DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), MUMBAI V. JAI CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4587/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5638 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV GUBGOTRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 14A; 80IB; 10B

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F, MUMBAI , . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.4711 & 4712/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S JAI CORP LTD., 11-B, MITTAL TOWER, B-WING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 / VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), AIR INDIA BUILDING, ROOM NO.1925, 19 TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ( !'#$ /ASSESSEE) ( % / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAACJ2591A ITA NOS.4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(4), AIR INDIA BUILDING, ROOM NO.1925, 19 TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 / VS. M/S JAI CORP LTD., 11-B, MITTAL TOWER, B-WING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 ( % / REVENUE) ( !'#$ /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AAACJ2591A ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 2 !'#$ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA % / REVENUE BY SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA & %' ( $) / DATE OF HEARING : 26/11/2018 ( $) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/01/2019 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH ( VICE PRESIDENT ) THIS BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE AS WE LL AS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ALL DATED 02/03/2017 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE (ITA NO.4711/MUM/2017), WHEREIN, THE FIRST GROUND R AISED PERTAINS TO CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER TO ALLOCATE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,22,73,763/- TO 80IB AND 10B UNITS. THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET CONTENDED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DA TED 16/03/2016 REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 3 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER, THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16/03/2016 (ITA NO.4837 & 4737/MUM/2014) FOR READY REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- THESE CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI-41 {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, DATE D 28.03.2014 PASSED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143( 3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, DATED 19.02.2013 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010-11. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 4837/MUM/2014 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOCATE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES TO 801B AND 10B UNITS AND REWORKING TOTAL DISALLOWANCE AT RS.79.92 LAKHS. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAID ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 2.THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS,20.00 LAK HS ON ADHOC BASIS IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME OF 801B/10B UNITS. THE H ON'BLE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SAID INCOMES WERE EAR NED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS MANUFACTURING BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGL Y THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF U/S. 801B/10B IN RESPECT OF THE SAME 3.THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) READ WITH RUL E 8D. 4. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE IN COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE ULS.14A AT RS.154.30 LACS AS AGAINSTTHE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.56.17 LACS COMPUTED BY THE APPEL LANT. 5. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN CHARGING ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 4 INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 6. EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS INDEP ENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR T O AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MAD E BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI K. MOHANDAS, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 4. IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE A CTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN ALLOCATING HEAD OFFICE EXPENSE S TO UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AND 10B, AND THEREBY REWORKING TOTAL DISALLOWANCE AT RS.79.92 LAKHS. 4.1. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING COLD ROLLED COILS, GALVANIZED COILS, GALVANIZED CORRUGATED SHEETS, WOVEN SACKS, FABRICS, JUMBO BAGS AND PARTIALLY ORIENTED YARN. THREE UNITS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB AND 10B. TWO UNITS SHOULD CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB AND ONE UNIT U/S 10B. 4.2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E AO NOTED THAT NO PART OF EXPENDITURE OF HEAD OFFICE/CO RPORATE OFFICE AND INDIRECT EXPENSES WERE ALLOCATED TO ANY OF THE 4 JAI CORP LTD. AFORESAID UNITS IN RESPECT OF WHICH D EDUCTIONS U/S 80IB AND 10B HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ( HEREIN AFTER CALLED AS TAX EXEMPT UNITS). THE AO HELD THAT PART OF THE HEAD OFFICE/ CORPORATE OFFICE EXPENSES AND OTHE R INDIRECT EXPENSES WAS DEFINITELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO TH E OPERATION OF TAX EXEMPT UNITS. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE MANUFACTURING UNITS AS WELL AS CORPORATE OFFICE AND THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR CORPO RATE OFFICE PERTAIN TO HEAD OFFICE ONLY AND NO PART THER EBY COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY OF THE UNITS. THE AO DID NOT A CCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE WORKED OUT A SUM OF RS.96,87,500/- BEING HEAD OFFICE EXPENDITURE RELATE D TO THE ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 5 AFORESAID UNITS BY MAKING AND AD HOC ADDITION OF 25 % IN THE ALLOCATION SHEET, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE AO, ON NO PREJUDICE BASIS. 4.3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO W ERE REITERATED AND IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CORPOR ATE OFFICE PLAYS A VERY NEGLIGIBLE ROLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE MANUFACTURING UNITS. THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS WAS A TECHNICAL PROCESS WHICH WAS HANDLED BY THE TECHNICA L STAFF AVAILABLE IN THE UNITS AND PURCHASES/ SALES AND OTH ER OPERATIONS WERE ALSO HANDLED BY THE SPECIALIZED STA FF DEPUTED AT THE RESPECTIVE UNITS. IT WAS FURTHER CON TENDED THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF CORPORATE OFFICE LOOK AFTER THE BR OADER POLICIES OF THE COMPANY AND DEAL WITH THE MATTERS R ELATING TO THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY WITH STATE/ CENTRAL GOVE RNMENT. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED IN NUTSHELL THAT NO EXPENDITU RE OF THE CORPORATE OFFICE/HO SHOULD BE ALLOCATED AND ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR RS.96,87,500/- SHOULD BE DELETED . THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE BUT HELD THAT COMMON EXPENSES AND HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE APPORTIONED AMONGST THE VARIOUS UNITS OR UNDE RTAKINGS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE HO/CORPORATE OFFICE INC URS EXPENDITURE FOR PROVIDING FACILITIES AND SERVICES W HICH ARE COMMON TO ALL THE UNITS. HE FURTHER HELD THAT APPEL LANT HAD A NUMBER OF UNITS WHICH WERE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHE R. THUS, IN CASE COMMON EXPENSES OF HEAD OFFICE ARE NO T ALLOCATED TO TAX EXEMPT UNITS, IT WILL LEAD TO INFL ATION OF PROFITS OF SUCH UNITS. LD. CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE J UDGMENT OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD. 110 TTJ (MUM) 502, IN SUPPOR T OF HIS VIEW THAT THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE DEFEATS BASIC PRINCIPLE OF TAXATION WHEREBY ONLY NET INCOME I.E. GROSS INCOME LESS EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED. HE ALSO RELIED UPON ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN CASE OF DCIT VS. EASTERN MEDIKIT LTD. 100 TTJ 382 ( DEL) FOR UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ALLOCATING TH E ACTUAL EXPENDITURE TO ALL THE UNITS, UNLESS THERE WERE VAL ID REASONS TO EXCLUDE A PARTICULAR UNIT. 4.4. BUT, WITH RESPECT TO QUANTIFICATION OF HEAD OF FICE EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO TAX EXEMPT UNITS, LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FULLY ACCEPT STAND OF THE AO AND SUGGESTED ANOTHER WORKING ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 6 ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN ANALYSIS. WE FIND IT APPROP RIATE THAT IS OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: COMING NOW TO THE QUANTUM OF HO EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO THE THREE UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10B/80-IB, IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE ALLOCATION OF RS.77.50 LAKHS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED PROPER WORKING AS WELL AS BASIS F OR THE SAID ALLOCATION. HOWEVER, IT IS FOUND THAT INSTEAD OF UN DERTAKING THAT EXERCISE AFTER IDENTIFICATION OF ACTUAL EXPENS ES INCURRED AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE, THE A.O. ALSO ADOPTED AN A D HOC APPROACH AND CALCULATED A SUM OF RS.96,87,500/- AFT ER INCREASING THE APPELLANT'S ALLOCATION BY 25%. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT THE ALLOCATION MADE BY THE A.O. ALSO LACKED A SOUND OR SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS SUCH. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED A 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE WORKIN G CONTAINING BREAK UP OF TOTAL HO EXPENSES WHICH ARE 'NOT RELATED TO INVESTMENT ACTIVITY' FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A SUCH AS REMUNERATION OF MD, DIRECTOR (WORKS ), VP (HR), COMPANY SECRETARY, MANAGER INDIRECT TAXATION) , ADMN. MANAGER, PURCHASE MANAGER & VP-REAL ESTATE, L EGAL/ PROFESSIONAL CHARGES, AUDITOR'S REMUNERATION, RATES AND TAXES, INSURANCE, POSTAGE AND TELEGRAM, SHARE DEPARTMENT E XPENSES/ SHARE TRANSFER AGENT FEES, LISTING FEE AND PRINTING AND STATIONERY EXPENSES, TRAVELLING/ LOCAL CONVEYANCE/ VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES OF MARKETING AND OTHER STAFF, GUES T HOUSE EXPENSES FOR FACTORY STAFF, SOCIETY MAINTENANCE CHA RGES, OTHER (MISCELLANEOUS) EXPENSES ETC. THE SAID WORKING IS A TTACHED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THIS ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID WOR KING REVEALS THAT THE EXPENSES FALLING UNDER THIS CATEGO RY ARE BROADLY THE COMMON HO EXPENSES WHICH ARE TO BE CONS IDERED FOR ALLOCATION AMONG 13 UNITS AS UNDER:- S.NO. PARTICULARS (RS. IN LACS) 1 SALARIES (S. NO.15 97.53 2 PAYMENT OF AUDITORS (S.NO.14) 73.82 3 EXPENSES UNDER THE HEADS MENTIONED AT S. NOS. