTEREST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 9 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT IN THE RECENT DECISION, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF M/S ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT LTD IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1914 OF 2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 8.2.2012 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 3 AS UNDER: 3. FOR APPRECIATING THE SECOND ISSUE, WE MAY REFER VERY BRIEFLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING A DEDUCTION OF RS.34,44,2 4,827/- UNDER SECTION 8OHHC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DEDUCTING NINETY PER CENT OF THE GROSS INTEREST AND GROSS RENT RECEIVED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING THE DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 8OHHC AND ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 8OHHC TO RS.2,36,25,053/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAI NST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S), WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCLUDING NINETY PER CENT OF THE GROSS INTEREST AND GROSS RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WH ILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 8OHHC. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL (FOR SHORT THE TRIBUNAL). THE TRIBUNAL HELD, RELYING O N THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. SI-IN R AM HONDA POWER EQUIP [(2007) 289 ITR 475 (DELHI)], THAT NETTING OF THE INTEREST COULD BE ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND INTEREST INCOME AND REMANDED THE MA TTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO REMANDED T HE ISSUE OF NETTING OF THE RENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH THE DIRECTION TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE RENT ON THE SAME FLATS AGAINST WHICH UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P LTD ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2006 (ASST YEAR 2003-04) 6 RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE STAFF AND IF SUCH R ENT WAS PAID THEN SUCH RENT IS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE RENTAL INCOME FOR TH E PURPOSE OF EXCLUSION OF BUSINESS INCOME FOR COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80HHC. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE REVENUE FILE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND THE HIGH COURT HAS DIRECTED THAT ON REMAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. ASI AN STAR CO. LTD. [(2010) 326 ITR 56 (BOM)] IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHILE DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF TH E BUSINESS AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC, NINETY PER CENT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS TOWARDS INTEREST AND NOT NINETY PER CENT OF THE NET RECEIPTS TOWARDS INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS IN BANKS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. 10 ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE; HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE QUANTUM OF EXPEND ITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF INTEREST INCOME FOR NETTING PURPOSE. 11 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH , DAY OF MAR 2012 SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/ ( (( ( RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH RAJENDRA SINGH ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( (( ( VIJAY VIJAY VIJAY VIJAY PAL RAO PAL RAO PAL RAO PAL RAO ) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 9 TH , MAR 2012 RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* UNIVERSAL CAPSULES P LTD ITA NO. 4501/MUM/2006 (ASST YEAR 2003-04) 7 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI