M/s. ACIT CIR. - 6(1), MUMBAI V. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5143/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2715 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA OZHA
• Assessee Lawyers: D V LAKHANI
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, SR. VP & SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM I.T.A. NO. 5143/MUM/08 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ACIT, CIR. 6(1) ROOM NO. 506, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD. 604, NEW STERLING CENTRE, 16/2, DR. A.B. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 PAN: AAACK4277G APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 4815/MUM/08 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD. 604, NEW STERLING CENTRE, 16/2, DR. A.B. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 PAN: AAACK4277G VS. ACIT, CIR. 6(1) ROOM NO. 506, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SHRI VIRENDRA OZHA ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D.V. LAKHANI O R D E R DATE OF HEARING: 01.12.2009 DATE OF ORDER: 10.12.2009 PER BENCH: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS, THE FIRST ONE FILED BY TH E REVENUE AND THE SECOND ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH MAY, 2008 OF THE CIT(A)-VI, MUMBAI RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 5143/MUM/08 (BY REVENUE): 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF I.T.A. NO. 5143 & 4815/MUM/08 M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD . ==================== 2 RS.46,40,894/- MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF INTERES T PAYABLE ON NON-CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES ISSUED TO PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/SCHEDULED BANKS HOLDI NG THAT THE SAME IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF I.T. ACT EVEN THOUGH INTEREST PAYABL E ON SUCH NON-CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES ISSUED TO SUCH BODI ES IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B(D)/43B(E) AND DEFINITION OF INTEREST AS GIVEN I N SECTION 2(28A) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING INTEREST PAYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.46,40,894/- ON NON-CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD STOPPED BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF BOMBAY HIGH ?COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI & CO. PVT. LTD. (206 ITR 612, 6 22) THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A SSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE I.T.A. NO.2597/MUM/08 ORDER DATED 5 TH OCTOBER, 2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 AT PARA 4 OF THE ORDER HA S HELD THAT INTEREST PAYABLE ON DEBENTURES IS OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF SECT ION 43B OF I.T. ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IN THE A.Y. 2004-05 WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHABLE FEATURES BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THESE GROUNDS BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO. 4815/MUM/08 (BY ASSESSEE): 4. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20, 30,222 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPEN SES. 5. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.20 ,30,222 UNDER THE HEAD OTHER MANUFACTURING SELLING AND ADMINISTRATIV E EXPENSES. THE I.T.A. NO. 5143 & 4815/MUM/08 M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD . ==================== 3 ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF SUCH EXPENSES ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOS ED ITS BUSINESS SINCE SEPTEMBER, 2003. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY SUBMISSION AND SINCE THE EXPENSES ARE ON ACCOUNT OF STORES AND SPA RES, ELECTRICITY CHARGES, LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES, ETC., WHICH ARE REL ATED TO THE BUSINESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS.20, 30,222 HOLDING THAT NO BUSINESS IS BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE UNDER VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED THE CASE TO BIFR THE BUSINESS IS SUSPE NDED BUT NOT COMPLETELY STOPPED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO INCUR CERTAIN EXPENSES WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO MA INTAIN THE FACTORY AND TO KEEP THE COMPANY IN RUNNING CONDITION. THE NATU RE OF EACH AND EVERY EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE CIT( A). 6.1 HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE FACTORY IS C LOSED AND THERE IS NO MANUFACTURING OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. HE OBSERVED THAT WHEN THE FACTORY HAS BEEN CLOSED IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY SO MUCH EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED. HE OBSERVE D THAT THE ORDERS OF BIFR WOULD OVERRIDE THE INCOME-TAX ORDERS. HENCE A S AND WHEN THE BIFR ISSUES ORDERS THOSE ORDERS WOULD BE BINDING ON EVER YBODY. THE BIFR SHOULD ALSO DECIDE THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE EXPENS ES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TREATED FOR THIS YEAR. TILL THE N THE EXPENDITURE OF STOPPED BUSINESS IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE FURTHER OBSE RVED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSI NESS TILL THE ORDERS OF BIFR ARE AVAILABLE. THE BIFR MAY DECIDE TO REVIVE THE BUSINESS OR MAY ADVISE TO MERGE OR CLOSE THE BUSINESS FOR EVER. RE LYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CHENNAI & CO. PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 206 ITR 616, HE HELD THAT EXPEN DITURE OF A DISCONTINUED BUSINESS CANNOT BE ALLOWED. AGGRIEVE D WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NO. 5143 & 4815/MUM/08 M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD . ==================== 4 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE TO CONTINUE THE ESTABL ISHMENT TO MAINTAIN ITS CORPORATE STATUS AND TO PROTECT THE ASSETS OF T HE COMPANY FOR THEIR USE IN FUTURE. IN CASE THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT INCURRE D THEN THE ASSETS MIGHT BE DESTROYED/STOLEN. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE BAL ANCE SHEET PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 6, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS COLLECTED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DEBTORS WHICH HAS GONE DOWN T O RS.14.87 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2005 FROM RS.49.38 LAKHS APPEARING AS ON 31 .3.2004. SIMILARLY, THE LOANS AND ADVANCES HAVE GONE DOWN TO RS.25.81 L AKHS AS ON 31.3.2005 FROM 45.79 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2004. SIMILARLY, THE C URRENT LIABILITIES HAVE ALSO COME DOWN TO RS.455.38 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2005 F ROM RS.472.27 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2005. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE DIRE CTORS REPORT PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 1, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THEIR REPOR T IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE COMPANY CAN BE EXPECTED TO RESUME ITS OPERATION ONLY AFTER THE REHABILITATION PACKAGE IS APPROVED BY BIFR AND AN A MICABLE SETTLEMENT IS REACHED WITH THE LABOUR. 8. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) REFERRED TO TH E DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T.M. CHACKO & PART NER VS. CIT REPORTED IN 195 ITR 904 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HELD THAT SINCE THE ABKARI BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN CA RRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS SEVERAL YEARS THE EXPE NDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDERCHAND HARIRAM VS. CI T REPORTED IN 23 ITR 437 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE BUSINESS CEASED TO EXIST, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE MAINTENANCE OF STAFF WAS NOT AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTIO N U/S. 10(2)(XV) AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDING LY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. I.T.A. NO. 5143 & 4815/MUM/08 M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD . ==================== 5 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS REJOIN DER, REFUTING THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION, REFERRED TO PAGE 21 PARA 2 IN THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF EXPENDIT URE ALONG WITH NARRATION OF THE EXPENDITURE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BIFR HAS NOT STOPPED THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RESTRUCTURING PROCESS WAS GOING ON. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MON EY HE WAS UNABLE TO START THE BUSINESS. AS REGARDS THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LEARNED DR, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT WAS CO NSIDERING THE DECISION RELATING TO INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF ABKARI BUSINESS WHICH WAS PROHIBITED IN LAW. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST ATT RIBUTABLE TO SUCH PROHIBITED BUSINESS WAS DISALLOWED. REFERRING TO T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RELIED ON BY THE LEARN ED DR HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE ALSO BY REASON OF THE SUGAR CONTR OL ORDER AND NOTIFICATION ISSUED THERE UNDER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DO ANY SELLING AGENCY BUSINESS IN SUGAR. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD I N THAT DECISION THAT BY MERELY MAINTAINING THE OFFICE IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS, THE EXPENDITURE ON WHICH WAS DEDUCTIBLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE QU ITE DIFFERENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH IN THE BUSINESS BUT MANUFACT URING ACTIVITIES WERE NOT TAKEN UP DURING THE YEAR BECAUSE OF THE LABOUR PROBLEM AND BECAUSE OF THE MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE BIFR. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REG ARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS R EGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE WHEN ADMITTEDLY NO MANU FACTURING ACTIVITY HAS TAKEN PLACE DURING THE YEAR. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTINUED ITS ESTABLISHMENT AND INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE TO MAINT AIN THE CORPORATE I.T.A. NO. 5143 & 4815/MUM/08 M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD . ==================== 6 STATUS. WE FIND FROM THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 6 THAT THE SUNDRY DEBTORS OF RS.49.38 LAKHS AS ON 3.3.2004 HAS COME DOWN TO RS.14.87 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2005. SIMILARLY T HE LOANS AND ADVANCES OF RS.45.79 LAKHS AS ON 39.4.2004 HAS COME DOWN TO RS.25.81 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2005. SIMILARLY THE CURRENT LIABILITIES OF RS .472.27 LAKHS AS ON 31.3.2004 HAS COME DOWN TO RS.455.38 LAKHS AS ON 31 .3.2005. 