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,17 & 18OF THE WORKING FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT 9.29 4 RATES AND TAXES (OUT OF RS.24.51 LAKHS DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT, ONLY RS.15.22 LAKHS IS RELATABLE TO INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY) 346.34 TOTAL 346.34 ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 7 THE ABOVE TABLE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING VARIATIONS F ROM THE WORKING FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT:- ONLY 50% OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR'S REMUNERATION (RS.13.1.$ LAKHS) HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR ALLOCATIO N TO THE UNITS AND THE BALANCE RS.13.17 LAKHS IS CONSIDERED ATTRIBUTABLE TO INVESTMENT ACTIVITY INVOLVING MANAG EMENT OF INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF OVER RS.1800 CRORES. PAYMENT TO AUDITORS HAS BEEN APPORTIONED EQUALLY AM ONG THE UNITS AS WELL AS THE CORPORATE OFFICE. INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT FEES (SR.NO.16) FOR DEBENTURE S (RS.50.37 LAKHS) IS RELATABLE TO THE ACTIVITIES CAR RIED OUT AT THE CORPORATE OFFICE AND HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH INTE REST INCOME EARNED BY THE CORPORATE OFFICE. AS SUCH, THI S CANNOT BE ALLOCATED AMONG THE UNITS 5.3.3 THE A.O. IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO VERIFY T HE REVISED WORKING OF ALLOCABLE/COMMON HO EXPENSES FROM THE RECORD. CONSIDERING THE AGGREGATE OF THESE SUMS FOR APPORTIONMENT EQUALLY AMONG 13 UNITS OF THE APPELLA NT IN LINE WITH PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, THE AMOUNT ALLO CABLE TO THE THREE UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/SS.10B AND 801 B COMES TO RS.79.92 LAKHS (346.34 X 3 / 13) OR RS.26.64 LAK HS PER UNIT. THIS TURNS OUT TO BE MORE OR LESS CLOSE TO TH E AMOUNT OF RS77.0 LAKHS INITIALLY WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IS, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTIO NS U/S 10B AND 80-LB IN RESPECT OF THE ELIGIBLE UNITS AFTE R CONSIDERING THE REVISED ALLOCATION OF COMMON HO EXP ENSES AS WORKED OUT ABOVE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUNDS BEARING NOS.2 AND 3 OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE. 4.5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD. COUNSEL THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THAT TH E CORPORATE OFFICE HAS SEPARATE STREAM OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, TOTAL EXPENSES OF HEAD OFFICE CANNOT BE ALLOCATED TO ALL THE UNITS. IT WAS SUGGESTED BY THE LD. COUNS EL THAT 50% OF THE HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO HEAD ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 8 OFFICE AND BALANCE EXPENDITURE CAN BE ALLOCATED TO ALL OTHER UNITS, WHETHER TAXABLE OR TAX EXEMPT. HE SUBMITTED A CHART SHOWING A WORKING OF HEAD OFFICE EXPENSES ALLOCABLE TO 10B AND 80IB UNITS AS WAS DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN SU PPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZANDU PHARMACEUTIC ALS WORKS LTD. V. CIT 350 ITR 366, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHILE COMPUTING PROFIT AND GAINS FOR AN UNDERTAKING , ONLY EXPENSES RELATING THERETO CAN BE DEDUCTED. 4.6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED THAT ALLOCATION OF HE AD OFFICE EXPENSES AS DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FACTS AND NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED THERE IN. 4.7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. LD. COUNSEL HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGME NT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZANDU PHARMACEUTICALS WORKS LTD. (SUPRA) FOR THE PROPOSIT ION THAT ONLY EXPENSES RELATING TO THE CONCERNED UNDERTAKING CAN BE DEDUCTED WHILE COMPUTING ITS TAXABLE INCOME. WE RESPECTFULLY ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID JUDGMENT. WE FIND THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THIS PROPOS ITION AND THERE IS NO QUARREL BY ANY ONE ON THIS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION. BUT THE ISSUE INVOLVED HERE IS THAT TH ERE ARE CERTAIN COMMON EXPENSES WHICH HAVE TO BE ALLOCATED IN DIFFERENT UNITS SO THAT TRUE PROFITS OF THE UNITS C OULD BE WORKED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THIS PRO POSITION THAT COMMON EXPENSES NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT. THE ON LY QUARREL IS UPON THE ISSUE I.E. HOW AND HOW MUCH OF THE EXPENSES NEED TO BE ALLOCATED AMONGST DIFFERENT UNI TS. THE AO HAS DONE THE ALLOCATION ON AD-HOC BASIS, LD. CIT (A) DID ACCEPT THE WORKING OF THE AO, AND ON THE BASIS OF H IS OWN ANALYSIS HE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GIVE RELATIVELY MORE RATIONAL WORKING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PRINCIPLE, BUT CONTENDED THAT ONLY 50% OF THE HO EXPENSES COULD BE ALLOCATED AND REMAINING 50% SHOUL D BE CHARGED TO HO ONLY. THE ONLY REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE HEAD OFFICE HAS ITS OWN STREAM OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, ONLY 50% OF THE EXP ENSES SHOULD BE ALLOCATED. ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 9 4.8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL AND FIND SOME FORCE THEREIN. IT IS AN A CCEPTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT HEAD OFFICE HAS ITS OWN STREA M OF INCOME. THUS, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE HEAD OFFICE/CORPORATE OFFICE WERE INCURRED AS COMMON EXPENSES. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF THE HEAD OFFICE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A VAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION IN OTHER UNITS. THUS, NEXT QUESTION ARISES IS THAT HOW MUCH PORTION OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF HEAD OFFICE/CORPORATE OFFICE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED AS COMMON EXPENSES, AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION TO ALL THE UNITS . THE LD. COUNSEL HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY THAT 50% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF HEAD OFFICE/CORPORATE OFFICE, ON AN AD-HOC BASIS, S HOULD BE TAKEN AS THE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THE INCOME EARN ED BY THE HEAD OFFICE, AND BALANCE 50% CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION TO ALL THE UNITS. BUT WE FIND THAT LD. C OUNSEL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY TRANSPARENT, SCIENTIFIC OR CONCRETE B ASIS OF BIFURCATION, NOR HAS HE GIVEN ANY REASONING AS TO W HY THESE EXPENSES SHOULD BE BIFURCATED ON FIFTY-FIFTY BASIS. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY US THAT EVEN LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD NOT EXA MINED THIS ASPECT FROM THIS ANGLE. THIS ISSUE IS LIKELY T O HAVE FAR REACHING IMPLICATIONS AND MAY CREATE HISTORY IN ASS ESSEES HANDS IN OTHER YEARS AS WELL. THEREFORE, PRINCIPALL Y ACCEPTING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TOTAL EXPE NSES INCURRED BY HO/CO ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION, BUT FOR DETERMINING THAT HOW MUCH PORTION OF THESE EXPENSES IS AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION TO ALL THE UNITS, WE SEND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE AO FOR REEXAMINING THIS ISSUE AND FINDI NG OUT SOME FAIR, RATIONAL, TRANSPARENT AND SCIENTIFIC BAS IS OF BIFURCATION OF THESE EXPENSES AND THEIR ALLOCATION AMONG ALL THE UNITS. THE AO SHALL DECIDED THIS ISSUE AFRESH A FTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDE NCES AS MAY BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS FOR WHICH THE AO SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO RAI SE ALL THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES IN THIS REGARD. THUS, WITH THESE DIRECTIONS WE SEND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE AO. GROUND NO.1 MAY BE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NO.2: IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN CONFIRMING THE ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 10 DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20.00 LAKHS ON AD-HOC BASIS IN R ESPECT OF OTHER INCOME OF 80IB/10B UNITS. 5.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E AO MADE AN AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20.00 LAKHS ON TH E GROUND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH UNIT WISE DETA ILS AS TO HOW THE ITEMS LIKE INTEREST, MISCELLANEOUS INCOME E TC. IN RESPECT OF TAX EXEMPT UNITS WERE ACCOUNTED BY THESE UNITS IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 5.2. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE MA TTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO RE ASON TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20.00 LACS ON ESTIMATE BASI S WHICH WAS TOTALLY WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCES. BUT LD. CIT(A) W ITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS CONFIRMED THE STAND OF THE AO. 5.3. SINCE WE HAVE SENT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1, BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, AND WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE R AISED IN GROUND NO.2 IS RELATED TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUN D NO.1 THEREFORE, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND THIS ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, IN TERMS OF OUR DIRECTION AS GIVEN IN GROUND NO.1 ABOVE. THUS, GROUND NO.2 ALSO MAY BE TREATED A S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NOS. 3 & 4: THESE GROUNDS ARE WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A WHICH HAS BEEN PARTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) AND REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL AGAINST THE R ELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT HAS BEEN SUBM ITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THESE ISSUES ARE COVERED BY TH E JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10. 6.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSU E. IT IS NOTED THAT TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A HAS TWO COMPONENTS I.E. INTEREST AND EXPENSES. IT IS NOTED THAT WITH REGARD TO INTEREST OF LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CATEGORI CAL FINDING RELYING UPON THE ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST ON SPECIFIC BORROWING US ED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 11 MODERNIZATION OF STEEL DIVISION, ACQUISITION OF PLA NT AND MACHINERY FOR TEXTILE DIVISION AND WORKING CAPITAL FOR PLASTIC DIVISION ETC.; THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITUR E HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE; THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY ESTABLISHED THE NEXUS BET WEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THEIR USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INV ESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN THAT NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT. IT HAS BEEN FUR THER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN TH E FACTS IN THIS YEAR, THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FACTS OF THIS YEAR AND ORDERS PA SSED IN EARLIER YEARS. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) WITH REGARD TO INTEREST. 6.3. WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED VOLUNTARY DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATING TO RS.56,17,671/-. HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO, AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.14.30 LAKHS, OVER AND ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY. WHILE DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IT WAS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ON THE ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ALL ITS UNITS WERE SEPARA TE AND INDEPENDENT AND CORPORATE OFFICE PLAYED NEGLIGIBLE ROLE AND NO PART OF ACTUAL EXPENSES WAS ALLOCABLE TO THE UNI TS WHEN ISSUE INVOLVED WAS WITH RESPECT TO ALLOCATION OF CO MMON HO EXPENSES TO UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10B OR 80IB. BUT, ON THE CONTRARY, WHILE COMPUTING DISALLO WANCE U/S 14A THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT COMMON EXPENSES OF RS.4,81,82,918/-, OUT OF WHICH ONLY RS.4,18,139/- ( I.E. 8.69%) WAS ALLOCATED TO CORPORATE OFFICE AND THE BA LANCE ABOVE 91% OF EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOCATED AMONG ALL TH E 13 UNITS. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY HIM THAT THE BASI S OF ALLOCATION OF COMMON EXPENSES WERE ALSO PECULIAR AN D UNACCEPTABLE. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT APPLY ANY LOGICAL OR SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE PURPO SE OF ALLOCATION OF COMMON HO EXPENSES AND THAT THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION KEPT CHANGING DEPENDING UPON OWN CONVENI ENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDINGLY HE REJECTED THE BA SIS OF ALLOCATION DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.4. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT WE HAVE SENT BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE AO GROUND NOS.1 & 2 WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF ALLOCA TION OF ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 12 HEAD OFFICE OF EXPENSES IS INVOLVED. WE FIND THAT T HE FACTUAL ANALYSIS TO BE MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MAY HA VE BEARING UPON THIS ISSUE, AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES (EXCLUDING INTEREST) BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH, AFTER GIVING A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E SHALL BE FREE TO RAISE ALL THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES BEFO RE THE AO. THUS, GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE MAY BE TREATED AS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO.5: THIS GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF INTEREST AND DISMISSED AS CONSEQUENTIAL. 8. GROUND NOS. 6 & 7: THESE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL AND DO NOT NEED ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION AND THEREFORE DI SMISSED. NOW, WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO.4737/MUM/2014 9. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 6: THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE GROUNDS IS WITH REGARD TO RELIEF G IVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), OUT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 14A. 9.1. IN OUR ORDER WHILE DEALING WITH GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED B Y THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, REVENUES GROUND WITH REGARD TO INTEREST STANDS. DISMISSED. WITH REGARD TO GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A, WE HA VE SENT BACK THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR REEXAMINATION AND RE-ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE , GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALSO SENT BACK TO THE AO WITH OUR DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN ABOVE. THUS, THESE GRO UNDS MAY BE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH ASSESSEES AND REVENUES A PPEALS MAY BE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 2.2. WE FIND THAT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER (PAGE-3), PARA-4, THE TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO ALLOCATING HEA D OFFICE ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 13 EXPENSES TO UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80IB AND 10B OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENT REWORKING, TOTAL DISALLOWANCE CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND THER EAFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION FROM HON'BLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZANDU PHARMACEUTICALS WORKS LT D. VS CIT (350 ITR 366) REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRE SH (PARA- 4.8 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL). IT WAS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO RAISE ALL LEG AL AND FACTUAL ISSUES AND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ON THE SAME REASONING, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECT ED TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN THE AFORESAID OR DER DATED 16/03/2016 ON THE ISSUE IN HAND, THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. SO FAR AS, GROUND NO.2, WITH RESPECT TO CONFIRMI NG THE DISALLOWING OF INCOME EARNED ON SALE OF BUILDING MA TERIAL AMOUNTING TO RS.3,15,813/- AND EXCLUDING THE SAME W HILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB UNIT, IS CONCERNED, DUE TO SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT INVOLVED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND. THE LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNS EL FOR ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 14 THE ASSESSEE, CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSE D AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE LAST GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE-8D(2)(III) OF THE ACT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SO FAR AS THE INTEREST COMPONENT IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE EXPENSES AT THE RATE OF 0.5% IS CONCERNED, IT WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS PLEADED THAT F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE TRIBUNAL REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR FRESH EXAMINATION, THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTRADICT ED BY THE LD. DR. 4.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. CONSIDERI NG THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, WE DIRECT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND EXAMINE THE CASE OF THE ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 15 ASSESSEE. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE (ITA NO.4587/MUM/2017) , WHEREIN, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED PERTAINS IN HOLDING THAT THE SUO-MOTO DISALL OWANCE, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) AS SUFFICIENT WHILE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION APPLYIN G RULE- 8D OF THE RULES FOR COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE. 5.1. DURING HEARING, THE LD. DR, DEFENDED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WHE REAS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT NO BO RROWED FUNDS WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OUR ATTENTION W AS INVITED TO PARA-6.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 16/03/2016, WHEREIN, THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) WAS UPHELD. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR ARE IDEN TICAL. 5.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS RIGHT IN RE- ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 16 COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R-8D OF THE RULES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME AND THE SA ME HAS BEEN CLAIMED EXEMPT. IT IS NOTED THAT BEFORE T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AN ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA-9.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE AS SESSEE MADE SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.61,09,988/- IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE WORKING OF THE SAME I S ALSO DISCUSSED IN THE AFORESAID PARA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED AND BIFURCATION IN PROPORTION TO INVESTME NT. NO CONTRARY FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) NOR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE, THUS, THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS AFFIRMED, RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 6. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO.4712/MUM/2017). THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS WITH RESPECT TO CONFIRMATION OF FURTHER DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R.-8D (2)(III) OF THE RULES. ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 17 6.1. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, EXPLAINED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES F RESH EXAMINATION AS THE FACTUAL MATRIX HAS NOT BEEN CONS IDERED PROPERLY. THE LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTION, IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS EXAMINED AFRESH. CONSIDERING THE TOTALI TY OF FACTS AND THE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE, IF A NY, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THUS, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE (ITA NO.4588/MUM/2017), WHEREIN, THE STAND OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS BEEN CHALLE NGED, WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WAS SUFFI CIENT AND RULE-8D OF THE RULES WAS RIGHTLY APPLIED. 7.1. DURING HEARING, THE LD. DR, ADVANCED IDENTICA L ARGUMENTS AS HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE GROUND. ON THE OTHER ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 18 HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CONTENDED T HAT IT IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND RAISED FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EAR. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THERE I S NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) AS THE FACTS/ISSUES ARE IDENTIC AL TO ITA NO.4587/MUM/2017), THUS, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 26/11/2018. SD/- SD/- ( G. MANJUNATHA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT & ' MUMBAI; . DATED : 11/01/2019 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . , %&'()*)+' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /01 / THE APPELLANT 2. 2301 / THE RESPONDENT. ITA NOS.4711, 4712, 4587 & 4588/MUM/2017 M/S JAI CORP LTD. 19 3. 4 4 & 5$ , ( / ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 4 4 & 5$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 7%8 2$ ! , 4 /) /! , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9' :' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI