ADDL CIT RG 9, MUMBAI V. SPICE COMMUNICATION LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS IDEA CELLUAR LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 5160/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87936 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJIT K SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK G DOSHI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Double taxation relief; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

, TH THTH TH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - G BENCH. , , BEFORE S/SH.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEM BER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.5160/MUM/2011, ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 ADDL. CIT RANGE -9 NEW DELHI VS IDEA CELLULAR (SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATION LTD.) 5 TH FLOOR, WINDSOR, OFF CST ROAD, NEAR VIDYA NAGARI, KALINA, SANTACRUZ(E),MUMBAI-98 PAN:AAGCS6070H ( #$ / APPELLANT) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT) /. ITA NO. 2639/DEL/2011, ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 IDEA CELLULAR (SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATION LTD.) 5 TH FLOOR, WINDSOR, OFF CST ROAD, NEAR VIDYA NAGARI, KALINA, SANTACRUZ(E),MUMBAI-98 PAN:AAGCS6070H VS ADDL. CIT RANGE -9 NEW DELHI ( #$ / APPELLANT) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT) !() !() !() !() * * * * / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RONAK G. DOSHI + * / REVENUE BY : SHRI AJIT K. SRIVASTVA ! ! ! ! + ++ + ), ), ), ), / DATE OF HEARING : 07.01.2015 -.' + ), / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-01-2015 ! ! ! ! 1961 + ++ + 254 )1( )/) )/) )/) )/) 0 0 0 0 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM ! ! ! ! : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.08.03.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-2 4,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAVE FILED CROSS APPEALS.GROUN D OF APPEAL,RAISED BY THE AO,READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND, IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ADVERTISEMENT AND SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES AMOUN TING TO RS.3,72,47,000/- BY TREATING IT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE INSTEAD OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE . 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES FEE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO R S.2,77,31,250/- BY TREATING IT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE INSTEAD OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 3.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS.29,42,17,000/-U/S.40(A) (IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4.THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 9, NEW DELHI (THE AO) TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHARTI CELLULAR AND OTHER (193 TAXMAN 97) ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABIL ITY OF ROAMING CHARGES PAID TO THE DISTRIBUTORS. 2.THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE FOREGOING DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) BE ANNULLED AS BAD IN LAW, SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS NO POWER TO SET-ASIDE THE MATT ER TO THE AO UNDER SECTION 251 OF THE ACT. 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ITA/2639&5160/MUM/2011-AY.07-08,SCL 2 APPRECIATING THAT THE PAYMENT MADE FOR USE OF STAND ARD FACILITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED UNDER EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(I)(VII) OF THE ACT AND HENCE TAX IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT IN RES PECT OF DOMESTIC ROAMING CHARGES OF RS. 23, 35, 53,153/- AS ALSO IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL ROAMIN G CHARGES OF RS. 6,06,64,163/- PAID TO FOREIGN COMPANIES UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. 2.THE APPELLANT THUS PRAYS THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I)/40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AGGREGATING TO RS. 29,42,17,316/- ON TOTAL ROAMING CHARGES BE DELETED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I AND II ADDITIONAL GRO UND III: 1.THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIO NAL ROAMING CHARGES PAID TO THE FOREIGN COMPANIES,THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER T AX IS DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF THE RESPECTIVE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT(DTAA), TO THE EXTENT MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE APPEL1ANT, WHEN COMPA RED WITH PROVISIONS UNDER THE ACT, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, RE-DETERMINING WHETHER DISALLOWANCE I S WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 2.THE APPELLANT THUS PRAYS THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON INTERNATIONAL ROAMING CHARGES BE RE-DETERMINED AFTER EXAMINING TH E PROVISIONS OF THE DTAA. FOLLOWING ARE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE : ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. IV: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTIONS 40(A)(I) / 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE EXPENSES THAT ARE PAY ABLE AT THE BALANCE SHEET DATE AND THEREFORE, THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE PAYMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR ITSELF 2.THE APPELLANT THUS PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF ROAMING CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.29,42, 17, 316/- UNDER SECTIONS 40(A)(I) / 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BE DELETED OR APPROPRIATELY RE DUCED. BEFORE US,IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED WERE PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND DID NOT REQUIRE INVESTIGATION OF FACTS.IN THE APPLICATION,F ILED ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS,THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE SAME SUBMISSIONS.AFTER PERUSI NG THE SAID GROUNDS AND THE APPLICATION,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SAME GO TO ROOT OF THE ISSU E AND ARE OF LEGAL NATURE ONLY.THEREFORE,WE ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE ADDITIONAL,AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF RULE 11 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS A SERVICE PROVIDER FOR PROVISIO N OF CELLULAR MOBILE TELEPHONE SERVICES IN THE TELECOM CIRCLES OF PUNJAB AND KARNATAKA.IT FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2007,DECLARING LOSS OF RS.23,89,63,799/-.THE AO FINALISED THE ASSE SSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 24.12.2009, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.33,88,38,463/-. ITA/5160/MUM/2011,AY.2007-08: 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL DEALS WITH THE ADVERTISEMENT AND SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,72,47,000/-.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSCIOUSLY INCURRED ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE TO P ROP UP THE BRAND SPICE,THAT IT RESULTED IN AN ENDURING ADVANTAGE TO THE ASSESSEE.HE DISALLOWED 10 % OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. 2.1.AGGRIVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,HE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS.HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI TRIBUNAL,DELIVERED IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE(35SOT78) AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2.BEFORE US,BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE ISSU E IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961-BUSINESS E XPENDITURE ALLOWABILITY OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2005-06. ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS IN BUSINES S OF PROVIDING MOBILE TELEPHONE SERVICES SINCE 1997 UNDER BRAND NAME SPICE'. IT INCURRED CE RTAIN EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION - ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESP ECT OF AFORESAID EXPENDITURE TO EXTENT OF 10 PER CENT HOLDING THAT THESE HAD BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS BRAND BUILDING AND, HENCE, WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE-COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)DELETED ADD ITION-WHETHER SINCE BY INCURRING ACQUIRED ANY FIXED CAPITAL ASSET, BUT THESE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING BETTER PROFITS AND FOR ITA/2639&5160/MUM/2011-AY.07-08,SCL 3 FACILITATING ASSESSEES OPERATION OF PROVIDING CELL ULAR MOBILE SERVICES,COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RIGHTLY ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF EXPE NDITURE SO INCURRED. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY.2 003-04 TO 2005-06 HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT(ITA 643,649 AND 680 OF 201 1).RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE MENTIONED JUDGMENT,WE DECIDE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. 3. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT MANAGEMENT SERVICE S FEE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,77,31, 250/-.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.2.77 CRORES(RS.3.26 CRORES(-)DEPRECIATION @15 % I.E.RS.48.93 LAKHS)TOWARDS MANAGEMENT SERVICE FEE PAID TO MODICORP.HE HELD THAT THE PAYME NT WAS MADE FOR TRANSFER OF TECHNICAL KNOW - HOW AND LICENSE TO USE IPR.HE WAS OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,THE FAA HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE EARLIER YEARS.HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF SPICE COMMUNICATION LTD.(SUPRA). 3.1. BEFORE US,DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER A) THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN JONUS WOO DHEAD & SONS (INDIA)PVT. LTD. VS CIT (224 ITR 342) THAT UNDER THE AGREEMENT WITH THE FOREIGN FIRM, WHAT WAS SET UP BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A NEW BUSINESS AND THE FOREIGN FIRM HAD NOT ONLY PROV IDED INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW BUT EVEN RENDERED VALUABLE SERVICES IN SETTING UP OF TH E FACTORY. FURTHER, IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS FREE TO CONTINUE TO MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCT IN INDI A. BASED ON THIS, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT 25% OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT WAS TO BE TREATE D AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WHILE THE BALANCE WAS ALLOWED AS A REVENUE EXPENSE. II) IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE PAYMENT MADE TO MO DICORP IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PAID TOWARDS SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS FOR EFFICIENT RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS AFTER THE SAME WAS SET UP AND, HENCE, THE PAYMENT HAS TO BE ALLOCATED TOWARDS CAPITAL AS WELL AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE.(C) FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF JONUS WOODHEAD(SUPRA),25% OF THE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND 75% OF THE SAME IS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER YEA RS,WE HOLD THAT 25% OF THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND BALANCE 75% SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE AO,IN PART. 4. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE DISALLO WANCE MADE OF RS.29,42,17,000/-U/S. 