SULPHUR MILLS LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4631/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1031 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL; K S CHOKSI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 234B; 14A; 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) SULPHUR MILLS LTD., 604/605, 349-BUSINESS POINT, WESTERN HIGHWAY EXPRESS, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 020 PAN: AABCS 8739K ..... APPELLA NT VS. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 8(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN,M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 .... RESPONDEN T APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.S.CHOKSI & SMT.M.K.PATEL RESPONDENT BY : MS. BEENA SANTOS H DATE OF HEARING : 10/02/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/05/2017 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2009-10 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TW O SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT(A)-18, MUMBAI DATED 03/03/2011 & 01/11/2012 , WHICH IN TURN, ARISE OUT OF ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UN DER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 1 6/12/2009 & 15/12/2011. 2 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) 2. FIRST, WE MAY TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IN TH IS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH WE SHA LL DEAL IN SERIATIM. THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS, INTER-ALIA, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF SULPHUR PRODUCTS AND AGRO CHEMICAL S. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT FILE THE RETURN OF IN COME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,30,49,668/-, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO A SCRUTI NY ASSESSMENT, WHEREBY THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.12,35,26,1 20/-, AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES, WHICH WAS CARRIED IN APPE AL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF AND NOT BEING SATISFI ED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH R EGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE DEDUCT ION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. NOTABLY, AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT OF RS.3,89,3 9,967/- WITH RESPECT TO EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT AT PANOLI, AGAINST WHICH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.3,19,46,548/-. THE FIRST LIMB OF T HE DISPUTE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOMES BY WAY OF INTEREST RS.40,63,409/- AND CHEQUE BOUNCING CHARGES RECOVERED RS.2,12,365/-, WHICH HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B O F THE ACT. INSTEAD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AFORESAID RECEIPTS AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY THE DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WAS DENIED. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO AFF IRMED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) 3.1 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS REPRESENT INCOME EARNED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE INTEREST IS ON DEPOSITS KEPT WITH THE BANK AS MARGIN MONEY IN LIEU OF THE GUARANTEES PROVIDED BY THE BANK. SECONDLY, WIT H REGARD TO THE CHEQUE BOUNCING CHARGES, IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME HAV E BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS WHEN THEIR CHEQUES ARE RETUNED BY THE BAN K DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT ONCE CHEQUES A RE RETURNED BY THE BANK, SOME BANK CHARGES ARE ALSO LEVIED. THE CUSTOMERS I SSUE A FRESH CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH BANK CHARGES AND SUCH RECOV ERIES ARE CREDITED INTO THE CHEQUE BOUNDING CHARGES ACCOUNT. IT IS FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT THE CHEQUE BOUNCING CHARGES RECOVERED IS NOT A SOURCE O F INDEPENDENT INCOME, INASMUCH AS, THE CORRESPONDING BANK CHARGES HAVE BE EN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK WHEN THE CHEQUES ARE RETURNED BY THE BA NK. 3.2 ON THIS ASPECT, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO.9186/MUM/2010 DATED 01/01/2 010, WHEREIN ON SIMILARLY EARNED INTEREST INCOME ASESSEES CLAIM FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED. 3.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT QUITE CLEARLY CONCEDED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 01/01/2010(SUPRA). 3.4 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL STANDS, IN OUR VIEW , IN SO FAR AS THE ELIGIBILITY OF INTEREST INCOME FOR THE DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES 4 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE FOLLOW ING DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT:- 5.2.DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE AR CONTENDED THAT SECTION 10B WAS A SELF CONTAINING CODE,THAT NO ADJUSTMENT WAS PERMI SSIBLE WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S10B.HE REFERRED TO THE CASES OF ADVANC E DETERGENT LTD.(188 TAXMANN 15),NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD (153 TAXMANN 550);HRITNIK EXPORTS P.LTD.(IT APPEAL NO.219 AND 239 OF 2014);MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS(46 TAXM ANN .COM167);TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES(INDIA)LTD. (43 TAXMANN.COM.110); EMPIRE PUMPS PVT.LTD. (IT APPEAL NO.187 OF 2003); LUBRIZOL ADVANCE MATERIALS INDIA ( P.) LTD. (42TAXMANN.COM.263), GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD(233CTR240). WITH REGAR D TO OTHER FIVE ITEMS THE AR ARGUED THAT THE AO COULD NOT MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT WH ILE COMPUTING THE INCOME AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 10B,THAT THE INCOME WA S ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME,THAT SAME COULD NOT BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES,THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10B PROVIDED STRAIGHT JACKET FORMULA AND SAME HAD TO BE APPLIED.HE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF CENTURY TEXTILE S AND INDUSTRIES LTD. (ITA 3926/MUM/2005-AY01-02 DATED 16.5.2012), ARVIND FOOT WEAR (ITA 363/LUCK/2010 ORDER DT.27.8.13),TESSITURA MONTI INDIA(P) LTD. (IT A/7127/MUM/2010 AY05-06, DT.11.01. 2013).DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA.T HE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 5.3.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AS HE WA S OF THE OPINION THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE UNDER VARIOUS HEADS WAS NOT DE RIVED FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING-THOUGH IT COULD BE ATTRI BUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE.WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF INTEREST INCOME ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE HONBLE COURTS.THEY HAVE HELD THAT INTEREST RECEIVED FOR CUSTOMERS,INTEREST ON FDR WITH BANKS AND INTEREST O N DEPOSITS HAS TO BE TAKEN AS PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS ENTITLED FOR 10B DEDUCTION. WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE CASES OF ADVANCE DETERGE NT LTD.(SUPRA),NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA);HRITNIK EXPORTS P.LTD.(SUPRA);MOTOROLA INDIA ELECTRONICS (SUPRA); TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES(INDIA)LTD.(SUPRA); EMPIRE PU MPS PVT.LTD.(SUPRA);LUBRIZOL ADVANCE MATERIALS INDIA (P.)LTD.(SUPRA) IN OUR SUPP ORT. NOW, COMING TO THE OTHER FIVE ITEMS OF INCOME WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.1 0 A OR 10B OF THE ACT.HERE,WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORD ER OF TESSITURA MONTI INDIA(P) LTD.(SUPRA) AND SAME READS AS UNDER: 4.3 IT WOULD, THUS, APPEAR TO US THAT THE PROCESS OF DETERMINATION OF QUANTUM OF PROFITS DERI VED BY A 100% E.O.U. FROM THE RELEVANT EXPORTS WOULD INVOLVE THREE STEPS. THE SEC TION APPLIES ONLY TO AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING, I.E., A 100% E.O.U., RECEIVING EXPORT PROCEEDS IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. AS SUCH, THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE TO ASCER TAIN IF THE ASSESSEES UNDERTAKING IS AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING U/S.10B. THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED AS THE SECOND STEP , WHICH REPRESENTS THE MOST CRUCIAL STEP. THIS IS AS IT PROVIDES FOR THE PROFIT S DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING FROM THE 5 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE T O BE THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING IN A DEFINED RATIO, I.E., THAT OF ET TO TT. THE EXPRESSION PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING IS NOT DEFINED UND ER THE PROVISION. ONE THING, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR; THAT THE THIRD STEP, I.E., THE A DJUSTMENT BY WAY OF APPORTIONMENT OF SUCH PROFIT IN THE RATIO OF ET TO TT IS TOWA RD FURTHER LIMITING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING TO THAT DERIVED FROM EX PORTS ONLY. THIS IS AS THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS MUST BE FIRSTLY DERIVED BY THE UNDERTAKING AND, SECONDLY, FROM ITS EXPORTS (S. 10B(1)). AND IT IS THIS, THE THIRD STEP, THAT SEC. 10B(4) IS TOWARD. ALSO, AS A 100% E.O.U IS LICENSED TO UNDERTAKE ONLY EXPORTS, THE OT HER ELEMENT OF TT WOULD NORMALLY INCLUDE EITHER THE EXPORT PROCEEDS THAT ARE NOT BRO UGHT INTO INDIA WITHIN SIX MONTHS (OR SUCH EXTENDED PERIOD AS MAY BE ALLOWED) OR THE SALE PROCEEDS OF A PART OF ITS PRODUCTION THAT IT COULD UNDER THE TERMS OF THE 100 % EOU LICENSE SELL IN THE DOMESTIC MARKET, OR THE SALE OF OTHER PRODUCTS (OF THE ASSESSEES UNDERTAKING) WHICH ARISE INCIDENTALLY TO ITS OPERATIONS IN THE D OMESTIC MARKET. IN FACT, THE SECOND PROVISO TO THE PROVISION IS ONLY BY FINANCE ACT 200 2, W.E.F. 01/4/2003; ITS EARLIER VERSION, SINCE OMITTED, BEARING A TOLERANCE OF UP T O 25% OF THE TOTAL SALES FOR DOMESTIC TURNOVER. COMING TO THE SECOND STEP AFORE- SAID, THE WORDS BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING ARE WIDER IN AMBIT THAN THE WORDS PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKING AND COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SO PROVIDED WITH A PURPOSE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THEREFORE, ANY PROFIT WHICH IS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF TH E ASSESSEES UNDERTAKING WOULD QUALIFY TO BE THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UN DERTAKING, AND UPON SUITABLE APPORTIONMENT TOWARD EXCLUDING AS MUCH OF IT AS CAN BE REGARDED AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DOMESTIC TURNOVER OR NON-QUALIFIED EXPORTS, CAN BE SAID TO BE THE PROFITS DERIVED BY THE 100% E.O.U FROM EXPORTS, AS CONTEMPL ATED IN SECTION 10B(1), AND ON WHICH DEDUCTION THERE-UNDER IS TO BE ALLOWED. ALL T HAT WAS REQUIRED, IF NOT SO, WAS TO DEFINE THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS TO MEAN THE P ROFITS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WORD DERIVED WOULD CONTINUE TO CONTR OL OR GUIDE THE WORD PROFITS IN THE DEDUCTION PROVISION, BUT THE ACTIVITY FROM WHIC H THE SAME ARE DERIVED IS THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THAT COMPRISES THE BUSINESS OF TH E ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING, RATHER THAN BEING RESTRICTED STRICTLY TO THE ELIGIBLE UNDE RTAKING. AS SUCH, AS LONG AS A RECEIPT IS INTIMATELY AND INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED WI TH THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING, IT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED IN RECKONING TH E ELIGIBLE PROFITS U/S. 10B(1). CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE INTEREST INCOME. 3.5 IN SO FAR AS THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WITH RES PECT TO CHEQUE BOUNCING CHARGES, OF RS. 2,12,365/- IS CONCERNED, IN OUR VIE W, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE 6 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) EXCLUDED IS ONLY THE NET INCOME ON THIS COUNT, IF A NY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ASSERTING BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE CHEQUE BOUNCING CHARGES RECOVERED HAVE TO BE OF FSET AGAINST BANK CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONCE IT IS SO DONE , IT RESULTS IN NIL INCOME. THUS, THE SAME WOULD NOT EFFECT THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, WE DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A) OF THE ACT OF RS.2,83,264/- HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS ELI GIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, THE PLEA O F THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE IS ENHANCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AND, THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH RESPECT TO SUCH ENHANCED INCOME. IN THIS CONTEXT, RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 01/01/ 2010(SUPRA) WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. 4.1 THOUGH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT THE FACTUAL MATRIX BA SED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 01/01/2 010(SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. 4.2 HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, IN OUR VIEW, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SUCCEED IN VIEW OF THE PRECEDENT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT:- 2.FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AO DEALS WI TH DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18.59 LACS MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 10(B) 7 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADDED EXPENSES OF RS.18,59,902/-INADMISSIBLE U/S. 4 0(A)(IA) FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE EOU FOR THE PURPOSES OF CO MPUTATION OF DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE U/S.10B OF THE ACT, THAT IT HAD REDUCED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.17.67 LACS MADE IN THE EARLIER AY, WHICH WAS ADMISSIBLE IN VIE W OF THE SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT.AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAD INCREASED DEDUCTION ADM ISSIBLE U/S.10B, THAT THE SAME EXPENSES WERE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION IN SUB SEQUENT AY, THAT IT WOULD AFFECT THE DEDUCTION AT LEAST FOR ONE YEAR WHEN THE ASSESS EE WOULD NO LONGER REMAIN ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION, HE DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.18.59LACS WHILE COMPUTING THE ASSESSMENT. 2.1.AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA).BEFORE HIM,IT WAS A RGUED THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS LAST YEAR FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION, THAT IT WAS 5TH YEAR OF CLAIMIN G DEDUCTION,THAT THE PRESUMPTION OF AO WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.AFTER CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE FAA HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEDUCT AND PAY TDS IN TIME ON EXPENSES OF RS.18.59 LACS, T HAT THE EXPENSES WERE ADDED BACK IN COMPUTATION,THAT THE INCOME THEREBY WAS ENH ANCED ON WHICH DEDUCTION U/S. 10B WAS CLAIMED, THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION,THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD REDUCE DEDUCTI ON IN THE SUBSEQUENT AY.HE DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE. 2.2.BEFORE US,THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.ON A QUERY BY THE BENCH,HE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS WAS NOT THE LAST YEAR FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.10B.THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) RELIED U PON THE ORDER OF THE FAA.HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF S.B. BUILDERS AND DEVELOPER S(45 SOT 335)AND GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LIMITED (233CTR240)AND PYRAMID ENTE K PVT. LTD.(ITA 6186- 6400/MUM/2012 AY.09-10 DT.10.7. 2014). 2.3WE HAVE H EARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT I N THE CASE OF S.B. BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS(SUPRA), THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.IN THE CASE OF PYRAMID ENTEK PVT. LTD.(SUPRA),SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN.AFTER CONSIDE -RING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSU E AS UNDER : 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND CONSIDERED THE REL EVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE ISSUE OF CORRECTNESS OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WE FIND THAT EVEN THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS LIABLE TO BE DI SALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA), THE SAME WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 10B AS IT WOULD INCREASE THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITA NO. 6186/M/12 &ITA NO.6400/M/12 AY: 2009-10 5 HON'BLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEM PLUS JEWELLERY INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN WHILE DECIDING THE QUESTION OF GRANTING OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10A ON THE ENHANCED INCOME DUE TO DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYERS AS WELL AS EMPLOYEES C ONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/ESIC, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN P ARA-12 AS UNDER :- 12. BY REASON OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. [2009] 319 ITR 306 THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION WAS LIABLE TO BE AL LOWED, SINCE IT WAS DEPOSITED BY THE DUE DATE FOR THE FILING OF THE RETURN. THE PECU LIAR POSITION, HOWEVER, AS IT 8 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) OBTAINS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARISES OUT OF THE FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WHICH WAS EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT, THE COUR T IS INFORMED, BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE QUESTION OF L AW WHICH IS FORMULATED BY THE REVENUE PROCEEDS ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSED INC OME WAS ENHANCED DUE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EMPLOYER'S AS WELL AS THE EMPLO YEES' CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND/ESIC AND THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH IS CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS WHETHER ON THAT BASIS THE TRIBUNAL WAS J USTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 10A. ON THIS POSITION, IN THE PRESENT CASE IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE NET CON SEQUENCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EMPLOYER'S AND THE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION IS T HAT THE BUSINESS PROFITS HAVE TO THAT EXTENT BEEN ENHANCED. THERE WAS, AS WE HAVE AL READY NOTED, AN ADD BACK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME. ALL PROFITS OF THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE SALARIES P AID BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED, RELATED TO THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVIT Y. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND/ESIC PAYMENTS HAS BEEN MADE BECAUSE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS - SECTION 43B IN THE CASE OF THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUT ION AND SECTION 36(V) READ WITH SECTION 2(24)(X) IN THE CASE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S CONT RIBUTION WHICH HAS BEEN DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PLAIN CONSEQU ENCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE AND THE ADD BACK THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS AN INCREASE IN THE BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A THE ADDITION MADE O N ACCOUNT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROVIDENT FUND/ESIC PAYMENTS OUGHT TO BE IGN ORED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. NO STATUTORY PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT HAVING BEEN MADE , THE PLAIN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST FOL LOW. THE SECOND QUESTION SHALL ACCORDINGLY, STAND ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHILE GRANTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10 B IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) THEREFORE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. THE GROUND RAISED B Y THE REVENUE HAS ACCORDINGLY BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 8. IN THE RESULT ASSESSE ES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED.. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE, WE DECIDE GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE AO. 4.3 APART FROM THE AFORESAID, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES HAVE N OT BEEN CONSIDERED IN ORDER TO WORK OUT ELIGIBLE BUSINESS PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT:- 9 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) SR.NO. PARTICUALRS AMOUNT (RS.) AMOUNT (RS.) DISALLWOANCES EXPENSES DISALLOWED U/S 40(A) 283264 DONATIONS 11078 LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS 839793 LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES ON INVESTMENTS 556336 DEPRECIATION 3057751 PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS 69170 4817392 2. ALLOWANCES DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX 2004394 PROFIT ON INVESTMENTS (TAKEN AS RS.3869954- BY AO INSTEAD OF RS. 3809954/-) 60000 2064394 4.4 ON THIS ASPECT OUR DECISION IN THE EARLIER PARA WOULD HOLD GOOD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 4.5 THE LAST ASPECT WHICH HAS BEEN ARGUED WITH RESP ECT TO THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE A CT IS IN RELATION TO THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 10B OF THE ACT . THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL TURNOVER AD OPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCLUSIVE OF EXCISE DUTY, WHICH IS INAPP ROPRIATE AND THAT THE TOTAL TURNOVER SHOULD BE ADOPTED AFTER EXCLUDING THE ELEM ENT OF EXCISE DUTY. ON THIS ASPECT ALSO WE FIND ENOUGH MERIT IN THE PLEA O F THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN THE FIGURE OF EXPORT TOTAL TURNOVER(I.E THE NUMERAT OR) THE ELEMENT OF EXCISE DUTY IS NOT PRESENT, THEREFORE, IN THE DENOMINATOR ALSO I.E. IN THE FIGURE OF TOTAL TURNOVER, THE ELEMENT OF EXCISE DUTY SHOULD A LSO BE EXCLUDED FOR REASONS OF PARITY. 10 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) 4.6 IN THE RESULT, IN SO FAR AS, THE ISSUE RELATING TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE MATTER IS SENT BAC K TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE SAME, IN LINE WITH OUR AB OVE DISCUSSION. 5. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AT RS.3,08,871/-. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE EARN ED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.7,51,021/-, WHICH WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX. IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDS IN PARA 5.1 THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNIN G SUCH EXEMPT INCOME IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A AT RS.4,82,971/- BY APPLYING THE FORMULA CONTAINED IN RULE -8D OF THE I NCOME TAX RULES,1961( IN SHORT THE RULES). IN TERMS OF SUCH WORKING, ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.1,82,100/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IN TERMS OF RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES, RS.3,00,871/- AS OVERHEAD EXPENSES BY APPLYING RULE D 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES, THUS TOTALLING RS.4,82,971/-. THE CIT(A) SET-ASIDE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE RULES IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD., DCIT, 328 ITR 81 (BOM), WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ONWARDS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) RETAINED THE DISALLOWANCE TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.3,00,871/- BASED ON THE CALCULATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AG AINST SUCH ACTION OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 11 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) 5.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUO-MOTU DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.15,45, 376/- OUT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES IN TERMS OF SECTION 14A OF THE A CT. SECONDLY, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR OF 2006-07, THE CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE EXEMPT INCOME CAN BE E STIMATED AT 10% OF THE RELEVANT EXEMPT INCOME. 5.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BY POINTING OUT THAT THE DI SALLOWANCE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND, THEREFORE, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5.3 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. QUITE CLEARLY, THE CIT(A) RECORDS THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,08,871/- W AS AS PER THE CALCULATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. SO HOWEVER, IT IS NOTIC EABLE THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSE E HAS TAKEN THE ISSUE OF SUO-MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF LEGAL AND PROFESS IONAL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.15,45,376/-, WHICH HAS BEEN CANVASS ED BEFORE US. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE HAVE PERUSED PAGES 59 TO 60 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, WHEREIN IS PLACED THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WHIC H INTER-ALIA, INCLUDES AN ITEM OF INADMISSIBLE CLAIM OF RS.15,45,376/- ON ACC OUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES ON INVESTMENT. BE THAT AS IT MA Y, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET-ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE DISALLWOANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF TH E ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FRESH PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS ALREAD Y A SUO-MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IN ANY CASE, WE MAY CLARIFY HERE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE ENSUING REMAND 12 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE SUM OF RS.3,08,871/-, DISALLOW ED BY THE CIT(A). NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE A SSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER AFRESH ON THIS LIMITED ASPECT, AS PER LAW. THUS, ON THIS ISSUE ASSESSEE S UCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH RE GARD TO THE EXCISE DUTY ON CLOSING STOCK OF RS.1,80,19,914/-, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANC E OUT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO P.F AND ESIC ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BELATEDLY. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LD.REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT A SUM O F RS.17,01,186/- WAS DISALLOWED, WHEREAS THE CIT(A) HAS RETAINED THE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.1,63,579/- ONLY. WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILS OF SUCH DELAYED PAYMENTS, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT A SUM OF RS.1,52,856/- WAS PAID ON 29/05/2006, AS AGAINST THE DUE DATE OF 15/ 05/2006 AND THE OTHER AMOUNT OF RS.10723/- WAS PAID ON 25/01/2007 AS AGA INST THE DUE DATE OF 15/01/2007. 7.1 WHILE JUSTIFYING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE, TH E LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE B EEN MADE AFTER THE DUE DATES AS SPECIFIED IN THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND & MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, IN THE CONTEXT, OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT V. HINDUSTAN ORGANICS CHEMICALS LTD., ITA NO.399 OF 2012 DATED 11 TH JULY, 2014 IS FULLY APPLICABLE 13 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) AND THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS UNSUSTAINABLE. TH E JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GHA TGE PATIL TRANSPORT LTD., ITA NO.1002 & 1034 OF 2012 DATED 14 TH OCTOBER, 2014 IS ALSO DIRECTLY ON THE POINT AND IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS UNSUSTAINABLE. FOR THE SAID REASONS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. THE LAST GROUND IN THIS APPEAL, IS WITH REGARD T O THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B & 234C, WHICH IS CONSEQ UENTIAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 2007-0 8 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. NOW WE MAY TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES T O ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT O F INCOMES BY WAY OF CHEQUE BOUNCING AND DELAYED PAYMENT CHARGES. THE S AID DISPUTE STANDS ON SIMILAR FOOTING AS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY US IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE EARLIER PARAS. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ITA NO. 107/MUM/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE PARI-MATERIA TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY US IN ITA NO. 4631/MUM/2011 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08, OUR DECISION THEREIN SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ALSO. 11. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REG ARD TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.72,58,107/- UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THAT THERE WAS DEVIATION IN THE METHOD OF VA LUATION OF CLOSING STOCK 14 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) FROM THAT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE AC T. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO SUCH DEVIATION IN THE METHOD OF VALU ATION, THERE WAS AN UNDER ESTIMATE OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.72,58,107/-, WHICH WAS ADDED BACK TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED HIS OWN DECISION FOR AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND DIRECT ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CORRESPONDING CREDIT IN THE OPENING STOCK . AGAINST SUCH A DECISION OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 11.1 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS BUT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW ADJUSTMENTS IN THE VALUE OF OPENI NG STOCK, ETC. AS PER THE METHODOLOGY ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ON THIS LIMITED PLEA, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION FROM THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE . ACCORDINGLY, IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154A OF THE ACT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HIS MAK ING ADJUSTMENT TO THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK, BASED ON THE METHO DOLOGY ACCEPTED IN PAST YEARS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHAL L ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSIN G AN ORDER AFRESH. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/05/20 17 SD/- SD/- (RAM LAL NEGI) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 05/05/2017 15 ITA NO.4631/MUM/2011(AY. 2007-08) ITA NO.107/MUM/2013(AY. 2009-10) VM , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI