INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(2)(2), MUMBAI V. LANDMARK FACILITIES, MUMBAI

ITA 5150/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0249 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIUM LD
• Keywords: Business income; Proportionate interest; Arm length price; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.5150/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(2)(2) C-13, R.NO.608, 6 TH FLOOR PRATYAKSHKAR BHAWAN BKC, BANDRA, MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. LANDMARK FACILITIES 11-12, NAGARWALA COLONY OPP. LAXMINARAYAN SHOPPING CENTRE PODDAR ROAD, MALAD(E) MUMBAI 400 064 ./PAN : AADFL-7603-D ( /APPELLANT ) : ( ! / RESPONDENT ) & ./I.T.A. NO.5151/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) INCOME TAX OFFICER 30(2)(2) C-13, R.NO.608, 6 TH FLOOR PRATYAKSHKAR BHAWAN BKC, BANDRA, MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. LANDMARK FACILITIES 11-12, NAGARWALA COLONY OPP. LAXMINARAYAN SHOPPING CENTRE PODDAR ROAD, MALAD(E) MUMBAI 400 064 ./PAN : AADFL-7603-D ( /APPELLANT ) : ( ! / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : M.SUBRAMANIUM, LD. AR REVENUE BY : ASHISH KUMAR, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28/11/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/12/2018 / O R D E R ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 2 PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S [AY] 2013-14 & 2014-15 AGITATE SEPARATE ORDERS OF FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY ON COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED , WE DISPOSE-OFF THE SAME BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE & BREVITY. FIRST, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.5050/MUM/2017 WHICH CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 41, MUMB AI, [CIT(A)], APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-41/IT-364/16-17 DATED 16/05/2017 Q UA DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,07,88,885/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) AS MADE BY LD. AO. 2.1 FACTS LEADING TO THE DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE BEING RESIDENT FIRM ENGAGED IN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT WAS ASSESSED FOR IMPUGNED AY IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 14/03/2016 BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER-30(2)(2) WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.89.65 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RE TURNED LOSS OF RS.18.43 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29/09/2013. THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.107.88 LACS U/S 36(1)(III) IS TH E SOLE SUBJECT MATTER OF PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.2 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT TRANSPIRED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CONTRACT OF FACILITY MAINTENANCE OF A BU ILDING NAMELY JASWANTI LANDMARK WHICH WAS OWNED BY ONE OF THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S ASHRAY PROPERTIES. THE PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED INTEREST FREE D EPOSIT OF RS.10.62 CRORES TO THE AFORESAID ENTITY IN TERMS OF FACILITY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 30/08/2010 & SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 3 15/09/2010. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD THE RIGHT TO COLLECT MAINTENANCE / AMENITIES CHARGES FR OM THE LICENSEES OF THE UNITS AND IN TURN, WAS REQUIRED TO PLACE DEPOSIT WI TH THE AFORESAID ENTITY @RS.1800/- PER SQUARE FEET OF CARPET AREAS GIVEN ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS BY THE OWNER I.E. SISTER CONCERN. SUCH DEPOSI T WAS PAYABLE ONLY WHEN AT LEAST 5 FLOORS OF THE BUILDING WERE GIVEN O N LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS AND THE DEPOSITS WAS TO BE MADE WITHIN 3 MONT HS OF EXECUTION OF LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENTS FOR 5 FLOORS FAILING W HICH ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST @15% PER ANNUM FOR DELAYED P ERIOD OF PAYMENT. THE PROPORTIONATE DEPOSIT WAS REFUNDABLE WHENEVER T HE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT CAME TO AN END. THE PERUSAL OF TH ESE FACTS REVEALS THAT THE DEPOSITS, PRIMA FACIE, WERE GIVEN AS A CONSIDERATION TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES FROM T HE LICENSEES AND THE SAME WERE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS SISTER CONCERN. HOWEVER, KEEP ING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED LOSS DURING THE IMPUGNE D AY AND CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.131.35 LACS, THE DEPOSIT , IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, WAS EXCESSIVE AND NOT A GENUINE TRANSACTION AND ALSO NOT CARRIED OUT AT ARM LENGTH PRICE. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DEPO SITS WERE APPROX. 10 TIMES OF ANNUAL INCOME AND APPROX. 4 TIMES OF ANNUA L RECEIPTS. THE LD. AO ATTEMPTED TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS FACT BY COMPARING THE QUANTUM OF SECURITY DEPOSITS REQUIRED IN TENDERS FLOATED BY AIR INDIA AND SIDBI FOR FACILITY MANAGEMENT CONTRACT AND FOUND THAT THE SEC URITY DEPOSITS REQUIRED IN THOSE CASES WERE 5% OF THE CONTRACT VAL UE PER YEAR. 2.3 THE LD. AO ALSO EXAMINED THE SOURCE OF INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT IN AY 2012-13 BEING UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.686.35 LACS TAK EN BY THE ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 4 ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS LENDERS WHO, IN TURN, RECEIVE D IMMEDIATE CREDIT FROM M/S ASHRAY PROPERTIES AND OTHER GROUP CONCERNS OF M/S ASHRAY GROUP BEFORE ADVANCING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. IN AY 20 12-13, LD. AO HAD OBSERVED THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS IN THE HAN DS OF M/S ASHRAY PROPERTIES WERE TRANSFERRED IN STRUCTURED MANNER TO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO REDUCE THE OVERALL TAX BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR SHIFTING OF FUNDS FROM ASSESSEES SISTER CO NCERNS TO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED AY, WHICH LED THE LD. AO TO REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION. DURING IMPUGNED AY, THE ASSESSEE HAD CL AIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.131.35 LACS. 2.4 ANOTHER FACTOR NOTED BY LD. AO WAS THAT QUANTUM OF DEPOSITS WAS CALCULATED BASED ON USABLE AREA OF 7500 SQUARE FEET AS AGAINST CONTRACTUAL CARPER AREA OF 4358.89 SQUARE FEET GIVE N ON LEAVE & LICENSE BASIS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE DEPOSITS W ERE EXCESSIVE FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW ALSO AND THE SAME WERE NOT AS PE R CONTRACTUAL TERMS. 2.5 THE ASSESSEE, CONTROVERTED THE OBSERVATIONS MAD E BY LD. AO VIDE REPLY DATED 19/02/2016 BY ADVERTING ATTENTION TO TH E FACT THAT DEPOSITS WERE GIVEN AS A PART OF CONTRACTUAL CONDITION AND I NEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH CONTRACT GENERATING THE BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSEE. THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE ANNUAL CONTRACT RATE PER CARPET SQUARE FEET OFFERED UNDER THE CONTRACT OF AIR INDIA AND SIDBI @ RS.13.68 & RS.37.16 RESPECTIVELY WAS MUCH LOWER THAN RS.727/- CHARGED B Y THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER FACTOR TO WHICH THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN WAS THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT VALIDITY OF AIR INDIA TENDER AND SIDBI TEN DER WAS 1 YEAR / 2 YEAR RESPECTIVELY AS AGAINST PERPETUAL VALIDITY ENJOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST E XPENDITURE CLAIMED BY ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 5 THE ASSESSEE WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) IRRESPECTI VE OF THE SOURCE OF UNSECURED LOANS, THE GENUINENESS OF WHICH WAS NOT U NDER DOUBT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CARPET AREA UNDER THE CONTRACTU AL TERM ALWAYS MEANT USABLE OR CHARGEABLE AREA, IN SUPPORT OF WHICH A LE TTER DATED 20/09/2010 WAS SUBMITTED TO LD. AO. 2.6 HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, LD. AO, INTER-ALIA, OPINED THAT UNREASONABLY HIGH DEPOSITS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO RELATED PARTY WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY BUT GIVEN I N STRUCTURED MANNER SO AS TO AVOID DUE TAXES IN ASSESSEES HANDS. FINAL LY, LD. AO CONCLUDED THAT ONLY 5% OF TOTAL CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS.24 7.80 LACS WAS PRUDENT DEPOSIT AMOUNT AS PER PREVAILING MARKET CONDITIONS AND HENCE, THE DIFFERENTIAL EXCESSIVE DEPOSIT OF RS.10.50 CRORES W AS WITHOUT ANY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THER EFORE, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST UNSECUR ED LOANS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED U/S 36(1)(III). SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.131.35 LACS AGAINST UNSECURED LOA NS OF RS.12.78 CRORES, THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE ON EXCESS DEPOSIT OF RS.10.50 CRORES WORKED OUT TO RS.107.88 LACS, THE A DJUSTMENT OF WHICH WAS MADE WHILE DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIO NS WITH SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/05/2 017 WHEREIN LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, RELYING UPON THE ORDER O F ITS PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 DELETED THE IMPU GNED ADDITIONS BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: - ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 6 6. THE FACTS REMAIN THE SAME DURING THE CURRENT AY 2013-14. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CLARIFICATORY LETTER DATED 20/09/2010 WITH TH E AO DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED ON STAMP PAPER AND IT WAS AN AFTER TH OUGHT AS THE SAME WAS NOT FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2012-13. THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT THE CLARIFICATORY LETTER SH OULD BE ON A STAMP PAPER. IT WAS JUST A CLARIFICATION THAT THE TERM CARPET AREA IN THE MAIN AGREEMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS USABLE AREA. IF THE TWO PARTIES HAV E AGREED ON EVEN A PLAIN PAPER, THE SUBSTANCE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON THA T THE WORD USABLE AREA APPEARS IN THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE LICENSEES AND HENCE THE CLARIFICATORY LETTER IS VERY MUCH JUSTIFIED TO MAKE ANY WORKING POSSIBLE. TO CONCLUDE , IT IS FOUND THAT THE ARRANGEMENT IS NOT DEVOID ON ANY COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. WITHOUT THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EARNED ANY INCOME. MOREOVER , THE INTEREST ON BORROWINGS ARE PAID TO THIRD PARTIES WHICH ARE NOT RELATED. TH E SAID BORROWINGS HAVE BEEN USED FOR GIVING DEPOSITS TO EARN INCOME AND WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWINGS IS FOUND TO BE ALLOWABLE AS PER SECTION 36(1)(III). AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. AUTHORIZED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [ DR] JUSTIFIED THE ACTION OF LD. AO WHEREAS LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE FOR ASSESSEE [AR], SHRI M.SUBRAMANIUM SUPPORTED THE STAND OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY SUBMITTING THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE GIVE N AS PER CONTRACTUAL TERMS ONLY. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE PERUSAL OF CONTRACTUAL TERM S LEADING TO GRANT OF DEPOSIT BY THE ASSESSEE, AS NOTED BY US IN PARA 2.2, REVEALS THAT THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES FROM VARIOUS LIC ENSEES AND THE SAME WERE INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE QUANTUM AS WELL AS PERIODICITY OF DEP OSITS WAS PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS AND THE TERMS ALSO PROVIDE D FOR REFUND OF THE SAME IN CERTAIN EVENTUALITY. THE LD. AO HAS DISALLO WED THE INTEREST ON THE PREMISE THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS EXCESSIVE IN NATUR E KEEPING IN VIEW THE ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 7 DEPOSITS SOUGHT BY OTHER ENTITIES UNDER SIMILAR CIR CUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SITTING ON THE ARMCHAIR OF A BUSINESSMAN SO AS TO ADJUDGE THE SUFF ICIENCY OF THE DEPOSITS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DULY AUTHO RIZED BY THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS. THIS IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT DEPOSITS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY SO AS TO GET THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES FROM THE L ICENSEES WHICH GENERATED BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, THE SAME WAS INEXTRICABLY LINKED WITH CONTRACT GENERATING BUSINE SS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT TAX PLANNING IS LEGI TIMATE PROVIDED IT FELL WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF LAW AND IT IS PERMISSIBL E UNDER THE LAW PROVIDED THE SAME IS NOT A COLORABLE DEVICE AND NOT DONE SO AS TO MERELY DEFRAUD THE EXCHEQUER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH ATTEMPT BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS OR INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS NOT UND ER DOUBT. THE ONLY CONDITION ENVISAGED BY SECTION 36(1)(III) TO GRANT DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS THAT THE FUNDS WERE USED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NOTHING MORE. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL T HESE FACTORS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE STAND OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. OUR VIEW IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE ANALOGY OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN S.A.BUILDERS VS. CIT [2006 288 ITR 1] WHERE HONBLE COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 34. W E AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. DALIMA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. (2002) 254 ITR 377 THAT ONCE I T IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE O F THE BUSINESS (WHICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E ITSELF), THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARM-C HAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME T HE ROLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 8 CASE. NO BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE I TS PROFIT. THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD ACT. THE AUTHORITIE S MUST NOT LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM THEIR OWN VIEW POINT BUT THAT OF A PRUD ENT BUSINESSMAN. AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, WE HAVE TO SEE THE TRANSFER O F THE BORROWED FUNDS TO A SISTER CONCERN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND NOT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW WHETHER THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED F OR EARNING PROFITS. 35. WE WISH TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT OUR OPINION THAT IN EVERY CASE INTEREST ON BORROWED LOAN HAS TO BE ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSEE ADVANCES IT TO A SISTER CONCERN. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE RESPECTIVE CASE. FOR INSTANCE, IF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SISTER CONCERN UTILIZE THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO IT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THEIR PERSONAL B ENEFIT, OBVIOUSLY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUCH MONEY WAS ADVANCED AS A MEASURE O F COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. HOWEVER, MONEY CAN BE SAID TO BE ADVANC ED TO A SISTER CONCERN FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN MANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANC ES (WHICH NEED NOT BE ENUMERATED HERE). HOWEVER, WHERE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT A HOLDING COMPANY HAS A DEEP INTEREST IN ITS SUBSIDIARY, AND HENCE IF THE HOLDING COMPANY ADVANCES BORROWED MONEY TO A SUBSIDIARY AND THE SAME IS USED BY THE SUBSIDIARY FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE ASSESSEE WOULD, IN OUR OPINION, ORDINARILY BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON ITS BORROWED L OANS. THEREFORE, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, WE DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. ITA NO. 5151/MUM/2017, AY 2014-15 6. IN THIS AY, THE ASSESSEE, IN SIMILAR MANNER, HAS BEEN SADDLED WITH INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 172.64 LACS U/S 36(1)( III) WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON SIMILAR LIN ES. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US WITH SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING PARI-MATERIA THE SAME, TAKING THE SAME VIEW, WE CONFIRM THE STAND OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. CONCLUSION ITA NOS. 5150-51/MUM/2017 LANDMARK FACILITIES ASSESSMENT YEARS-2013-14 & 2014-15 9 7. BOTH THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (M ANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 11/12/2018 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ( / CIT CONCERNED 5. )* #+ , + , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *,-. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI