PERMA PIPE INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 14(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 471/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3154 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FALEE H BILIMARIA FD LS SH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Valuation report; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 92B; 234B

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K ** DS U;K;IHB EQACBZ ESAA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI JH TH + ,L + IUUW] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH VFER KQDYK] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471 /MUM/201 5 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11 ) PERMA PIPE INDIA PVT. LTD. KALYANIWALLA & MISTRY ARMY & NAVY BUILDING, 3 RD FLOOR, 148, M.G. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001. VS.` DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 14(20(20, AAYKAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO. 455, MAHARISHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. LFKK;H YS[KK LA[;K@TH VKB VKJ LA[;K@ PAN/GIR NO. AA ECP4835H APPELLANT RESPONDENT ORDER PER G .S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF DY. CIT CIR. 10(2), MUMBAI PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(1 3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 15.12.2014 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - FU/KZKFJFR FD VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY SHRI FALEE H. BILIMARIA JKTLO FD VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY SHRI N.K. CHAND AND SHRI JITENDER KUMAR LQUOKBZ FD RKJH[K @ DATE OF HEARING 08.07.2015 ?KKSK.KK FD RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 . 9 .2015 VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471/MUM/2015 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11) PAGE 2 OF 9 11, WHICH IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, MUMBAI (IN SHORT THE DRP) IN ORDER DATED 14.11.2014. 2. IN TH IS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) THE LEARNED DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDING BACK RS.8,66,364/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BEING THE LOSS ON SALE OF MACHINERY BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. HAVIN G REGARDS TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW, THE SAID ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME . 2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE, THE LEAR NED DRP ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE LOSS ON SALE OF CERTAIN MACHINERY ITEMS WAS REVENUE IN NATURE AND CONSEQUENT THERETO, IN ADDING BACK SUCH LOSS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON SUCH VALUE, WHICH WAS THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. 3) THE LEARNED DRP ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING AND ADDING BACK ROYALTY EXPENDITURE AGGREGAT ING TO RS.L,50,34,404/ - BY HOLDING THE SAME TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE DISALLOWANCE IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED, AND THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 4) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT DENIES THE LIABILITY TO THE LEVY OF SUCH INTEREST AND THE AS SESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME ACC ORDINGLY. 3. BRIEFLY PUT, THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND IS , INTER - ALIA , ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INSULATION PROCESSING OF PIPES FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471/MUM/2015 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11) PAGE 3 OF 9 A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12 , 97 , 66 , 010/ - , WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C( 1 3) OF THE ACT, WHEREBY, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 13,45,01,430 / - . ONE OF THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME , AND WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE BEFORE US BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1, RELATES TO AN AMOU NT OF RS. 8,66,364/ - , WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (IN SHORT THE TPO) DATED 31.10.2013 U/S 92CA(3) OF THE ACT. D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAD SOLD FEW OLD MACHINERIES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE ABROAD, WHICH CONSTITUTED AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 92B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE U/S 92CA(1) OF THE ACT TO THE TPO FOR COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PR ICE IN RELATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. BEFORE THE TPO, ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT SUCH MACHINERY ITEMS WERE RENDERED SURPLUS AS THE INSULATION PROJECT WITH JINDAL SAW LTD. WAS COMPLETED. IT WAS EXPLAIN ED THAT MACHINERY ITEMS WERE EXPORTED TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE TO ENSURE THAT ASSETS BELONGING TO THE GROUP WERE PUT TO THE OPTIMUM USE AND THAT SUCH EXPORTS RESULTED IN REDUCTION OF MAINTENANCE AND OVERHEAD COSTS AND, THEREFORE, IT BENEFITED THE PROFI TABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE TPO NOTED THAT OUT OF EIGHT SUCH TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF MACHINERIES, IN THREE CASES THERE WAS A LOSS, ALTHOUGH OVERALL THERE WAS A PROFIT OF RS. 12,49,295/ - . BEFORE THE TPO, ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE SALE VALUE OF THE MACHINERIES ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT FROM A CHARTERED ENGINEER. THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNISHED THE SHIPPING BILLS FOR EXPORT ISSUED BY THE INDIAN CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES DULY ACCEPTING THE INVOICE VALUE FOR SALE OF THE MACHINERY ITEMS. IN THIS MANNER, VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471/MUM/2015 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11) PAGE 4 OF 9 ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SALE VALUE OF MACHINERIES WERE AT AN ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN ALL THE EIGHT TRANSACTIONS . THE TPO ACCEPTED THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE (CUP) METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF MACHINERY BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE BUT THE LOSS OF RS. 8,66,364/ - SUFFERED IN CASE OF THREE TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP AGAINST THE AFORESAID ADJUSTMENT PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE DRP REJECTED THE OBJECTIONS, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN, THE AFORESAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE RETURNE D INCOME. 4 . BEFORE US, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE VALUE OF THE MACHINERIES SOLD TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE WAS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE INDIAN CUSTOMS AUT HORITIES AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DISREGARDING THE STATED CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARRIVING AT THE ARMS LENGTH SALE PRICE OF THE MACHINERIES SOLD TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT(DR) HAS DEFE NDED THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY POINTING OUT THAT THE VALUATION REPORT BEING RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DETERMINATIVE OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF A TRANSFER PRICING REGULATION S AS THE PURPOSE OF THE SAID VALUATION RE PORT WAS QUITE DIFFERENT. THE LD. CIT(DR) CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE TPO IN VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471/MUM/2015 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11) PAGE 5 OF 9 CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE MACHINERIES AS THE ARMS LENGTH SALE PRICE WAS FAIR AND PROPER AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,66,364/ - HAS BEEN DEFENDED. 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE DISPUTE BEFORE US LIES IN A NARROW COMPASS WHICH RELATES TO THE DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF OLD MACHINERIES TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. THE ASSESSEE WA S FOUND TO HAVE MADE EIGHT TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF USED MACHINERIES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. THE ASSESSEE SELECTED THE CUP METHOD IN ORDER TO BENCHMARK THE SALE PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS . IN SUPPORT, ASSESSEE ALSO ADDUCED THE RELEVANT C UP DATA, NAMELY, VALUATION REPORT FROM A CHARTERED ENGINEER AND CLAIMED THAT THE SALE PRICE RECOVERED BY THE ASESSEE FROM ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE WAS COMMENSURATE WITH THE VALUES ARRIVED AT BY THE VALUER. ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE INVOICE VALU ES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE INDIAN CUSTOM AUTHORITIES ALSO. WE FIND THAT THE TPO HAS ACCEPTED THE ADOPTION OF CUP METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF OLD MACHINERIES. OUT OF THE EIGHT TRANSACTIO NS OF SUCH SALES, THE CUP DATA RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TPO IN FIVE CASES INASMUCH AS THE SALE PRICE STATED IN THE INVOICES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED . IT IS ONLY IN THREE SALE TRANSACTIONS THAT SUCH CUP DATA HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE TPO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE MACHINERIES AS THE ARMS LENGTH SALE PRICE. NOTABLY, IN SUCH THREE TRANSACTIONS, ASSESSEE HAD SUFFERED A LOSS BECAUSE SALE VALUES, BASED ON THE VALUERS REPORT, WAS LOWER THAN THE WDV OF SUCH MACHINERIE S. QUITE CLEARLY, THE APPROACH OF THE TPO IS INCONSISTENT. THE VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471/MUM/2015 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11) PAGE 6 OF 9 CUP DATA WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN CONSIDERING FIVE TRANSACTIONS OF SALES AS BEING IN CONSONANCE WITH THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE, CANNOT BE DISREGARDED IN CASE OF OTHER THREE TRANSA CTIONS MERELY BECAUSE OF THE RESULTANT LOSS. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THERE IS NO CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CUP DATA RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE QUA THE AFORESTATED THREE TRANSACTIONS WAS INCONSISTENT OR OTHERWISE UNRELI ABLE IN COMPARISON TO THE SIMILAR DATA RELIED UPON IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OTHER FIVE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MIS - DIRECTED THEMSELVES IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,66,364/ - , WHICH IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT, ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 7 . INSOFAR AS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS ALTERNATIVE TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1, WHEREBY, IT IS CANVASSED THAT ADDITION IF ANY IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF MACHINERIES TO A SSOCIATED ENTERPRISE BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED. THIS PLEA NO LONGER SURVIVES , AS THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY SUCCEEDED IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1. THUS , GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8 . GROUND OF APPEA L NO. 3, RELATES TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY AGGREGATING TO RS 1,50,34,404/ - , WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON P AYMENT OF ROYALTY TO M/S PARMA PIPE MIDDLE EAST FSC, FOR ACQUIRING NECESSARY TECHNOLOGY AND IT WAS VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471/MUM/2015 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11) PAGE 7 OF 9 CLAIMED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE , WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING IT TO BE A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE . 9 . BEFORE US, IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, WHEREIN, VIDE ITA NO. 2188/MUM/ 2014, DATED 21.04.2015, SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. F OLLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.04.2015 (SUPRA) , IS WORTHY OF NOTICE: - 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE DEPARTMENT IS PLACING RELIANCE FULLY ON THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN SWITCHGEAR LTD (SUPRA). HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS ENTITLED TO USE THE TECHNOLOGY EVEN AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT. FURTHER THE LICENSOR OF THE TECHNICAL KNOWHOW HAD AGREED NOT TO MANUFACTURE IN INDIA ANY OF THE SCHEDULED PRODUCTS OR TO GRANT OR MAKE AVAILABLE TO ANY OTHER PERSON, FIRM OR COMPANY ANY MANUFACTURING INFORMATION, LICENSES, RIGHTS FOR ANYONE OF THE SCHEDULED PRODUCTS. THUS, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS HAVING EXCLUSIVE RIGHT ON THE MANUFACTURE OF THE SCHEDULED PRODUCTS AND HENCE, UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT PAID FOR TECHNICAL KNOWHOW WAS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 7. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT WAS UTMOST FOR TWO YEARS ONLY. THE ASSESSEE DO ES NOT BECOME OWNER OF THE TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. IT HAD TO RETURN BACK ALL DATA, INFORMATION ETC. ON COMPLETION OF THE AGREEMENT. IT HAS TO MAINTAIN STRICT CONFIDENTIALITY ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS CAPITALISED THE TECHNOLOGY TRANS FER FEE. THE ROYALTY AMOUNT IS PAID TO PROVIDE OPERATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL SUPPORT. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ROYALTY AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE ONLY. WE FIND SUPPORT FOR OUR VIEW FROM TH E DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. I.A.E.C (PUMPS) LTD (1998)(232 ITR 316). THE HEAD NOTES OF THE SAID ORDER READS AS UNDER: - THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH A FOREIGN COLLABORATOR (ATURIA) TO USE ITS PATE NTS AND DESIGNS EXCLUSIVELY IN INDIA. THE AGREEMENT WAS FOR A DURATION OF 10 YEARS WITH THE PARTIES HAVING THE VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471/MUM/2015 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11) PAGE 8 OF 9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT OR RENEW THE SAME. DURING THE CURRENCY OF THE AGREEMENT THE FOREIGN COLLABORATOR HAD UNDERTAKEN NOT TO SURRENDER I TS PATENTS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ANY IMPROVEMENTS, MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO DESIGNS. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TO DISCLOSE TO THIRD PARTIES ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT HAV ING RECEIVED A WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE FOREIGN COLLABORATOR. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE HIGH COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE FEATURES OF AGREEMENT CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT WHAT WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A LICENCE AND WHAT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FOREIGN COLLABORATOR WAS ONLY A LICENCE FEE AND NOT THE PRICE FOR ACQUISITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET AND, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN TREATING THE AMOUNT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT THE REASONING AND CONCLUSION OF THE HIGH COURT WERE UNASSAILABLE. THE HIGH COURT RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE INSTANT CASE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE INSTANT APPEAL FAILED AND WERE DISMISSED. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO/DRP ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE ROYALTY PAYMENT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 1 0 . FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, WHICH HAS BEEN RENDERED UNDER I DENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HERE BY ALLOW GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT, ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 1 1 . THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT R EQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K@ ITA NO 471/MUM/2015 ( FU/KKZJ.K OKZ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2010 - 11) PAGE 9 OF 9 1 2 . IN THE RESULT , APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 0 T H DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015. S D / - S D / - (AMIT SHUKLA) (G.S. PANNU) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; ) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 3 0 - 0 9 - 2015 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI