DCIT - 14(3)(1), MUMBAI V. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 5268/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1266 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN URALVEKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5268/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ITA NO.5269/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT - 14(3)(1), 453, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., A WING, RAHEJA POINT-1, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD, VAKOLA, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI 400 055 PAN: AABCV 0613J (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) CO NO.20/M/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5269/M/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 CO NO.21/M/2018 ITA NO.5268/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., WING A, GR. FLOOR, RAHEJA POINT-1, J. N. ROAD, VAKOLA, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI 400 055 PAN: AABCV 0613J VS. DCIT - 14(3)(1), ROOM NO.453, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. CHANDRASEKHAR, A.R. SHRI ASHOK SUTHAR, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI KIRAN URALVEKAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2018 ITA NO.5268 & 5269M/2016 CO NO.20 & 21/M/2018 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 2 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.05.2016 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.5268 ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT M ADE BY THE TPO/AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,34,30,624/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE TPO/AO HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS FOREIGN ASSOC IATE ENTERPRISES, IN LIEU OF THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE (CUP) METHOD SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.68,88,932/- U /S 10A OF THE ACT FOR AY 2007-07, AY 2008-09 AND AY 2009-10, FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME , WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR DT. 16 TH JULY, 2013, THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME B EFORE SETTING OFF BUSINESS INCOME AGAINST THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF THE EA RLIER YEARS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING TO CARRY FORWARD BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.81,91,327/- OF AY 2001-02 FOR UNLIMITED PERIOD O F TIME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE FINANCE ACT, 2001 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE AY 2001-02 CANNOT BE ALLOWED T O BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR INFINITE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND BE RESTRICTED UPTO 8 YEARS I.E . AY 2009-10 ONLY. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, VA RY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR A T THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL IS AGA INST THE DELETION OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT BY LD. CIT( A) AS MADE BY THE TPO/AO AMOUNTING TO RS.3,34,30,624/-. ITA NO.5268 & 5269M/2016 CO NO.20 & 21/M/2018 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 3 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE USED CU P AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ALP OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AES. ACCORDING TO THE TPO THE SAID METHOD IS NOT CORRECT TO BENCHMARK THE INT ERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS FOR DETERMINING THE ALP AND THEREFORE HE ADOPTED TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING TH E TRANSACTIONS RESULTING INTO AN ADJUSTMENT RS.3,34,3 0,624/-. 5. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALL OWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE PREDECESSOR CIT(A) IN A.Y. 2008-09 WHICH WAS UPHEL D BY THE ITAT ALSO BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.6 I FIND NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THIS FINDING. IN ITS TP STUDY REPORT, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT VISTAAR USA IS SOURCIN G SIMILAR SERVICES FROM INDEPENDENT INDIAN PARTIES VIZ. ADITI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LIMITED AND PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. THESE HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO BE AN INTERNA L CUP BY THE APPELLANT. A DESCRIPTION OF THE MANPOWER DEPLOYED BY THE APPELLA NT TO RENDER THE SERVICES HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE TP REPORT. THE SERVICES BEING OF A SIMILAR KIND, THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THIS CUP. HENCE, THE INTERNAL CUP CITED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THIS YEAR IS ACCEPTED TO BE A PROPER CUP FOR BENCHMARKING ITS OWN SERVICES. 6. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE MATERIAL LY SAME WITH THE FACTS IN A.Y. 2008-09, WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL, DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. THE ISSUE RAISED IN SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF RS.68 ,88,932/- UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2007-08, 200 8-09 & 2009- 10, FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME BY IGNORING THE CBDT C IRCULAR DATED 16.07.2013 THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME B EFORE SET OFF ITA NO.5268 & 5269M/2016 CO NO.20 & 21/M/2018 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 4 BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YEAR AGAINST THE BUSINESS INCOME. 8. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE EARLIER YEAR IN A.Y. 2008-09 WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AFT ER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. 348 ITR 72 (BOM.) AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE DECIDED IN THE LIG HT OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. THE LD. A.R. SU BMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2008-09. FINALLY, THE LD. A.R. PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE DESERVE S TO BE DISMISSED. 9. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, APPEARED TO BE FAIRLY AGREED TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. A.R. THAT ISSU E IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT RELIED ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN A.Y. 2008-09 WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULT ING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) A ND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.5268 & 5269M/2016 CO NO.20 & 21/M/2018 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 5 '8.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION O F HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING (P.) L TD. (20121348 ITR 72/208 TAXMAN 144 (MAG.)/20 TAXMANN.COM 727 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD T HAT THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A HAS TO BE GIVEN AT THE STAGE WHEN PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ARE COMPUTED FOR THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: 'SECTION 10A, IN OUR VIEW, HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT T O AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTING THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THIS I S ANTERIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION .22 WHICH DEALS WITH THE CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES. A DISTINCTI ON HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE WHILE INCORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF C HAPTER VI-A. SECTION 80A(1) STIPULATES THAT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOM E OF AN ASSESSEE, THERE SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM HIS GROSS TOTAL INCOME, IN AC CORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, THE DEDUCTIONS SP ECIFIED IN SECTIONS 80C TO SOU. SECTION 80B(S) DEFINES FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHA PTER VL-A 'GROSS TOTAL INCOME' TO MEAN THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, BEFORE MAKING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THE CHAPTER, WHAT THE REVENUE IN ESSENCE SEEKS TO ATTAIN IS TO T ELESCOPE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VL-A IN THE CONTEXT, OF THE DEDUCTION WH ICH IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 10A, WHICH WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE UNLESS A SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT WERE TO BE MADE. IN THE AB SENCE THEREOF, SUCH AN APPROACH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE TO BE AFFIRMED BE GIVEN AT THE STAGE WHEN THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ARE COMPUTED IN THE FIRST INS TANCE. 11. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 12. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE C ARRY FORWARD BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.81,91 ,327/- OF AY 2001-02 FOR UNLIMITED PERIOD OF TIME. 13. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ISSUE HAS CROPP ED UP FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS CARRY FORWARD BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.81,91,327/- RELATING TO A.Y. 2001-02 AND WHICH A S PER AO ITA NO.5268 & 5269M/2016 CO NO.20 & 21/M/2018 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 6 WAS NOT ALLOWABLE TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR MORE TH AN 8 YEARS UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE A O REJECTED THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD DEPRECIATION RELATING TO A. Y. 2001-02. 14. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION MERGES WITH THE DEPRECIATION OF THE SU BSEQUENT YEAR/CURRENT YEAR AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY YEARWISE ID ENTITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE BROUGHT F ORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS ELIGIBLE TO BE CARRIED F ORWARD FOR ANY NUMBER OF YEARS TILL FULLY SET OFF AGAINST THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF GENERAL MOTOR S INDIA P. LTD. VS. DCIT [2013] 354 ITR 244 (GUJ). 15. THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND GROU NDS OF APPEAL BY SUBMITTING THAT THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE THAT DEPRECIATION RELATING TO A.Y. 2001-02 CAN BE CARRIE D FORWARD FOR A PERIOD OF 8 YEARS AND NOT BEYOND THAT AND THEREFO RE THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED. 16. THE LD. A.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SETTL ED IN A NUMBER OF DECISIONS WHICH HAVE HELD THAT BROUGHT FORWARD U NABSORBED DEPRECIATION MERGES WITH THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS DEPR ECIATION AND CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR ANY NUMBER OF YEARS AND THERE IS NO CLAIM LIMIT OF 8 YEARS AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE AO. THE LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) AND ALSO CITED THE DECISIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE NO.9 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH AR E REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO.5268 & 5269M/2016 CO NO.20 & 21/M/2018 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 7 1. GENERAL MOTORS INDIA (P) LTD. 354 ITR 244, GUJ HC 2. CIT VS. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD. 149 ITD 709 (MUM) 3. MINDA SAI LTD. VS. ITO ITA NO.2974/DEL/2013 4. MILTONS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT ITA NO.3019/MUM/201 2 THE LD. A.R. FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ISSU E HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS AND JUDI CIAL FORUMS AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REV ENUE. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DE CISIONS CITED BY THE LD. A.R. AFTER PERUSING CAREFULLY THE PROVI SIONS AS REGARDS THE CARRY FORWARD OF DEPRECIATION VIS VIS A SSESSEE FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BROUGHT FORW ARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS PART OF THE CURRENT DEPR ECIATION AND THEREFORE HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS PART OF THE CURRENT YEARS DEPRECIATION AND THERE IS NO BAR OF 8 YEARS AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE LD. A.O. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS AS CITED HEREINABOVE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR FUTURE YEARS FOR BEING SET O FF AGAINST THE INCOME AND THERE IS NO BAR OF 8 YEARS. ACCORDINGLY , WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE V ARIOUS DECISIONS AFFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.5269/M/2016 18. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ONES AS DECIDED BY US IN ITA NO.5268/M/2016 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. THEREFORE, OUR FINDING IN ITA NO.5268/M/2 016 FOR ITA NO.5268 & 5269M/2016 CO NO.20 & 21/M/2018 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 8 A.Y. 2011-12, MUTATIS MUTANDIS, WOULD APPLY TO THIS APPEAL AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. CO NO.20/M/2018 19. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINS T THE INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 92CA OF TH E ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT MANDATORY CONDITIONS ARE NOT EXISTING JUSTIFYING THE APPLICATION OF TP PROVISIONS AND THEREFORE THE ASS ESSMENT FRAMED IS BAD IN LAW FOR THE WANT OF JURISDICTION A ND ALSO THE REASON RECORDED FOR INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 9 2CA OF THE ACT AS THE NECESSARY CONDITIONALITIES DID NOT EXIST I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT TH E ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE CO -ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.5979/11 A.Y. 2008-09 & ORS. VIDE ORDER 27.03.15 AND THEREFO RE THE SAME IS LEFT TO THE WISDOM OF THE BENCH TO DECIDE THE IS SUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 21. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE BENCH IN LEMINIE NOT BEI NG PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. CO NO.21/M/2018 22. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CO IS SAME AS DECIDED IN CO NO.20/M/2018 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. THEREFORE, OUR FIND INGS IN CO NO.20/M/2018 FOR A.Y. 2010-11, MUTATIS MUTANDIS, WO ULD APPLY ITA NO.5268 & 5269M/2016 CO NO.20 & 21/M/2018 M/S. VISTAAR SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 9 TO THIS CO AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY THE CO OF THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. IN RESULT THE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND TWO CO S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.11.2018. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 29.11.2018. * 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.