DCIT 1(3)(2), MUMBAI V. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4983/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7932 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH DESH
• Assessee Lawyers: P J PARDIWALLA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Onus to prove; Capital expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NOS. 2795 & 4983/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 & 2009 - 10) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1(3)(1), MUMBAI. VS. M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED HINDUSTAN LEVER HOUSE, 165/166, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI - 20. ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO. 2874/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08) M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED HINDUSTAN LEVER HOUSE, 165/166, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI - 20. VS. ADDL . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1(3), MUMBAI. ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. AAACU0791P ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.J. PARDIWALLA & SHRI NISHANT THAKKAR DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SAURABH DESHPANDE DATE OF HEARING : 11 .12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .12.2017 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM : THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE PARTIES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ARE 2 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 3, MUMBAI. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING GLOBAL RESEARCH SERVICES. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF HIGHER DEPRECIATION @ 60% AS APPLICABLE TO COMPUTERS ON CCTV CAMERAS AND CONTROL ACCESS SYSTEMS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ABOVE SAID ITEMS ON THE PLEA THAT THEY FORM PART OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS. THE AO, HOWEVER, ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT NORMAL RATE AND THE LD CIT(A) ALS O CONFIRMED THE SAME. 3. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE CCTV SYSTEMS AND CONTROL ACCESS SYSTEMS ARE FORMING PART OF COMPUTER SYSTEM ONLY , SINCE THEY ARE OPERATED THROUGH COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND CONTROL IS ALSO EXERCISE D THROUGH COMPUTERS. H ENCE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE TO COMPUTERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED THEREON. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SMC BENCH OF DELHI HAS CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF M/S MEGASOFT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P LTD (ITA NO.2831/DEL/ 2016 DATED 03 - 01 - 2017) AND HAS HELD THAT THE CCTV CAMERA SYSTEMS ARE PERIPHERALS OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND HENCE HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE CCTV CAMERAS AND CONTROL ACCESS SYSTEMS MAY BE O PERATED THROUGH COMPUTERS, BUT THEY CANNOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF COMPUTERS. 5. HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE TEND TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE , SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ASSESSEE BY THE DELHI S MC BENCH OF ITAT. WE NOTICE THAT THE DELHI BENCH HAS TAKEN THE SUPPORT OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD (ITA NO.1712/2012 AND CIT VS. BONANZA PORTFOLIO LTD (202 TAXMAN 545) TO DECIDE T HE ISSUE. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT, IN BOTH THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE COMPUTER PERIPHERALS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. THE LD A.R HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTROL ACCESS SYSTEMS AND CCTV CAMERAS ARE PERIPHERALS ATTACHED TO COMPUTER SYSTEMS ONLY AND THEIR OPERATION AND CONTROL IS DONE THROUGH COMPUTERS ONLY . WE FIND MERIT IN THE SAID CONTENTIONS. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE AS APPLICABLE TO COMPUTERS. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY LD CIT(A) OUT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED BY THE AO. THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD CIT(A). 7. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.85.88 LAKHS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY THE AO, HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.8 5.88 LAKHS. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED MOST OF THE DETAILS. HENCE THE LD CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, BUT THE AO OBJECT TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LD CIT(A), HOWEVER, ADMITTED THE SAME. THE LD CIT(A) NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.70.52 LAKHS BY WAY OF CHEQUE. HENCE THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.70.52 LAKHS AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF 4 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. BALANCE AMOUNT. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE CHALLE NGED THE DECISION RENDERED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.78.58 LAKHS BEFORE LD CIT(A) AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS.85.88 LAKHS MADE UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURE. OUT OF RS.78.58 LAKHS, A SUM OF RS.70.52 LAKHS HAD BEEN INCURRED BY WAY OF CHEQUE. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED EXPENSES INCURRED BY WAY OF CHEQUE ONLY. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED D ETAILS TO THE TUNE OF RS.78.58 LAKHS AND THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT FOUND FAULT WITH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.78.58 LAKHS SHOULD BE ALLOWED, AS NO ADVERSE FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN AGAINST THAT. WI TH REGARD TO THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.7.30 LAKHS, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THEY REPRESENT PETTY EXPENSES INCURRED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND FURTHER THE RELEVANT VOUCHERS WERE MAINTAINED A T BANGALORE LOCATION, WHICH COULD NOT BE READILY TRACEABLE DUE TO FREQUENT SHIFTING OF PREMISES. WHATEVER MAY BE THE REASON FOR NON - FURNISHING OF VOUCHERS/DETAILS, IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE ONUS TO PROVE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM IS PLACED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.7.30 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE COMPLETELY DISCHARGED THE RESPONSIBILITY. AT THE SAME TIME, WE CANNOT FULLY DISALLOW THE SAID CLAIM, SINCE THE EXPENDITURE WAS OF ROUTINE NATURE TY PE LIKE TRAVELLING, CONVEYANCE ETC. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE RESTRICTED TO 25% OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.7.30 LAKHS IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF DEFICIENCIES AND OTHER DISALLOWABLE NATURE OF EXPENSES. IN OUR VIEW, T HIS WILL PUT THIS ISSUE AT REST. ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES TO 25% OF RS.7.30 LAKHS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 9. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR AY 2007 - 08. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO PURCHASE OF KNOW - HOW. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A SUM OF R S .229.15 LAKHS AS CONSULTANCY CHARGES. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT IDENTICAL PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN ALLOWED BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2000 - 01 TO 2006 - 07. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED SERVICE FEE OF RS.40. 51 CRORES AND IN THE COURSE OF EARNING THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE, WHICH MAINLY CONSISTED OF PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS CONSULTANTS. ACCORDINGLY THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN THE NORMAL COU RSE OF BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 10. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO AY 2004 - 05 IN ITA NO.7474/MUM/2010 AND THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 26 - 08 - 2016, HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIMING ON NOTICING THAT IDENTICAL CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN AY 2000 - 01, 2001 - 02 AND 2003 - 04. THE LD D.R ALSO ADMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A), SINCE HIS VIEW IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER PASSED ON THIS ISSUE. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED EXEMPT DIVIDEND 6 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. INCOME OF RS.2.38 CRORES. THE AO WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.29.38 LAKHS BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING AY 2007 - 08, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WILL NOT APPLY AS PER THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO.. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE TR IBUNAL HAD DISALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCO ME U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN AY 2002 - 03. ACCORDINGLY HE DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AT 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 13. THE LD D .R SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD A.R, ON THE CONTRARY, SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME IN AY 2004 - 05 (REFERRED SUPRA) AND IN AY 2005 - 06 ALSO. 14. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN AY 2002 - 03 AND THE SAME RATE OF DISALLOWANCE WAS FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER PASSED ON THIS ISSUE. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.44.78 LAKHS RELATING TO REPAIR EXPENSES. THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE LD CIT( A) DELETED THE SAME AFTER GIVING A FINDING THAT THEY REPRESENT ROUTING REPAIR EXPENSES. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 16. THE LD D.R SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE LD A.R SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A). 7 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 17. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF REPAIR EXPENSES ON TEST CHECK BASIS AND HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THEY REPRESENT ROUTINE REPAIR EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDING GIVEN BY LD CIT(A). HENCE, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 18. THE LAST ISSUE CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF MISCE LLANEOUS EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED BY AO. WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE AND WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 19. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APP EAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR AY 2009 - 10. THE SOLITARY ISSUE CONTESTED THEREIN RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE EARNED TAX - FREE DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 2.10 CRORES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D AT RS. 25.75 LACS. 20. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD MAINLY INVESTED IN SHARES OF M/S. DIGITAL SECURITIES PVT. LTD., M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. AND IN THE UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS FROM OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSE IS NOT CALLED FOR IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD., (2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM.). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE 8 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. DIVIDEND IN COME. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WAS CALLED FOR IN THIS YEAR. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT HIS PREDECESSOR HAD CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. ACC ORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER, THE LD CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 21. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS COMM ITTED A MISTAKE IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED BY HIM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WAS HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE IN THAT YEAR. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. 22. THE LD A.R INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY FRESH INVESTMENTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS OF RS.2588.65 LACS , THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED A SUM OF RS.2586.00 LACS IN ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY NAMED M/S. DIGITAL SECURITIES PVT. LTD. EVEN THAT INVESTMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEAR . THE ASSESSEE HAD HELD INVESTMENTS IN THE FORM OF UNITS IN MUTUAL FUNDS, AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN LIQUIDATED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE INVEST MENTS, AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR U/S 14A OF THE ACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE OWN FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS CALLED FOR. IN ANY CASE, THE DISA LLOWANCE OF 5% CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT. 9 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD A.R. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY FRESH INV ESTMENTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A MAJOR PORTION OF THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAS LIQUIDATED THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE UNITS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING OWN F UNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS.111.60 CRORES AND RS.101.92 CRORES AS AT 31.3.2009 AND 1.4.2009 RESPECTIVELY AS AGAINST INVESTMENTS OF RS. 25.88 CRORES AND RS.70.93 CRORES RESPECTIVELY AS ON 31.3.2009 AND 1.4.2009. HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS CALLED FOR AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HDFC BANK LTD (366 ITR 505). UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, IN OUR VIEW, IT MAY NOT BE PROPER TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D IN THE INSTANT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND ME RIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OF DIVIDEND INCOME WORKED OUT BY LD CIT(A) WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A). 24. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEA LS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 3 .12.2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 3 . 12 .201 7 *SSL* 10 ITA NOS. 2795, 2874 & 4983/MUM/2015 M/S. UNILEVER INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 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