11. WE FIND FROM THE COPY OF THE DIRECTORS REPORT TO T HE MEMBERS PLACED AT PAGE 1 OF PAPER BOOK WHERE THE DIRECTORS HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE REHABILITATION PACKAGE SUBMITTED TO BIFR HAS NO T YET BEEN APPROVED AND THE COMPANY CAN BE EXPECTED T O RESUME ITS OPER ATIONS ONLY AFTER THE REHABILITATION PACKAGE IS APPROVED BY BIFR AND AN A MICABLE SETTLEMENT IS REACHED WITH THE LABOUR. WE FURTHER FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BIFR HAS NOT STOPPED THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RESTRUCTURING PROC ESS IS GOING ON AND BECAUSE OF LABOUR PROBLEM, LACK OF FINANCE AND THE MATTER BEING REFERRED TO BIFR THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS STOPPED. 11.1 THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED DR, IN OUR OPINION, ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE . IN THE CASE OF T.M. CHACKO & PARTNER (SUPRA) ABKARI BUSINESS WAS NOT CA RRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS SEVERAL YEARS ON ACCOU NT OF PROHIBITION. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE REMUNERATION AS AN EMPLOYEE FROM A FIRM AND THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST AGAINST DELAYED PAYMENT OF ABKARI ARREARS AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS E XPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR THE EXPE NDITURE HOLDING THAT NO DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED AS ABKARI BUSINESS EXPENDI TURE AS THE BUSINESS HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO THE TRIBUNAL THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE CLAIM HOLDING THA T THE ABSENCE OF ACTIVE TRADE IN ABKARI BUSINESS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR A ND IN THE EARLIER YEAR AMOUNTED ONLY TO A LULL IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT A DISCONTINUANCE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. WHEN THE MA TTER WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ON ACCOUNT OF I.T.A. NO. 5143 & 4815/MUM/08 M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD . ==================== 7 PROHIBITION IN LAW THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CARRY ON ABKARI BUSINESS, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT THERE WAS ONLY A LULL IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO DISCONTINUITY IN THE BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT INTEREST IN THE BELATED PAYMENT OF ABKARI ARREARS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 12. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF INDERCHAND HARIRAM (SUPRA) THE BUSINESS HAD CEASED TO EXIST BY REASON OF SUGAR CONTROL ORDE R AND THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED THERE UNDER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT DO ANY SELLING AGENCY BUSINESS IN SUGAR. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT BY MERELY MAINTAINING AN OFFICE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS, THE EXPENDITURE ON WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. 13. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CHINAI & CO. PVT. LTD. (SU PRA) RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ACTING AS MANAG ING AGENT IN ANOTHER COMPANY AND THE MANAGING AGENCY SYSTEM WAS ABOLISHE D STATUTORILY WITH EFFECT FROM 3.4.1970. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FIGHTING ANOTHER GROUP OF SHAREHOLDERS TO PROTECT INVESTMENT IN ERSTWHILE MANAGED COMPANY IS NOT A BUSINESS EXPE NDITURE AND CANNOT BE DEDUCTED FROM INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 14. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO SUCH PROHI BITION OF LAW. THE BIFR HAS NOT STOPPED THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE RESTRUCTURING PROCESS IS GOING ON. FURTHER ALTHOUG H NO MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR STILL SOME ACTIVITY IN THE SHAPE OF COLLECTION/RECOVERY OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AND PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS, ETC., HAS TAKEN PLACE DURING THE YEAR. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET GIVING THE DETAILS OF FIG URES AS ON 3.3.2004 AND 31.3.2005. WE, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS A TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS AND THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES HAVE TEMPORARILY BEEN SUSPENDED AND THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IN THIS VIEW OF TH E MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ALLOW THE I.T.A. NO. 5143 & 4815/MUM/08 M/S. AKASHA SYNCOTEX LTD . ==================== 8 EXPENDITURE UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS AMOUNTING TO RS.2 0,30,222 AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) SR. VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009 COPY TO: (1) THE APPELLANT, (2) THE RESPONDENT, (3) THE CIT (A)-VI, MUMBAI, (4) THE CIT-6, MUMBAI, (5) THE DR, A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI TPRAO