ACIT 1(1), MUMBAI V. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4981/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101277 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMUEL DARSEDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATRAMA N
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Question of law; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ACIT-1(1), ROOM NO.579, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S/ BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD., THE TIMES OF INDIA BUILDING, DR. D.N. ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 ( / REVENUE) ( !'# $ /ASSESSEE) PAN. NO. AAACB4373Q / REVENUE BY SHRI SAMUEL DARSE-DR !'# $ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.VENKATRAMAN % & $ ' / DATE OF HEARING : 12/10/2015 & $ ' / DATE OF ORDER: 14/10/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 25/02/2011 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI. FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO DIS ALLOWING WEBSITE REGISTRATION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,09, 03,798/- AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 2 2. DURING HEARING, THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE I S COVERED BY THE DECISION FROM HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS INDIAN VISIT.COM PVT. LTD. (2008-TIOL-448-HC -DEL- IT)(2008) 219 CTR 603 (DEL.) AND DCIT VS M/S MAHIND RA REALITY AND INF DEVELOPERS LTD. IN ITA NO.1160/MUM/ 2010, ORDER DATED 28/01/2011. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. 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 RELEVANT PO RTION FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 28/01/2011 (ITA NO.1160/MUM/2010) FOR READY REFERENCE:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-V, MUMBAI DATED 07.12.2009. 2. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY DISALLOWING A SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,75,500/- FOR OBTAINING MS OFFICE LICENCE AND MARKETING DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WHICH ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 3 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT AM OUNTING TO RS.8,02,139/- WHICH ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2001 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.26,95,86, 068/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) AND ACCEP TED THE SAME. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 08.0 3.2004 MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS AND THE CIT(A) HA S DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE EXPENSES AND WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. GROUND NO. 1 PERTAINS TO DELETION OF THE ADDITIO N MADE BY DISALLOWING THE SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,75,500 /-. ON NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.1,75,500/ - TO THE P&L ACCOUNT,THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE WHY THE SAM E SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS IN THE REVENUE FIELD AS IT ONLY FACI LITATES CARRYING ON THE EXISTING BUSINESS MORE PROFITABLY W ITHOUT ALTERING THE BUSINESS STRUCTURE OF THE COMPANY. THE ACQUISITION OF SOFTWARE DID NOT RESULT IN ANY ADVANTAGE OF ENDU RING NATURE AND IT HAD NOT ACQUIRED THE ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF T HE SOFTWARE BUT ONLY THE RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE. THE A.O. DI D NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION AND TREATED THE EXPENDITURE AS CAPIT AL EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 25%. BEFORE THE BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 4 CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCH ASED LICENSES OF TWO SOFTWARE, I.E. MS OFFICE AND MARKET ING DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, THE LIFE SPAN OF WHICH IS VERY S HORT DUE TO FAST TECHNOLOGICAL OBSOLESCES. THEREFORE, THE EXPEN DITURE IS OF REVENUE NATURE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SP ECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF AMWAY ENTERPRISES 111ITD 112 (DEL) ( SB). AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION STATING AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FACTS AND FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THE SOFTWARE, THE PAYMENT OF SUCH EXPENSES ON SUCH APPL ICATION SOFTWARE THOUGH ENDURING IN NATURE, DOES NOT RESULT IN ACQUISITION OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET AND MERELY ENHANCE S THE PRODUCTIVITY AND HAS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE. THE CONCEPT OF ENDURING BENEFIT MUST RESPOND TO THE CHANGING ECONO MIC REALITIES OF THE BUSINESS. APART FROM THE CASE OF A MWAY ENTERPRISE (SUPRA), CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO S UPPORTED BY THE RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD. (2009) 183 TAXMAN 234 (MAD) IN WHICH ALSO, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SOFTWARE PACKAGES A S REVENUE ONE. IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH EXPENSE WHICH REVOLVES O N THE MODERN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLES THE ASSESSE E TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS OPERATIONS EFFECTIVELY, EFFIC IENTLY, SMOOTHLY AND PROFITABLY. SUCH SOFTWARE DOES NOT WOR K WITHOUT FITTING IT ON A COMPUTE RAND IT ENHANCES THE EFFICI ENCY OF ITS OPERATION. IT IS AN AID IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCES S RATHER THAN THE TOTAL TOOL ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY, SUCH EXPEN DITURE IS HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE AND THE ADDITION MADE IS DE LETED. THE BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 5 AO IS, HOWEVER, DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW DEPRECIATION A LLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. AND THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF L ICENCES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING SOFTWARE OF MS OFF ICE AND MARKETING DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WHICH FACILITATED THE OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY AND HAS NO ENDURING BENEF IT, THE EXPENDITURE CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE IN NA TURE. THE HON'BLE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF AMWAY ENTERPRISES 111 ITD 112 (DEL) (SB) INTER ALIA HELD THAT FOR ASCERTAINING AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE ON COMPU TER SOFTWARE GIVES AN ENDURING BENEFIT TO AN ASSESSEE, THE DURATION OF TIME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES RIGHT TO US E THE SOFTWARE BECOMES RELEVANT. HAVING REGARD TO THE FAC T THAT SOFTWARE BECOMES OBSOLETE WITH TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVA TION AND ADVANCEMENT AND LIFE OF THE SOFTWARE BEING LESS THA N TWO YEARS, THE EXPENDITURE IS RIGHTLY TREATED AS REVENU E EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CON FIRMED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH REFERENCE TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,02,139/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF WEBSITE DEVELOPMEN T CHARGES. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEB ITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,02,139/- UNDER THE HEAD WEBSITE DEV ELOPMENT CHARGES. THE A.O. ASKED WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE W EBSITE OFFERS THE VARIOUS DETAILS OF THE COMPANYS BUSINESS AND P RODUCTS IT OFFERS. HENCE IT IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADVERTISEMENT EX PENSES AND BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 6 ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE A.O. DID NOT AC CEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED A.R. AND TREATED THE EXP ENDITURE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE STATING THAT THE LIFE SPAN OF THE WEBSITE IS QUITE LONG AND IT IS AN ASSET IN THE CYBER SPACE. H OWEVER, HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 25% ON WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT C HARGES. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE WEBSITE IS A VERY COST EFFECTIVE TOOL OF ADVERTISEMENT/MARKETING OF T HE COMPANYS BUSINESS. IT IS A MEDIUM OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATION AND OFFERS ADVANTAGES OVER TRADITIONAL MODE OF ADVERTIS EMENT. THEREFORE IT IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADVERTISEMENT EXPEND ITURE ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED A.R. AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS THE CIT(A) DELETED T HE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FACT AND DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE A O. EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT IS ALTH OUGH ENDURING IN NATURE, THE INTENT AND PURPOSES BEHIND THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT TO CREATE AN ASSET BUT ONLY TO P ROVIDE A MEANS FOR DISSEMINATING THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE A SSESSEE AMONG ITS CLIENTS. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDIAN VI SIT.COM P. LTD. (2008) 219 CTR 603 (DEL), ON IDENTICAL FACTS, SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS HELD TO BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE AKIN TO PRINTING OF PAMPHLETS ETC. IT WAS STATED THAT MERE ENDURING BENEFIT, DE HORS ANY ACCRETION TO FIXED CAPITAL WOU LD NOT MAKE AN EXPENDITURE A CAPITAL ONE. IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH FACTS AND THE LEGAL POSITION EMERGING FROM THE CITED DECISION, SU CH EXPENDITURE IS HELD TO BE REVENUE IN NATURE AND THE ADDITION BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 7 MADE IS DELETED. THE AO IS, HOWEVER, DIRECTED TO WI THDRAW DEPRECIATION ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. IN OUR VIEW THE CI T(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE AS REV ENUE IN NATURE. SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDIAN VISIT.COM P. LTD. (2008) 219 CTR 603 (DEL), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UN DER: - JUST BECAUSE A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE MAY RESULT I N AN ENDURING BENEFIT WOULD NOT MAKE SUCH AN EXPENDITURE OF A CAPITAL NATURE. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHAT IS THE R EAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURE AND AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY ACCRETION TO THE FIXED CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF EXPENDITURE ON A WEBSITE, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FIXED CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ALTHOUGH THE WEBSITE MAY P ROVIDE AN ENDURING BENEFIT TO AN ASSESSEE, THE INTENT AND PUR POSE BEHIND DEVELOPMENT OF A WEBSITE IS NOT TO CREATE AN ASSET BUT ONLY TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR DISSEMINATING THE INFORMATION A BOUT THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME COULD VERY WELL HAVE BEEN ACHIEV ED AND, INDEED, IN THE PAST, IT WAS ACHIEVED BY PRINTING TR AVEL BROCHURES AND OTHER PUBLISHED MATERIALS AND PAMPHLE TS. THE ADVANCE OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE WIDE SPREAD USE OF TH E INTERNET HAS PROVIDED A VERY POWERFUL MEDIUM TO COMPANIES TO PUBLICIZE THEIR ACTIVITIES TO A LARGER SPECTRUM OF PEOPLE AT A MUCH LOWER COST. WEBSITES ENABLE COMPANIES TO DO WH AT THE PRINTED BROCHURES DID BUT, IN A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT MANNER AS WELL AS IN A MUCH SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME AND COVERI NG A MUCH LARGE SET OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS COR RECTLY BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 8 APPRECIATED THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE LAW ON THE SUB JECT AND HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON THE WEBSITE WAS OF A REVENUE NATURE AND NOT OF A CAPITAL NATURE. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A). THE EXPENDITURE IS CORRECTL Y ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. GROUND IS REJECTED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 2.2. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCL USION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND T HE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28/01/2011, IF KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, WE NOTE THAT WHILE DISM ISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CON SIDERED THE DECISION FROM HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS INDIAN VISIT.COM PVT. LTD. (2008) 219 CTR 603 (D EL.), WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- JUST BECAUSE A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE MAY RESULT I N AN ENDURING BENEFIT WOULD NOT MAKE SUCH AN EXPENDITURE OF A CAPITAL NATURE. WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS WHAT IS THE R EAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURE AND AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY ACCRETION TO THE FIXED CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF EXPENDITURE ON A WEBSITE, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FIXED CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ALTHOUGH THE WEBSITE MAY PROVIDE A N ENDURING BENEFIT TO AN ASSESSEE, THE INTENT AND PURPOSE BEHI ND BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 9 DEVELOPMENT OF A WEBSITE IS NOT TO CREATE AN ASSET BUT ONLY TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR DISSEMINATING THE INFORMATION A BOUT THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME COULD VERY WELL HAVE BEEN ACHIEV ED AND, INDEED, IN THE PAST, IT WAS ACHIEVED BY PRINTING TR AVEL BROCHURES AND OTHER PUBLISHED MATERIALS AND PAMPHLETS. THE AD VANCE OF TECHNOLOGY AND THE WIDE SPREAD USE OF THE INTERNET HAS PROVIDED A VERY POWERFUL MEDIUM TO COMPANIES TO PUBLICIZE TH EIR ACTIVITIES TO A LARGER SPECTRUM OF PEOPLE AT A MUCH LOWER COST. WEBSITES ENABLE COMPANIES TO DO WHAT THE PRINTED BR OCHURES DID BUT, IN A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT MANNER AS WELL AS IN A MUCH SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME AND COVERING A MUCH LARGE SE T OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED T HE FACTS AS WELL AS THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT AND HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON THE WEBSITE WAS OF A REVENU E NATURE AND NOT OF A CAPITAL NATURE. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION. 2.3. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE DECISION FROM HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND ALSO OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, HOLDING THAT JUST BECAUSE A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE MAY RESU LT IN AN ENDURING BENEFIT WOULD NOT MAKE SUCH AN EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL NATURE AND REAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE E XPENDITURE HAS TO BE SEEN, THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE C ONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S). 2.4. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 WITH RESPECT TO DELETIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,07,00,000/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS CONCERNED, THE FACTUAL FINDING RECO RDED BY THE BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 10 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS REPRODU CED HEREUNDER:- 6.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A/R AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE OTH ER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS DEPUTY CIT (328 ITR 81) HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE RULES SHALL AP PLY ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM A.Y. 2008-09. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION OF RS .11,07,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961 RELYING UPON RULE 8D CANNOT STAND AND IS HENCE DELETED. 2.5. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDING OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE EXTENT THAT RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS NOT APPLICABLE BEING THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2007-08. SO FAR AS, REASONABLENESS OF ADDITION MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IN VIEW OF TH E DECISION FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. COMPANY LTD. VS CIT 328 ITR 81 (BOM.), WHERE THEIR LORDSHIP WHILE APPROVING THE THEORY OF APPORTIONING EXPENDIT URE BETWEEN TAXABLE AND NONTAXABLE INCOME SPEAKS ABOUT REASONABLE AND FAIR BASIS TO BE FOLLOWED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN PARA 6.11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THERE IS NO BORROWING BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE THE DISAL LOWANCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION FROM HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD. BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD. ITA NO.4981/MUM/2011 11 FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISPOSED OFF IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE AND THUS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 12/10/2015. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER % MUMBAI; ( DATED :14/10/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 1$ ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 0 1$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 34 .$ ! , 0 *+' *! 5 , % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6' 7% / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+$ .$ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % / ITAT, MUMBAI.