DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI V. SUN INVESTMENT P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 522/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7447 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN ITA NO MUM
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 14A; 115JB; 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JM ITA NO. 522 / MUM/20 15 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 ) ITA NO. 523/ MUM/20 15 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 ) ITA NO. 524/ MUM/20 15 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 ) ITA NO. 525/ MUM/20 15 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ) ITA NO. 527/ MUM/20 15 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 ) DCIT CEN CIR 8(3) ERSTWHILE DCITCC 46 R.NO.659, 6 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 VS. M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., JINDAL CENTRE, 12, B HIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 066 PAN/GIR NO. AAACS0389M APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) ITA NO. 777/ MUM/20 15 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 ) ITA NO. 778/ MUM/20 15 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 ) ITA NO. 779/ MUM/20 15 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 ) M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., JSW CENTER, BKC, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI - 400 051 VS. DCIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AAACS0389M APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI M.C. OMI NINGSHEN ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 2 ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAKESH JOSHI DATE OF HE ARING 06/04/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT 25 / 04 /201 8 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 36, MUMBAI DATED 12/11/2014 FOR A.Y.2005 - 06,2006 - 07,2008 - 09,2009 - 10,2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C OF THE IT ACT. 2. GROUNDS TAKEN BY REVENUE IN THE A.Y.2005 - 06 READS AS UNDER: - 1. 'WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTI FIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ISSUES NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE KAMATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN ITA NO. 38/2014 DATED 25.07.2 014.' 2. 'WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 10,97,05,670/ - CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF OF THE - I NTEREST ON OCDS.' 3. 'WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE LOSS ON SAL E OF SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS BUSINESS LOSS AND ALLOWING THE LOSS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME.' 4. 'WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE KAMATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CANANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN ITA NO, 38/2014 DATED 25.07.2014.' 5. 'WHETHER IN TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 3 CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN ITA NO. 38/2014 DATED 25.07.2014.' THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND AND/OR ADD NEW GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY BELONGING TO JSW GROUP, SEARCH/ SURVEY ACTION S WERE CONDUCTED ON 16.03.2011 IN THE CASE OF VARIOUS JSW GROUP COMPANIES. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE 'S CASE WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH ASSESSMENT U/S 153C RWS 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR PERIOD AY 2005 - 06 TO 2011 - 12. FOR AY 2005 - 06, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139 OF THE ACT ON 27.10.2005 DECLARING NIL INCOME. SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR WAS COMPLETED U/S.1 43(3) ON 24.12.2007. CERTAIN ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFO RE LD. CTT(A). LD. CIT(A) - XII, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 24.10.2008 CONFIRMED ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND FOREIGN .TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF DIRECTORS WHILE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A WAS DELETED. REVENUE PREFERR ED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T (A) WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY HON'BLE ITAT DELHI G BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12 . 2009. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT VIDE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 30.3.2010. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 RWS 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 29.12.2010 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 18 , 27,37,269/ - BY DISALLOWING LOSS ON SALE OF INVESTMENT AND WRITE OFF OF INTEREST ON OCD. IN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 4 LD. CTT(A) - 38, MUMBAI VIDE ORDER DATED 28.2.2014 WHILE HOLDING THAT AO WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 147 IN THE MATTER ALSO DELETED BO TH THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT . IN THE MEANTIME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 3.04.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 75,37,745/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER P A SSED U/S 153C RWS 143(3), WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPEATED TH E ADDITIONS MADE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENTS, HE INCREASED DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND ALSO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF THE DISALLOWA NCE U/S.14A IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115J B OF THE ACT ' . 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED T HAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING FRESH ADDITION OR RECOMPUTING BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAT U/S.115 JB OF THE ACT, AS THE SAME DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND FINDINGS OF SEARCH. THE FINDING AND OBSERVATION OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WAS AS UNDER: - 7.3. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION IS THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING FRESH ADDITIONS OR RECOMPUTING BOOK PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAT U/S 115JB OF THE ACT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C RWS 143(3) AS THE SAME DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF SEIZED MATE RIAL OR FINDINGS OF SEARCH. IT IS A FACT THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 FOR AY 2005 - 06 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) BY MAKING CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES WHICH HAVE BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE VARIOUS APPELLA TE FORUMS AND DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. AS ON DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH, NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE AO FOR THIS YEAR WHICH COULD BE ABATED IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C RWS 14 3(3) WHILE THE AO HAS RETAINED CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS, HE HAS MADE FRESH DISALLOWANCES, WHICH THE APPELLANT DISPUTES AS THE SAME HAS NOT ARISEN OUT OF FINDINGS OF SEARCH ACTION. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN COVE RED BY DECISIO N OF HON'BLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MU R LI AGRO PRODUCTS LIMITED (ITA 36 OF 2009) ORDER DATED 29.10.2010. THE HON'BLE COURT WHILE EXAMINING THE ISSUE WHETHER THE REVISION ORDER U/S 263 PASSED BY CIT AGAINST ORDER U/S 153A RWS 143(3) PASSED BY AO FOR NOT MAKING ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 5 CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS WHICH WERE NOT THERE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO, HELD AS FOLLOWS: '12) ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT FINALISED ON 29.12.2000 HAS ATTAINED FINALITY, THEN THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 80 HHC OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT AS WELL AS THE LOSS COMPUTED UNDER THE ASSESSMENT DATED 29 - 12 - 2000 WOULD ATTAIN FINALITY. IN SUCH A CASE F THE A.O. WHILE PASSING THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE I.T. ACT COULD NOT HAVE DISTURBED THE ASSESSMENT/ REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY, UNLESS THE MATERIAL GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT ESTABLISH THAT THE RELIEFS GRANTED UNDER THE FINALISED ASSESSMENT/REASSESS MENT WERE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF 153 A PROCEEDINGS. 13) IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT ANY MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH OR DURING THE 153A PROCEEDINGS WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THE REL IEF UNDER SECTION 80 HHC WAS ERRONEOUS. IN SUCH A CASE, THE A.O. WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) COULD NOT HAVE DISTURBED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FINALISED ON 29.12.2000 RELATING TO SECTION 80 HHC DEDUCTION AND C ONSEQUENTLY THE C. I. T. COULD NOT HAVE INVOKED JU RISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT.' THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HA S HELD THAT THE AO, WHILE PASSING THE INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153A RWS 143(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT DISTURB THE ASSESSME NT/ REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY, UNLESS THE MATERIALS GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT ESTABLISH THAT THE RELIEFS GRANTED UNDER THE FINALISED ASSESSMENT/ REASSESSMENT WERE CONTRARY TO THE FACTS UNEARTHED DURI NG THE COURSE OF 153A PROCEEDINGS. THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DC1T (2012) 137 ITD 287 WHILE CONSIDERING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A ENCOMPASSES ADDITIONS, NO T BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'A) IN ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE ABATED, THE A O RETAINS THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS WELL AS JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON HIM U/S L 5 3AFOR WHICH ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE F O R EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SEPARATELY; B) IN OTH ER CASES, IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WHICH IN THE CONTEXT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS MEANS - (I) BO OK S OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT NOT PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, AND (IT) UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH . ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 6 HOWEVER, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (ITA NO.38/2014 DATED 25.7.2014) RECENTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SHALL DETERMINE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MATERIALS WHICH WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF EARLIER RE TURN AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE. THE HONOURABLE ITAT MUMBAI HAS NOT DISTINGUISHED THE HIGHER FORUM DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF HONOURABLE KARN ATAKA HIGH COURT THE ISSUE IS NOT YET SETTLED. HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT RIGHT IN ENHANCING DISALLOWANCES OR MAKING FRES H ADDITIONS IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. . 6. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153C, AO ALSO DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM WRITE OFF INTEREST RECEIVABLE ON O CD AMOUNTING TO RS.10,97,05,670 / - 7 . BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS 10,97,05,670/ - ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF OF INTEREST ON OCDS. THE AO HAS MADE THE D ISALLOWANCE AS PER STAND TAKEN IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 RWS 143(3) DATED 29.12.2010. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) - 38, MUMBAI IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.2.2014. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. AO HAS ALSO TREATED PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES AS CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME. 9 . BEFORE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 9. GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4: 3) 'IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE BUSINESS LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES AS CAPITAL LOSS AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE OTH ER BUSINESS - INCOMES. ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 7 4) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE LOSSES AND GAINS ON THE SALE OF SHARES WAS CONSISTENTLY BEING TREATED AS BUSINESS LOSS OR INCOME BY THE APPELLANT AS PER REVENUE'S STAND AND THAT TH E SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY REVENUE IN ALL PAST ASSESSMENTS. ' 10 . BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF BUSINESS INCOME ON SALE OF SHARES AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 9.1 THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS 7,30/31,5 997 - BEING LOSS ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS CLAIMED AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE AO H AS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER STAND TAKEN IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 RWS 143(3) DATED 29.12.2010.1 FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CTT(A) - 38 / MUMBAI IN FAVOUR O F ASSESSEE IN APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28.2.2014. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED.' 11 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 1 2 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAD ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY LEARNED AR AND DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US AS WELL AS RELIED ON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHILE PASSING THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT WE FOUND THAT ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY CIT(A) WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT, HENCE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A O F THE ACT FOR NON - ABATED ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHILE HOLDING SO, CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD., 137 ITD 287. ACCORDINGLY, CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 8 MADE ON ISSUES OTHER THAN THOSE BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 13. WITH REGARD TO DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,97,05,670/ - , WE FOUND THAT ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.4077/MU M/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 24/06/2016 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: - 4. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.10,97,05,670/ - MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). 4.1 IN APPEAL, VARIOUS CONTENTION S WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO SAME, REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR AND SAME WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND INCLUDING REMAND REPORT AND REPLY TO SAME, CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05 ASSESSEE COMPANY DEBITED PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL INTEREST RECEIVABLE OF RS. 10,97,05,670/ - IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT ADDED THE SAME IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SINCE MERE PROVISION CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. DU RING A.Y. 2005 - 06 ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF INTEREST RECEIVABLE AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION I N THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. SINCE THE PROVISION WAS DEBITED IN P&L ACCOUNT LAST YEAR THE SAME WAS NOT DEBITED ONCE AGAIN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT THIS YE AR. INSTEAD THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ONLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED NECESSARY ENTRIES WERE PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REFERENCE TO WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS. THE ENTRIES PASSED BY ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN VERIF IED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT. SO, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. VS CIT [323 1TR 397], THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF OF RS. 10,97,05,670/ - WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY CIT(A). THIS REASONED FACTUAL FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 9 15 . NEXT GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE RELATES TO CIT(A)S ACTION IN ALLOWING THE LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES AMOUNTING TO RS.7,30,31,599/ - HELD AS INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A BUSINESS LOSS AND ALLOWING THE LOSS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME. 16 . WE FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y.2005 - 06, ITA NO.4077/MUM/2014 DATED 24/06/2016, RELEVANT FINDING ON PAGE 5 PARA 3 READS AS UNDER: - 3. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.7,30,31,599/ - ON SALE OF SHARES TREATED AS CAPITAL LOSS, WHICH IS DISALLOWED BY A SSESSING OFFICER. 3.1 IN APPEAL, VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE TO SAME, REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR AND SAME F URNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMMENT AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSMENT WAS RE - OPENED U/S.147 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF R S.7,30,31,599/ - IN P&L ACCOUN T TOWARDS LOSS ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS WHICH BEING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE LOSS IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES. ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING THE SHARES AS INVESTMENTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET, HOWEVER, FOR A.Y. 1992 - 9 3 AND A.Y. 1993 - 94, ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME/LOSS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THE SAID ORDERS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) FOR BOTH THE YEARS. ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD ASSESSED THE I NCOME OR LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT & GAINS FROM BUSINESS INSTEAD OF INCOME OF CAPITAL GAINS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE CONSISTENTLY. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON EXCEPT STATING THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN THE SAID SHARES AS LONG TERM INVESTMENTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN THIS REGARD, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING SAID SHARES AS INVESTMENTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAD ALTERED THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM CAPI TAL GAINS TO BUSINESS INCOME, ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT AND HAS BEEN OFFERING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS, THOUGH THE SAID SHARES HAVE BEEN CONTINUED TO BE SHOWN AS INVESTMENTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DIFFERENT TO THE EARLIER A.YS. 1992 - 93 & 1993 - 94, WHEREIN ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF TREATED THE SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME/LOSS. IN THIS VIEW, ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT KEEP ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 10 CHANGING THE HEAD OF INCOME WITHOUT BRINGING NEW MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFO RE, LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS.7,30,31,599/ - WAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS LOSS. THIS REASONED FACTUAL FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 1 7 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 18 . NEXT GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE RELATES TO CIT(A)S ACTION IN ALLOWING THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMP ANY IN ITA NO.38/2014 DATED 25/07/2014. 19 . THE AO HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PAGE 5 PARA 8, CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING IN APPELLATE ORDER IN PARA 9 AND PARA 10. THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION BEYOND AMOUNT DISALLOWED IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, HENCE N O FURTHER ADDITION IN 153A PROCEEDING WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT. CIT(A) HAS REACHED TO THIS CONCLUSION AFTER FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ALLCARGO (374 ITR 645) . SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING COURSE OF S EARCH WITH REGARD TO TRAVELLING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, T HERE IS NO IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR HOLDING THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 20. LAST GRIEVANCE OF REVENUE RELATES TO DELETI NG ADDITION IN RESPECT OF 14A WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB. AO HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PAGE 7 PARA 9 WHEREAS CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER AT PAGE 11 PARA 11 WHEREIN HE HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION IN ORIGINAL ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 11 PROCEEDINGS , HENCE NO ADDITION IN 153A PROCEEDING WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT. WE DO NOT FIND INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ALLCARGO REPORTED AT 374 ITR 645. FURTHERMORE, THE ISSUE OF ADDING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITAT(SPECIAL BENCH) IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., ORDER DATED 22/06/2017. 21 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y.2005 - 06 IS DISMISSED. 22 . SIMILAR ISSUE FOR DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES WAS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THE A.Y.2006 - 07 IN ITA NO.523/MUM/2015. DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES WAS RESTRICTED BY T HE CIT(A) AT 25% AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - DURING THE YEAR TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.52,53,129/ - HAVE BEEN DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDE RS.47,74,540/ - ON FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF MRS.SANGITA JINDAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. AS PER AO, SUCH EXPENSE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE INVESTMENT BUSINESS IS RESTRICTED TO INDIA ONLY AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DETAIL TO MENTION THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. PER CONTRA APPELLANT C LAIMS THAT ENTIRE EXPENSE IS ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL OF MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY IN CONTEXT OF THE NBPC BUSINESS AND EXPLORING POSSIBLE FINANCIAL TIE UPS AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN CONSULTANCY BUSINESS. I FIND THAT SIMILAR I SSUE AROSE IN A.Y.2005 - 06, WHEREIN 25% OF THE TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF THE COMPANY WERE DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES BEING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE O F BUSINESS WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). THEREAFTER, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME , I N MY OPINION , JUSTICE WILL BE MET IF A STAND CONSISTENT WITH EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR IS DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION AND POSSIBLE NON BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED DISALLOWANCE AT 25% OF TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 12 23 . THE DETAILED FINDING SO RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) ARE AS PER MATERIAL ON RECORD, ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 24 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y.2006 - 07 IS DISMISSED. A.Y.2008 - 09 25 . IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, AS DISCUSSED IN THE A.Y.2005 - 06 WE FOUND THAT CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ISSUES OTHER THAN THOSE BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IGNORING THE DECISION THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN ITA NO. 38/2014 DATED 25.07.2014. 2 6 . SIMILARLY, THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN ITA NO.38/2014 DATED 25.07.2014. SIMILARLY, TH E CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT . 27 . THE ISSUE OF ADDING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITAT(SPECIAL BENCH) IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., ORDER DATED 22/06/2017. 28. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y.2008 - 09 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 13 A.Y.2009 - 10: 29 . ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE A.Y.2008 - 09. ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING REASONING GIVEN BY US HEREINABOVE IN THE A.Y. 2008 - 09, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. A.Y.2010 - 11: 30 . IN THIS YEAR, REV ENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF CIT(A) DIRECTING THE AO TO RESTRICT DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN EXPENSES AT 25% OF TOTAL FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN DETAILED FINDING FOR RESTRICTING DISALLOWANCE AT 25% AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 8 - 2 . THE FACTS OF CASE AND SUBMISSION HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. DURING THE YEAR TO TAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS 41 / 22,465/ - HAVE BEEN DEBITED TO P&Z. ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDE RS 38,84,674/ - ON FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF MRS SANGITA JINDAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COM PANY. AS PER AO, SUCH EXPENSE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE INVESTMENT BUSINESS IS RESTRICTED TO INDIA ONLY AND MERE IS SPECIFIC DETAIL TO MENTION THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. PER CONTRA APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT ENTIRE EXPENSE IS ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL OF MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY IN CONTEXT OF ITS NBFC BUSINESS AND E XPLORING POSSIBLE FINANCIAL TIE U PS A N D BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN CONSULTANCY BUSINESS. I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN AY 2005 - 05, WHEREIN 25% OF THE TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF THE COMPANY WERE DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES BEING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY QT(A). RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE VIEW OF CIT(A) / IN MY OPINION, JUSTICE WILL BE MET IF A STAND CONSISTENT WI TH EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR IS FOLLOWED IN THIS YEAR ALSO AND A SUM EQUAL TO 25% OF TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPEN SES IS DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION AND POSSIBLE NON BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE DISALLOWANCE AT 25% OF TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF F ACCORDINGLY AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 31 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED R IVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT DETAILED FINDING AND REASONING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) FOR DISALLOWING TRAVELLING EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 25%. THE FINDING SO GIVEN BY CIT(A) ARE AS PER ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 14 MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF CIT(A). A.Y.2011 - 12 32 . IN THIS YEAR ALSO REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF CIT(A) FOR DIRECTING THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF 25%. THE DETAILED FINDING GIVEN BY THE CI T(A) READS AS UNDER: - 7.2 THE FACTS OF CASE AND SUBMISSION HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. DINING THE YEAR TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF KS 55,9, /824/ - HAVE BEEN DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDE RS 55,85,590/ - ON FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF MRS SANGITA JINDAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. AS PER AO, SUCH EXPENSE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE INVESTMENT BUSINESS IS RESTRICTED TO INDIA ONLY AND THERE IS SPECIFIC DETAIL TO MENTION THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. PER CONTRA APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT ENTIRE EXPENSE IS ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL OF MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY IN CONTEXT OF ITS NBFC BUSINESS AND EXPLORING POSSIBLE FINANCIAL TIE UPS AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES IN CONSULTANCY BUSINESS, I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE PROSE IN AY 2005 - 06, WHEREIN 25% OF THE TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF THE COMPANY WERE DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION! OF FOREIGN 'TRAVELLING EXPENSES BEING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE VIEW OF THE CIT(A) / IN MY OPINION/ JUSTICE WILL BE MET IF STAND CONSISTENT WITH EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS FOLLOWED IN THIS YEAR ALSO AND A SUM EQ UAL TO 25% OF TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES IS DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION AND POSSIBLE NON BUSINESS EXPENSES. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE DISALLOWANCE AT 25% OF TOTAL TRAVELLING EXPENSES. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY AS PARTLY ALLOWED 33 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES VIS - - VIS NATURE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS, THE CIT(A) HAS R ECORDED A FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 15 OF JUSTICE. FINDING GIVEN BY CIT(A) ARE AS PER MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. 34. IN T HE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y.2006 - 07 ITA NO.777/MUM/2015 , A.Y.2010 - 11 ITA NO.778/MUM/2015 AND A.Y.2011 - 12 ITA NO.779/MUM/2015 , COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.1 15JB. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT SPECIAL BENCH IN CASE OF M/S. VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., ORDER DATED 22/06/2017 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S.14A R.W.RULE 8D CA NNOT BE ADDED IN ASSESSEES BOOK PROFIT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ADDITIONS SO MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A, WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE IT ACT. 35 . IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y.2006 - 07, 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12 ARE ALLOWED. 36 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED WHERE AS APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 / 04 / 201 8 SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) SD/ - ( R.C.SHARMA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 25 / 04 /201 8 KARUNA SR. PS ITA NO. 522/MUM/2015 AND OTHER APPEALS M/S. SUN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 16 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//