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HE AO HELD THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES(FFTS), THAT TAX HAD TO BE DEDUCTED FOR SUCH PAYMENTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,THE FAA HELD THAT DEDU CTIBILITY OF TAX AT SOURCE ON ROAMING CHARGES WAS DELIBERATED UPON BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF BHARATI CELLULAR AND OTHERS(193 TAXMAN97),THAT THE HONBLE COURT HAD DIRECTED THE T DS OFFICER TO CARRY OUT FACTUAL VERIFICATION TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF HUMAN INVOLVEMENT.HE DIRECT ED THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND TO DETERMINE TAX LIABILITY U /S.40(A)(IA)OF THE ACT. 4.1.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY.SO, CONFIRMING HIS ORDER WE DECIDE GROUND NO.3 AGAINST THE AO. ITA NO. 2639/DEL/2011: 5. THE ORIGINAL AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL D EAL WITH THE SAME ISSUE I.E.TAX TO BE DEDUCTED AS SOURCE FOR THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE ON ROAMING CHARGES.THE FAA,AS STATED EARLIER HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT TO DETERMINE THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ROAMING CHARGES U/S.40(A)(IA)OF TH E ACT.AS FAR AS ORIGINAL GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED,IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FAA HAS NOT SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE AO,AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE.HE HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS OF THE APE X COURT.IN OUR OPINION, DIRECTION GIVEN BY HIM ITA/2639&5160/MUM/2011-AY.07-08,SCL 4 CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE FAA CAN PASS ORDER HIMSELF OR CAN GET THE THINGS DONE THROUGH THE AO.PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 2 50-51 ARE VERY CLEAR IN THIS REGARD.THREFORE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DIRE CTIONS OF THE FAA ARE AS PER LAW AND THEY DO NOT NEED OUR INTERFERENCE. GROUND NO.1 AND 2 ARE DE CIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. NEXT GROUND IS ABOUT DEDUCTIBILITY OF TAX AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT AND NON- CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISION OF THE RESPECTIVE DO UBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (DTAA)FOR THE PAYMENT MADE TO FOREIGN COMPANIES.OUT OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.29.42 CRORES THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS.6.06 CRORES TO FOREIGN COM PANIES AND BALANCE RS.23.35 CRORES TO THE DOMESTIC ENTITIES.BEFORE US,THE AR STATED THAT APPL ICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DTAA WAS NOT LOOKED IN TO,THAT ANY PAYMENT FOR THE USE OF ST ANDARD FACILITY DID NOT AMOUNT TO FTS,THAT PROVISIONS OF DTAA WOULD PREVAIL OVER DOMESTIC LAW IF IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT WAS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES,THAT PAYMENT COULD NOT BE TREATE D FFTS IN ABSENCE OF HUMAN INTERVENTION.IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA )ARE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE PAYMENTS THAT REMAIN PENDING AT THE YEAR-END AND NOT FOR THE AMOU NTS ALREADY PAID.THE AR RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF JANPRIYA ENGG.SYNDICATE(ITTA 353 OF 20 14-AP HC),AMIT NARESH SINHA(ITA/ 4154/MUM/2013)HFCL INFO LTD.(99TTJ440),BHARATI CELL ULAR AND OTHERS(175TAXMAN573),MERCH - ANT SHIPPING SERVICES(P)LTD.(129ITD109),HINDUSTAN C OCACOLA BEVERAGE PVT.LTD.(293ITR226). HE ALSO REFERRED PAGE NOS.32,63 AND 68 OF THE PAPE R BOOK(PB).THE DR LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 5.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.ON A QUERY BY THE BENCH ABOUT THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE FAAS OR DER DATED 28.02.2011,REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES COULD NOT THROW ANY LIGHT AS WHAT STAND T HE AO HAD TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT.IT IS SURPRISING BECAUSE ALMOST FOUR YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE ORDER OF THE FAA WAS PASSED.IT IS CERTAIN THAT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT APPROACH THE AO WITH REGARD TO GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE FAA.IT IS TRUE THAT ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF DTAA WILL ARISE ONLY AFTER IT IS HELD THAT PAYMENT MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF FFTS.IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE AO AND FAA DID NOT HAVE BENEFIT OF TH E DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE,THOUGH THEY WILL HAVE BEARINGS ON THE OUTC OME OF THE APPEAL.THERERFORE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. HE IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE IS SUE AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE.GROUND NO.1 AND 2 AND ADDIT IONAL GROUND NO.3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN P ART. AS A RESULT,APPEALS FILED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSE E STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. 1)2!() , 3 !() 4 5 + /6 7 0)2 8 + ) 9: . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH ,JANUARY,2015 . 0 + -.' 7 ;! 7 !, , 201 5 . + / < SD/- SD/- ( /VIJAY PAL RAO) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, ;! /DATE: 07.01 . 2015. SK 0 0 0 0 + ++ + %) %) %) %) =') =') =') =') / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / #$ 2. RESPONDENT / %&#$ 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ > ? , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / > ? 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / @/ %)! TH THTH TH , . . . ITA/2639&5160/MUM/2011-AY.07-08,SCL 5 6. GUARD FILE/ / 1 &) &) &) &) %) %)%) %) //TRUE COPY// 0! / BY ORDER, A / 9 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.