ASST CIT CEN CIR 29 CEN RG 7, MUMBAI V. HAWARE ENGG. & BUILDERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5210/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3433 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: MIHIR C NANIWADEKAR
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.5210 & 5211/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2011-12 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, R.NO.411, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. M/S. HAWARE ENGG. & BUILDERS PVT. LTD., G-1, COURT CHAMBERS, GROUND FLOOR, V. THAKKERSEY MARG, 35, NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI 400 020 PAN: AAACH 2577C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MIHIR C. NANIWADEKAR, A.R. & SHRI RUTURAJ H. GURJAR, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI AMIT KUMAR SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 17.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 03.2016 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY TH E REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 01.05.2014 & 26.05.2014 OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE R EVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS, HENCE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE GRO UNDS FROM ITA NO.5210/M/2014 ARE TAKEN WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UN DER: '1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT T HE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT IS ADMISSIBLE TO A 'HOUSING PROJECT' ON THE SIZ E OF TWO PLOTS OF LAND TOGETHER MAKING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE, WHEN CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 80LB(10) OF THE IT ACT PRESCRIBES THAT THE PROJECT SHOULD BE ON THE SIZE OF THE LAND WHICH HAS A ITA NOS.5210 & 5211/M/2014 M/S. HAWARE ENGG. & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 2 MAXIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT T HE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE IT ACT IS ADMISSIBLE TO A 'HOUSING PROJECT' COMPRISING RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL UNITS. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND AND I OR TO ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NEED BE. 4 THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT ON THE GROUN DS STATED ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-40, MUMBAI, MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE INVI TING OUR ATTENTION TO ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS STATED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED DURING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE ALREADY BEEN SETTLED/CONCLUDED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) W HEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 04.05 .12 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 AND FURTHER ORDER DATED 04.04.13 FOR A.Y. 2 007-08 AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 2008-09, HAS DECIDED THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMI SSIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT, ORDER OF THE AO AS AL SO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT HON'BLE ITAT H AD, VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 4/5/2012 FOR A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07, AND O RDER DATED 4/4/2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITL ED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80LB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED THRE E PROJECTS. SIMILARLY, MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR, VIDE ORDER DATED 7/11/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80LB(10) TO THE APPELLANT, IN RESPECT OF THE THREE PROJECTS MENTIONED ABOVE. FURT HER, VIDE ORDERS DATED 7/11/2012 AND 17/4/2013 FOR A.YS. 2009-10 AND 2010-1 1 RESPECTIVELY, MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR HAD DIRECTED T HE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) TO THE APPELLANT, IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECTS PANCHAVATI AND 'VRINDAVAN', FOLLOWING HON'BLE ITA T'S ORDER DATED 4/5/2012 IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A.YS. 2005-06& 2006-07. RELEVANT PORTION OF ORDER DATED 7/11/2012 PASSED BY LEARNED PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IS REPRODUCE D AS UNDER :- 4.4.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH THE AR OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ITA NOS.5210 & 5211/M/2014 M/S. HAWARE ENGG. & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 3 DEDUCTION U/S.80-LB(10) WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROJE CTS SHANTINIKETAN, BALAJI TOWERS, SILICON TOWERS, KAVER I, PANCHAVATI, VRINDAVAN, TULSI AND KAMOTHE PHASE I, P HASE II AND PHASE III HAS BEEN CLAIMED. HOWEVER, DURING APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE DEDUCTION RELATING TO 'SHANTINEKET AN' HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED. REGARDING THE PROJECTS RELATING T O PANCHAVATI, SILICON TOWERS, VRINDAVAN, TULSJ, BALAJ I TOWER AND KAVERI, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF HON 'BLE ITAT FOR A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 DATED 4/5/2 012, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FILED. IN THE ABOVE SAID JUD GEMENT, THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- '31. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON ON THESE PROJECTS (BALAJI AND SILICON) AND RESPECTFULL Y FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEE CASE, WE DIRECT AO ACCORDINGLY. AS FAR AS KAVERI, PANCHAVATI & VRINDAVAN ARE CONCERNED, THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED BY AO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AS CONDITIONS WERE SATISFIED BUT THE DEDUCTION W AS DENIED ON THE REASON THAT NEW NORMS AS PER AMENDED PROVISIONS WILL APPLY. SINCE THE PROJECT WAS APPROV ED BEFORE 1.4.2005 AND AS AO ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN EARL IER YEARS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTI ON IN THESE YEARS, AS REVISED PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE PROJECTS APPROVED EARLIER TO 01-04-05. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10). THE PRINCIPLE WAS LAID DOWN BY (ITAT IN T HE CASE OF SAROJ SALES ORGANIZATION 3 DTR 494 WHILE DECIDING AN IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR A.Y. 2005-06, HELD IN PARA 13 OF THE ORDER THAT WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT HOUSING PROJECTS WERE APPROVED BEFORE 31ST MARCH, 2005 AND FOR SUCH PROJECT WHICH WERE SO APPROVED, THERE WAS NO STIPULATION AS TO THE SHOPPING COMPLEX ARE PERMISSIBLE IN THE PROJECT. AS ALREADY STATED EARLI ER THAT THE AMENDMENTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY MADE WHILE EXTENDING THE DEDUCTION OF INCOME FROM HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED UP TO 31 MARCH, 2007, THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION, IN OUR VIEW, IS CLEARLY NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV V. DCIT (2010) 39 SOT 498 (MU M) AND ACIT V. SHETH DEVELOPERS 33 SOT 277 (BOM) WHEREIN T HEY HAVE FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF ITAT IN SAROJ SALES ORGAN IZATION (SUPRA). THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF RAJ DEV ELOPERS V. ITO (2011) 43 SOT 184 (AHMD) HAVE ALSO FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF DIVISION BENCHES IN THE CASE ARUNA EXCELLO FOUND ATION PVT. LTD. V. ACIT (2007) 108 TTJ (CHENNAI) 71 AND SAROJ ORGANIZATION ITA NOS.5210 & 5211/M/2014 M/S. HAWARE ENGG. & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 4 (SUPRA). THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT THESE PROJECTS (KAVERI, PANC HAVATI & VRINDAVAN) ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AND AO IS DIR ECTED ACCORDINGLY. 32. WITH REFERENCE TO THE TULSI PROJECT, THE CONTEN TION WAS WHETHER TULSI TOWERS IS A SEPARATE PROJECT OR EXTEN SION OF VRINDAVAN PROJECT. AO HELD THAT TULSI TOWERS IS ONL Y AN EXTENSION OF VRINDAVAN PROJECT AND ACCORDINGLY HE D ISALLOWED THE CLAIM AS HE HAS NOT ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR VRIND AVAN PROJECT. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE CONTENTION BY HOLDIN G AS UNDER VIDE PARA 3.3.2. '3.3.2 I NOW COME TO THE DEDUCTION FOR THE TULSI PR OJECT. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON AND THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 80IB(10), I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY HELD THIS PROJECT AS ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE VRIND AVAN PROJECT. TO THIS END, I NOTE THE FOLLOWING SIGNIFIC ANT FEATURES: I) THE TULSI TOWER IS ONLY THE 'C' WING OF THE VRIN DAVAN PROJECT WHICH HAS 'A' TO 'W' WINGS LAID OUT IN A RE CTANGULAR SHAPE IN TWO LOOPS. II) THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 01.2.2002 IS IN RESPECT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE VRINDAVAN PROJECT . III) THE SEPARATE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 22.12.2006 FOR THE TULSI TOWER REFERS TO ONLY ADDIT IONS AND ALTERATION' OF THE C WING MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THIS CERTIFICATE IS BEING ISSUED ONLY FOR THE ADDITION AND ALTERATIO N OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PLOT NO. 52, SECTOR 9, NEW PAN VEL, NAVI MUMBAI WHICH IS THE SAME PLOT ON WHICH THE VRINDAVA N PROJECT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. IV) THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER HAS ALSO IN HIS REPORT DATED 31.1.2008 MENTIONED TULSI TOWER AS THE LAST B UILDING IN THE VRINDAVAN PROJECT. AS MAY BE SEEN, THE ABOVE FEATURES OF THE TULSI TOW ER PROJECT OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R'S STAND THAT THIS IS NOT A SEPARATE PROJECT BUT ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE VRINDAVAN PROJECT WHICH IS NOT ENT ITLED TO THE DEDUCTION. AS AGAINST THESE TELL-TALE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE APPELLANT H AS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIA TE ITS STAND. THE TULSI TOWER BEING PART OF THE VRINDAVAN PROJECT, ITA NOS.5210 & 5211/M/2014 M/S. HAWARE ENGG. & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 5 THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 80IB(10) WOULD THUS HAVE TO BE APPLIED AS APPLICABLE TO THE VRINDAVAN P ROJECT AND NOT THE TULSI TOWER. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 80IB(10) ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE TULSI TOWER ARE MIS PLACED. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT VIZ. , FILING OF THE NECESSARY PARTICULARS, BUILT-UP AREAS OF THE FL ATS BEING WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS, RECOGNITION OF THE RE VENUE FROM THIS PROJECT ON PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD A RE ALL IRRELEVANT ONCE IT STANDS PROVED THAT THIS PROJECT IS ONLY AN EXTENSION OF ANOTHER PROJECT WHICH IS FOUND TO BE I NELIGIBLE FOR THE FACTS APPLICABLE TO THAT PROJECT. IN LINE W ITH THE FOREGOING, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RI GHTLY DENIED DEDUCTION TO THE TULSI PROJECT. HIS ACTION I S CONFIRMED. IN LINE WITH THE FOREGOING, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' 33. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) ALSO AGREES THAT THIS PROJECT IS AN EXTENSION OF VRINDAVAN PROJECT. ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS ARE TO BE ACCEPTED AS THIS IS A SEPARAT E PROJECT, AS THERE IS A SEPARATE APPROVAL AND FULFILLED CONDITIO NS AS APPLICABLE POST AMENDMENT, SO THE PROJECT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10). EVEN IF ONE WERE TO ACCEPT THAT T HIS IS AN EXTENSION OF VRINDAVAN PROJECT, SINCE VRINDAVAN PRO JECT ITSELF WAS ALLOWED 80IB(10) DEDUCTION, THERE CANNOT BE ANY REA SON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF 80IB DEDUCTION ON TULSI TOWERS, AS PART OF VRINDAVAN PROJECT. LOOKING AT IT EITHER WAY, A CLAI M UNDER SECTION 80IB-ON THE TULSI PROJECT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED AS A LL THE CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO 80IB(10) ARE FULFILLED. TH E HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF NEW P ROJECT ON EXISTING PLOT IN ITS ORDER DATED 28.03.2012 IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VANDANA PROPERTIES ITA NOS. 3633 OF 2009 AND 4361 O F 2010. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE LAND OF PLOT ADMEASURING 2.36 A CRES HAD CONSTRUCTED BUILDING A, B, C AND D OVER A PERIOD DU RING 1993- 1996. PURSUANT TO THE DECISION OF THE STATE GOVERNM ENT PERMITTING CONVERSION OF THE STATUS OF LAND, ASSESS EE BECAME ENTITLED TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL BUILDING E ON T HAT PLOT OF LAND. THE PLOT KNOWN AS BUILDING NO.E WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR WHICH THE APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PLAN WAS GRANTED ON 11.10. 2002 AND COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED ON 10.03.2003. EVEN THOUGH THE LAND PERTAINED TO E- BUILDING WAS LESS T HAN ONE ACRE, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD IN PARA 29 OF TH E JUDGEMENT THAT U/S 80-IB(10), THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS. IT LAID DOWN THAT ON A PLOT OF LAND HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE, THERE CAN BE ANY NUMBER OF HOUSING PROJECTS AND SO LONG AS THOSE HOUSING PROJECTS ARE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND FU LFILL THE CONDITIONS SET OUT U/S 80-18(10), THE DEDUCTION THE RE UNDER CAN ITA NOS.5210 & 5211/M/2014 M/S. HAWARE ENGG. & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 6 NOT BE DENIED TO ALL THOSE HOUSING PROJECTS. SECTIO N 80-IB(1,0) WHILE SPECIFYING THE SIZE OF PLOT ON LAND, DOES NOT SPECIFY THE SIZE OR THE NUMBER OF HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE UNDERTAKEN ON A PLOT HAVING MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACR E'. THEREFORE, THERE CAN NOT BE ANY OBJECTION FOR SANCT ION OF NEW PROJECT ON EXISTING PROJECTS SANCTIONED EARLIER. HO WEVER, FOR RECORD WE HOLD THAT TULSI PROJECT IS SEPARATELY APP ROVED PROJECT AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT AND AMENDED PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) EFFECTIVE FROM 01/04/2005 ARE APPL ICABLE AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED BY ASSESSEE AS THE P ROJECT IS A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND COMMERCIAL AREA IS LESS THA N THE PRESCRIBED AREA AND OTHER CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, SO WE HOLD THAT TULSI PROJECT IS ALSO ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U NDER SECTION 80LB(L0). 34. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE WITH REFERE NCE TO CLAIMS OF DEDUCTION U/S80IB(10) ON VARIOUS PROJECTS AS DIS CUSSED ABOVE ARE ALLOWED, EXCEPT THE GROUND NO.1 (ON SHANTI NIKE TAN) WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 80IB(10) REGARDING THE SE 6 PROJECTS IN THIS YEAR ALSO.' ACCORDINGLY, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER S OF HON'BLE ITAT AND MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) TO THE APPELLANT, IN RESPECT OF ALL TH E THREE PROJECTS 'PANCHAVATI', 'VRINDAVAN AND 'KAVERI', IN THIS YEAR ALSO. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 03.08 .15 IN ITA NO.1691 OF 2013 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2007-08 AND FURTHER ORDER DAT ED 09.01.15 IN ITA NO.164 OF 2013 RELATING TO A.Y. 2005-06 AND ORDER DATED 04 .12.14 IN ITA NO.1668 OF 2012 WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS UPHE LD THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQU ARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.5210 & 5211/M/2014 M/S. HAWARE ENGG. & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 7 5. THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE A BOVE GROUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN EARLIER AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS TO THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 05.03.2016. * 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.