DCIT CENT. CIR. -1(2), MUMBAI V. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 5006/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7888 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.5006, 5007 &5008/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), ROOM NO.906, PRATISHTHA BHAVAN, 10 TH FLOOR, OLD CGO BUILDING ANNEXE, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD., B-10, 2 ND FLOOR, LAXMI TOWER, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051 PAN: AACCG 8446M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MALAV P. SHETH, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI SUMAN KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA , JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY TH E REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 20.05.2016 OF THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 201 2-13. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE, HENCE THE SAME ARE TAKEN TOGETHER FOR DISPO SAL BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.5006, 5007 &5008/M/2016 M/S. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD. 2 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFE RRED TO AS THE AO) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN U NQUOTED EQUITY SHARES WHICH WERE MADE ON THE APPARENT INTENTION TO EARN THE DIVIDEND. THE AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE SAME . THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWA NCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE SOME OF THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN STAFF SALARY P ROPORTIONATE TO STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES AND NO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT E ARNED ANY DIVIDEND FROM THIS INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, NO DISAL LOWANCE CAN BE MADE. BUT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT 5% OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT PLUS CLOSI NG VALUE OF INVESTMENT WAS DISALLOWED. 3. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.1.3 ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IT IS SEEN THAT THE AS SESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN APPEAL BEING A.YS.2010-11 TO 12-1 3, THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND THAT THE AO HAS M ADE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SUB-CLAUSES (II) AND (III) OF RULE 8D I.E. FR OM THE INTEREST EXPENSES AND INDIRECT COSTS/ EXPENSES INCURRED BY T HE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, FROM THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION FOR EACH OF THE YEARS, IT IS SEEN THAT FOR EACH OF THESE THREE YEARS, THE APPEL LANT HAS NOT EARNED EXEMPT INCOME. 5.1.4 THE ISSUE OF WHETHER DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MA DE U/S 14A IN YEARS WHEN THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME RECEIVED BY TH E APPELLANT IS NOW DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE TAXPAYER BY VARIOUS CO URTS AND TRIBUNALS. IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DELITE EN TERPRISES (HA NO.2983/M/2005) (BORN), IT WAS HELD THAT K THERE IS NO INCOME ITA NOS.5006, 5007 &5008/M/2016 M/S. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD. 3 EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMP T, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE. IN THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V.WINSOME TEXTILE INDUST RIES LTD. [2009] 319 ITR 204 (HC) (&H) IT WAS HELD THAT 'THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION. IN SUCH A SITUATION, SECTION 14A COULD HAVE NO APPLICATION'. IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F CHEMINVEST VS CIT (ITA 749/2014) , THE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT AS UNDER: '15. TURNING TO THE CENTRAL QUESTION THAT ARISES FO R CONSIDERATION, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE COMPLETE AN SWER IS PROVIDED BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. HO LCIM INDIA (P) LTD. (DECISION DATED 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2014 IN ITA NO.486/2014). IN THAT CASE A SIMILAR QUESTION AROSE, VIZ., WHETHE R THE ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SE CTION 14A OF THE ACT WHEN NO DIVIDEND INCOME HAD BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT AY? THE COURT REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND TO THE DECISION OR THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THIS V ERY CASE I.E. CHEMINVEST LTD. V. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 86. THE COURT ALSO REFERRED TO THREE DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURT S WHICH HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST REVENUE. THE FIRST WAS TH E DECISION IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD V. M/S. LAKHA NI MARKETING INCL. (DECISION DATED 2 ND APRIL 2014 OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN ITA NO. 970/2008) WHICH IN TURN REFERRED TO TWO EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE SAME COURT IN CIT V. HERO CYCLES LIMITED [2010] 323 ITR 518 AND CIT V. W INSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD. [2009] 319 ITR 204. THE SEC OND WAS OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X-I V. CORRTECH ENERGY (P) LTD. [2014] 223 TAXMANN 130 (GU I.) AND THE THIRD OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, KANPUR V SHIVAM MOTORS (P) LTD.(DECISION DATED 5 TH MAY 2014 IN ITA NO.88/2014). THESE THREE DECISIONS REIT ERATED THE POSITION THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY T AXABLE INCOME IN THE RELEVANT AY IN QUESTION CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE WORKED OUT FOR DISALLOWANC E. 16. IN CIT V. HOLCIM INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE CO URT FURTHER EXPLAINED AS UNDER: '15. INCOME EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10 IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXEMPT EARLIER A ND CAN BECOME TAXABLE IN FUTURE YEARS. FURTHER, WHETHE R INCOME EARNED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR WOULD OR WOULD N OT BE TAXABLE, MAY DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF TRANSACTI ON ITA NOS.5006, 5007 &5008/M/2016 M/S. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD. 4 ENTERED INTO IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR EXAMPLE, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES I S PRESENTLY NOT TAXABLE WHERE SECURITY TRANSACTION TA X HAS BEEN PAID, BUT A PRIVATE SALE OF SHARES IN AN OFF M ARKET TRANSACTION ATTRACTS CAPITAL GAINS TAX. IT IS AN UN DISPUTED POSITION THAT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND HAD INVESTED BY PURCHASING A SUBSTANTIA L NUMBER OF SHARES AND THEREBY SECURING RIGHT TO MANAGEMENT. POSSIBILITY OF SALE OF SHARES BY PRIVAT E PLACEMENT ETC. CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND IS NOT AN IMPROBABILITY. DIVIDEND MAY OR MAY NOT BE DECLARED. DIVIDEND IS DECLARED BY THE COMPANY AND STRICTLY IN LEGAL SENSE, A SHAREHOLDER HAS NO CONTROL AND CANNOT INSI ST ON PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND. WHEN DECLARED, IT IS SUBJECTED TO DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX.' 17. ON FACTS, IT WAS NOTICED IN CIT V. HOLCIM INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) THAT THE REVENUE HAD ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THAT CASE AND THAT EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED TO PROTECT INVESTMENT MADE. 18. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IS THAT THE INVESTMENT BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE SHARES OF MAX INDIA LTD. IS IN THE FORM OF A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT. SINCE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE IS OF HOLDING INVESTMENTS, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE MUST BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR HOLDING AND MAINTAINING SUCH INVESTMENT. THE INTEREST EXPENDITU RE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN RELATION TO SUCH INVESTMENTS WHICH GIVES RISE TO INCOME WHICH DOES N OT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. 19. IN LIGHT OF THE CLEAR EXPOSITION OF THE LAW IN HOLCIM INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN VIEW OF THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION IN THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ST RATEGIC INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF MAX INDIA LTD.; THAT NO EXE MPTED INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT A Y AND SINCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DOUBT, THE QUESTION FRAMED I S REQUIRED TO BE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A ND AGAINST THE REVENUE.' 5 .1.5 AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF EXCLUSION OF INVESTMEN TS MADE FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS I.E. INVESTMENTS IN SUBSIDIARIES /GROUP ITA NOS.5006, 5007 &5008/M/2016 M/S. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD. 5 CONCERNS, IN THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN SEVERAL CASE S IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INTERGLOBE ENTERPRISES LTD. V DCIT (CITED SUPRA) IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: '...HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE CALCULATION OF DISALL OWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(III) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D UPHELD BY LD CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INCLUDED THE VALUE OF TOTAL INVESTMENTS FOR CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE WHEREAS IN OUR OPINION THE VALUE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS SHOULD H AVE BEEN INCLUDED WHICH WERE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN THE SHARES OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES WHICH ARE DEFINITELY NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN I.T .A. NO.3349/DEL/2011 IN THE CASE OF PROMAIN LTD., AFTER RELYING UPON A KOLKATTA JUDGMENT OF TRIBUNAL IN I.T .A. NO.1331 HAS HELD THAT STRATEGIC INVESTMENT HAS TO B E EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT DISALLOWANC E UNDER RULE 8D(III). THE TRIBUNAL HAD RELIED UPON TH E FINDINGS OF KOLKATTA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF REI AG RO LTD. V. DCIT IN I.T.A. NO./1331/DEL/2011 DATED 29.7.2011 . THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TRIBUNAL FINDINGS AS CONTAINED IN THE KOLKATTA TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- '(III) FURTHER IN RULE 8D(2)(II), THE WORDS USED IN NUMERATOR B ARE 'THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT,, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT FORM OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON THE FIRST DAY AND IN THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR'. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WRONG IN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INVESTMENT OF RS.103 CRORES MADE DURING THE YEAR WHICH HAS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDEND OR EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS ONLY THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT FROM WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED WHICH IS NOT FALLING WITHIN THE PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME THAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED. THUS, IT IS NOT THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AT ALL BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED BUT IT IS THE AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART I -. ITA NOS.5006, 5007 &5008/M/2016 M/S. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD. 6 OF THE TOTAL INCOME WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE TERM 'AVERAGE OF THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT' IS USED TO TAKE CARE OF CASES WHERE THERE IS THE ISSUE OF DIVIDEND STRIPING. IV) UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III), WHAT IS DISALLOWABLE IS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 112 PERCENTAGE OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT THE INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT OR SHALL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME/. THUS, UNDER SUB CLAUSE (III), WHAT IS DISALLOWED IS 1/2 PERCENTAGE OF THE NUMERATOR B IN RULE 8D(2)III). THIS HAS TO BE CALCULATED ON THE SAME LINES AS MENTIONED EARLIER IN RESPECT OF NUMERATOR B IN THE RULE 8D(2)(II). THUS, NOT ALL INVESTMENTS BECOME THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDERATION WHEN COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IS TO BE IN RELATION TO THE. INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND THIS CAN BE DONE ONLY BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INVESTMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THIS INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. (A. Y.) (I.T.A. NO.1331/KOL/2011 DATED 29.7.2011.' FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WE HELD TH AT VALUE OF STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED F OR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D)III) FACTS, W E DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE DISAL LOWANCE UNDER RULE8D(III) BY EXCLUDING THE VALUE OF STRATEG IC INVESTMENTS IN THE CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE. AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(I) AND BD(II) WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED.' THE ABOVE DECISION IS FOLLOWED BY SEVERAL TRIBUNALS INCLUDING KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS BINANI INDU STRIES (ITA 144/KOL/2013 DATED 02.03.2016). 5.1.6 IN THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASES OF CIT VS PHIL.CORPN. LTD. (14 TAXMANN.COM 58), THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT HELD THAT WHERE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED IN SUBSIDIARY COMPAN Y FOR ACQUISITION OF SHARES (TO HAVE CONTROL OVER MAJORIT Y SHARES BUT NOT TO EARN DIVIDEND, THE INVESTMENT WAS AN INTEGRA L PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE DEDUCTIO N U/S 36(1)(III) WAS ALLOWABLE. SIMILAR DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V RELIANCE COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUC TURE LTD (BOMBAY H.C.) 207 TAXMANN 219WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT THAT INVESTMENTS MADE IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND MONEY AD VANCED ITA NOS.5006, 5007 &5008/M/2016 M/S. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD. 7 TO RELATED COMPANY WERE FOR FURTHERING BUSINESS OF ASESSEE, NO DALIOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPITAL COU LD BE MADE. 5.1.7 THUS AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED ABOVE, T HE APPELLANT NOT HAVING EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE A.YR S. UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE INVESTMENTS BEING IN SUBSIDIA RY/GROUP CONCERNS, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FOR EACH OF THES E YEARS IN DELETED AND GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IS ALLOWED FOR ALL THREE YEARS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DELITE ENTERPRISES IN ITA NO.110 OF 2009 (BOMBAY HIGH COUR T). WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 118 (DELHI HC). WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE SIMILAR ISSUE AND HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE WHEN ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY TAX FREE INCOME. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF REDINGTON (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT [2017] 77 TAXMANN.COM 257 (M ADRAS), HAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RE LATION TO INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME (CONDITION PRECEDENT ) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHETHER PROVISION OF SECTION 14A IS RELAT ABLE TO EARNING OF ACTUAL INCOME AND NOT NOTIONAL OR ANTICIPATED INCOM E, HENCE, WHERE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME IN A YEAR, THERE CANNOT B E A DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO AN ASSUMED INCOME HELD , YES ITA NOS.5006, 5007 &5008/M/2016 M/S. GITANJALI LIFESTYLE LTD. 8 5. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND DECIDED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. C IT(A), HENCE WE DISMISS ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.12.2017. SD/- SD/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 27.12.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.