ACIT CIR 1(2), V. CREDIT LYONNAIS,

ITA 5318/MUM/2001

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8650 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2001
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Double taxation relief; Rule of consistency; Earning of tax free income; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 14A; 37(1); 12

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES L, MUMBAI .. , ! '# , $ !, % BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ./ ITA NO.5318/MUM/2001 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-1999) THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(2) MUMBAI. M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS 1 ST FLOOR, SCINDIA HOUSE NAROTTAM MORARJEE MARG MUMBAI 400 001. PAN :AAACC1441J. ( )* / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.5344/MUM/2001 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-1999) M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS MUMBAI 400 001. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(2) MUMBAI. ( )* / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) +,% ./ CO NO.133/MUM/2002 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-1999) M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS MUMBAI 400 001. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(2) MUMBAI. ( +,% / CROSS OBJECTOR) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.5018/MUM/2004 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000) THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(2) MUMBAI. M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS MUMBAI 400 001. ( )* / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) +,% ./ CO NO.30/MUM/2007 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000) M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS MUMBAI 400 001. THE ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(2) MUMBAI. ( +,% / CROSS OBJECTOR) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 2 ./ ITA NO.6516/MUM/2004 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-2001) THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(2) MUMBAI. M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS (THROUGH THEIR SUCCESSOR CALYON BANK) MUMBAI 400 001. ( )* / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.6401/MUM/2004 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-2001) M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS MUMBAI 400 001. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(2) MUMBAI. ( )* / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) +,% ./ CO NO.186/MUM/2005 ( $' ( $' ( $' ( $' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR :1998-1999) M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS MUMBAI 400 001. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 1(2) MUMBAI. ( +,% / CROSS OBJECTOR) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( +,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - -- - . . . . / REVENUE BY : SHRI MAHESH KUMAR (CIT-DR) +,)* - . - . - . - . / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL ' - / / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2012 01( - / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :10.10.2012 !2 !2 !2 !2 / / / / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE CROSS APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-1999 TO 2000-2001. SINCE COMMON ISSUES AR E RAISED IN THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS, WE ARE THEREFOR E, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-1999 2. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR CHARGING BUSINESS INCOME AT THE RATE OF 48%, BEING THE RATE APPLICABLE TO FOREIGN COMPANIES. IT HAS BEEN FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN EARL IER YEARS. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 12.09.2012 IN ITA NO.6615/MUM/2003 & ORS. ALS O DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS NOT AL LOWED. 3. SECOND GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND FIRST GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE L EARNED CIT(A) TO TAX INTEREST INCOME OF ` 4,88,47,308 ON NOSTRO AND OVERSEAS PLACEMENTS MAINTAINED WITH BRANCHES OUTSIDE INDIA A ND ALSO GRANT DEDUCTION TOWARDS INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON SUCH ACCO UNTS. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE REDUCED ` 4.88 CRORE AS INTEREST RECEIVED FROM NOSTRO ACCOUNT. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION FOR SEEKING EXCLUSI ON OF SUCH INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT WAS CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE IT NEEDED TO MAINTAIN NOSTRO A CCOUNTS FOR RECEIPT / PAYMENT OF MONEY IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE NOSTRO ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE WITH ITS HEAD OFFICE AND OWN BRANCHES OUTSIDE INDIA. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 4 OBSERVED THAT THE NOSTRO ACCOUNT WAS NOTHING BUT TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF THE INDIAN BRANCH IN THE HEAD OFFICE AND HENCE INTEREST EARNED ON THE BALANCES IN THE NOSTRO ACCOUNT WAS IN COME OF INDIAN BRANCH. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, HE TAXED TH IS INTEREST INCOME U/S 9(1)(V). NO RELIEF WAS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST APP EAL AS REGARDS INTEREST INCOME AND ALSO THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS HO /OVERSEAS BRANCHES. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THEIR RESPECTI VE STANDS. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THAT THE NOSTRO ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WIT H ITS OVERSEAS BRANCHES AND HEAD OFFICE ABROAD. THIS FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 4.2 BY MENTIONING : NOSTRO ACCOUNT IS NOTHING BUT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE INDIAN BRANCH IN THE HEAD OFFIC E. SIMILAR FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN PARA 4.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER BY NOTING THAT : THE NOSTRO ACCOUNT IS NOTHING BUT THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE INDIAN BRANCH IN THE HEAD OFFICE. IN VIEW OF THESE RECORD ING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE NOS TRO ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS HEAD OFFIC E AND ITS OWN OVERSEAS BRANCHES. IN OTHER WORDS THESE NOSTRO ACC OUNTS WERE NOT MAINTAINED WITH OTHER BANKS. NOW THE QUESTION ARISE S AS TO WHETHER THERE CAN BE ANY TAXATION OF INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS HEAD OFFICE OR OVERSEAS BRANCHES UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT. BEFORE DECIDING THIS CONTROVERSY, WE WILL LIKE TO M AKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 5 PRESENT DISPUTE CENTERS AROUND THE ASSESSABILITY/DE DUCTIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE INTEREST INCOME/EXPENDITURE FROM/T O ITS OWN HEAD OFFICE / OVERSEAS BRANCHES ONLY UNDER THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOUB LE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT (HEREINAFTER CALLED `THE DTAA) . THE LEARNED AR WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO CONCEDE THAT THIS CLAIM NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED ONLY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER THE DTAA. 5. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF ABN AMRO BANK NV V. ADIT [(2005) 97 ITD 89 (KOL) (SB)] HAS HELD THAT THE BRANCH OF THE ASSESSEE BANK CANNOT BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE ENTITY. THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE HEAD OFFICE AND BRANCH RES ULTING INTO INTEREST INCOME OR INTEREST EXPENDITURE ARE TO BE V IEWED AS TRANSACTION WITH SELF. ON THE BASIS OF MUTUALITY, IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT THERE CAN BE NEITHER ANY INCOME IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EARNED F ROM ITS OVERSEAS BRANCHES, NOR THERE CAN BE DEDUCTION FOR INTEREST EXPENDITURE PAID BY THE INDIAN BRANCH TO HEAD OFFICE OR THE OTHER OVERS EAS BRANCHES. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED THE RATI O OF SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN SO FAR IT CONCERNS THE EXAMINATION UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT THE DTAA. IT IS DIFFERENT MATTER TH AT THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH RENDERED IN THIS CASE IN THE CONT EXT OF THE DTAA HAS BEEN RECONSIDERED BY A LARGER BENCH, WITH WHICH WE ARE NOT PRESENTLY CONCERNED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THIS DECISION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, WE HOLD THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF ` 4.88 CRORE WHICH HAS RESULTED ONLY FROM THE ASSESSE ES ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 6 DEALINGS WITH ITS HEAD OFFICE OR OVERSEAS BRANCHES CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY WILL APPLY. AC CORDINGLY NO TAX CAN BE LEVIED ON THE INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM ITS HEAD OFFICE OR OVERSEAS BRANCHES. 6. AT THIS STAGE WE WILL LIKE TO MENTION THAT T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADIT V. CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ (ITA NO. 6615/MUM/2003) DATED 12.09.2012 IN WHICH INTEREST ON NOSTRO ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE TAXABLE. WE HAVE PERUSE D THIS ORDER PASSED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. RELEVAN T DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TAXABILITY OF INTEREST ON NOSTRO ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MADE IN PARAS 2 TO 5 OF THIS ORDER. IN THIS CASE IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT INTEREST ON NOSTRO ACCOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS O F AN INDIAN BRANCH. HOWEVER, THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE CASE OF CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ VIS--VIS THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT IN THE EARLIER ORDER, THE NOSTRO ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED WITH CERT AIN OUTSIDE BANKS OUTSIDE INDIA AND NOT THE ASSESSEES OWN OVER SEAS BRANCHES OR HEAD OFFICE. FURTHER, THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY O N THE QUESTION OF NO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND NO INCOME TOW ARDS INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM/TO ITS HEAD OFFICE / O VERSEAS BRANCHES WAS ALSO THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ AND IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT THERE CAN BE NO INTEREST INCOME OR EXPENDITURE FROM TRANSACTIONS WI TH ASSESSEES OWN OVERSEAS BRANCHES OR HEAD OFFICE ON THE PRINCIPLE O F MUTUALITY. THUS ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 7 IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BET WEEN THE NOSTRO INTEREST EARNED / PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FROM / TO IT S OWN HEAD OFFICE / OVERSEAS BRANCHES AND NOSTRO INTEREST PAID/EARNED T O/FROM OTHER THAN ASSESSEES OWN HEAD OFFICE OR BRANCHES. WHERE AS IN THE FIRST SITUATION, THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY WILL APPLY AN D IN THE LATER CASE IT WILL NOT. 7. INSOFAR AS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE ON T HIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON BORROWINGS FROM ITS OWN HEAD OFFICE/OVERSEAS BRANCHES. THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALI TY WILL APPLY NOT ONLY QUA THE INTEREST INCOME BUT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE A S WELL. RESULTANTLY NO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXP ENDITURE CAN BE ALLOWED WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO ITS OWN HEAD OFFICE AND OVERSEAS BRANCHES. WE, THEREFORE, OV ERTURN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DISA LLOWANCE OF ` 50,000 ON ACCOUNT OF ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES U/S 37( 1) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF ` 8,26,620 TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS ENT ERTAINMENT EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT NO DIS ALLOWANCE ON THIS SCORE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE REASON S FOR NOT OFFERING ANY DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE DISA LLOWANCES USED TO ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 8 BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY IN THE PAST DUE TO OPERATION OF SECTION 37(3) READ WITH RULE 6D AND RULE 6B WHICH P ROVISIONS CAME TO BE DELETED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1998 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT T HE OMISSION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(2) SHOULD NOT MEAN THAT NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE ON THE EXPENSES OTHERWISE COVERED UN DER SUCH SECTIONS. IN HIS OPINION SUCH DISALLOWANCES HITHERT O INCLUDED IN SECTION 37(2) WOULD HENCEFORTH BE COVERED U/S 37(1) . HE, THEREFORE, MADE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF ` 8,26,620. THE LEARNED CIT(A) RESTRICTED THIS ADDITION TO ` 50,000 ON ACCOUNT OF THE BENEFIT OF ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES AVAILED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT SEC TION 37(2) INTER ALIA PROVIDED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES . THE SAID PROVISION HAS BEEN OMITTED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1 998. THE FACT OF THIS OMISSION IS THAT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 NO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF ENTERTAINMENT CAN BE MADE IF THE EXPE NSES ARE OTHERWISE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. IMPORTING OF TH E CRUX OF SECTION 37(2) BY THE A.O. IN SECTION 37(1), IS OBVIOUSLY NO T THE MANDATE OF THE OMISSION OF THE PROVISION. ONCE THE LEGISLATURE HAS DELETED CERTAIN ARTIFICIAL DISALLOWANCES, THOSE CANNOT BE AGAIN COV ERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SECTION 37(1). AS SUCH THIS V IEW POINT OF THE AO CANNOT BE UPHELD. ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 9 10. COMING TO THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION AT ` 50,000, IT IS OBSERVED THAT HE HAS UPHELD THE ADDIT ION TO THIS EXTENT BY RECORDING THAT : IF THE EXPENDIT URE WAS INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE . FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT THEN SUCH AN EXP ENDITURE IF NOT COVERED BY THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND I TS EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE VIEW CANVASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE OBVIOUS REASON IS THAT IF AN EXPENDITURE TO EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN SANC TIONED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE CAN BE NO REASON TO DISALLOW IT ON THE GROUND THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS OTHERWISE NOT ENTITLED TO SUCH AN EXPEN DITURE. SO LONG AS AN EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN GENUINELY INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. RESULTANTLY THE GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THAT BY THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. 11. GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2,99,61,465 BEING THE LOSS ON VALUATION OF SHARES IN PATHEJA BROTHERS. GROUND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES A PPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON VALUATION O F OTHER SECURITIES OF ` 2,41,06,535. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THESE GROU ND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON VA LUATION OF SECURITIES TO THE TUNE OF ` 5,40,68,000. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON ITS PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THIS LOSS OF ` 5.40 CRORE. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THO UGH ADDITION HAS BEEN SEPARATELY MADE FOR ` 2,99,61,465 BEING LOSS IN REVALUATION OF ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 10 SHARES HELD IN PATHEJA BROTHERS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF SECURITIES AS AT TH E END OF THE YEAR IS DEDUCTIBLE IN VIEW OF THE SIMILAR VIEW HAVING BEEN TAKEN IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE DISALL OWANCE TO THE TUNE OF ` 2.41 CRORE, REPRESENTING EXCESS OF ` 5.40 CRORES OVER ` 2.99 CRORE BEING THE LOSS ON VALUATION OF SECURITIES HELD IN P ATHEJA BROTHERS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NO RELIEF CAN BE ALLOW ED FOR ` 2.99 CRORE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THIS AMOUNT FOR TAXATI ON VOLUNTARILY. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN APPEAL IN SO FAR AS THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE TO THEIR PREJUDICE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 5.40 CRORE WHICH AMOUNT ALSO INCLUDED A SUM OF ` 2.99 CRORE TOWARDS LOSS ON REVALUATION OF SHARES HE LD IN PATHEJA BROTHERS. IT IS FURTHER NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ALL THE SE SHARES / SECURITIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH LOSS HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON VALUATION AS AT THE YEAR END REPRESENTED ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 IN ITA NO.5055/ MUM/2000 HAS HELD, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19.08.2005 , THAT THERE CAN BE NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF LOSS ON VALUATION OF S ECURITIES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ENTITLED TO VALUE ITS SECURITIES HELD IN STOCK-IN-TRADE ON THE BASIS OF MARKET PRICE, IF IT IS LESS THAN ITS COST PRICE. THE IMPUGNED ORD ER TO THE EXTENT OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF ` 2.41 CRORE IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 11 INSOFAR AS THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF ` 2.99 CRORE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE NATURE OF THIS LOSS IS SIMILAR TO THA T OF ` 2.41 CRORE WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ONLY DI STINGUISHING FEATURE WHICH WEIGHED WITH THE LD. CIT(A) FOR NOT A CCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE ASSESSE E VOLUNTARILY OFFERED SUCH AMOUNT FOR TAXATION. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS [(2012) 23 TAXMANN.COM 23 (BOM.)] HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AN ADDITIONAL CLAI M WHICH WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT. EVEN THOUGH THE AS SESSEE INITIALLY VOLUNTARILY OFFERED AN INCOME UNDER SOME MISCONCEPT ION, THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO PUT SUCH AMOUNT TO TAX IF IT LATER ON TURNS OUT TO BE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY DECIDED THAT THE LOSS ON VALUATION OF SECURITIES HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE IS DEDUCTIBLE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY OFFERED ` 2.99 CRORE TO TAX, CANNOT COME IN THE WAY OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR SUCH LOSS ON V ALUATION OF SHARES OF PATHEJA BROTHERS. SINCE THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE NOT PROPERLY EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE CORRECT POSITION IN THIS REGARD AND ALLOW THE LOSS ON VALUATION OF SHARES OF PATHEJA BROTHERS IF, IN FACT, THERE IS ANY REDUCTION IN ITS VALUE AS AT THE YEAR END. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF LOSS ON VALUATION OF SECURITIES IN TOTAL, WILL ALSO ACCORDINGLY REDUCE S UCH VALUE OF ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 12 SECURITIES, SO THAT WHEN SUCH SECURITIES COME UP FO R SALE IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IT IS THIS REDUCED VALUE WHICH IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING THE PROFIT OR LOSS FROM THE SALE OF SUCH SECURITIES. GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS NOT ALLOWED. 13. GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR NOT EXCLUDING THE ESTIMATED PROF IT OF ` 10,45,64,546 ON UNMATURED FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACT S CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY WILL APPLY AND WH EN DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS TOWARDS UNMATURED FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACT IS ALLOWED, THEN THE PROFIT FROM SUCH UNMATURED FORWA RD EXCHANGE CONTRACT SHOULD ALSO BE TAXED. IT IS NOTICED THAT S IMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ (SUPRA) ALSO. AS WE ARE CONSISTENTLY ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON UNMATURED FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACT, THE PROFIT ON SUCH UNMATURED FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACT IS ALSO CONSEQUENTLY LIAB LE TO TAX. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN TAXING ` 10.45 CRORE ON UNMATURED FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACT. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 14. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN I TS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 10 LAKH MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON EARNING TAX FREE IN COME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF DIVIDEND OF ` 14.01 LAKH AND INTEREST ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 13 ON TAX FREE BONDS AT ` 8.45 LAKH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOMES, THERE IS NO WARRANT FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR EXPE NSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, DISA LLOWED A SUM OF ` 10 LAKH TOWARDS INTEREST AND OTHER EXPENSES IN RELA TION TO SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THIS ADDI TION. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF ` 10 LAKH IS, IN FACT, THE ESSENCE OF APPLICATION OF MANDATE OF SECTION 14A WH ICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT ALS O COVERING THE YEAR IN QUESTION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST/OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME CAN BE MADE. ON MERITS OF THE CASE IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIO NS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONTENDING THAT IT MADE TOTAL INVEST MENT IN TAX FREE BONDS / SHARES FROM WHICH EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED AT ` 8.75 CRORE FROM THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH IT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN CAPITAL AND RESERVE AND SURPLUS AMOU NTED TO ` 58.34 CRORE APART FROM ADDITIONAL INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVA ILABLE AT ` 62.28 CRORE. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSEE. 16. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. [(2009) 313 I TR 340 (BOM.)] ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 14 HAS HELD THAT IF THERE ARE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS INVESTMENT AND AT T HE SAME TIME LOAN HAS BEEN RAISED IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE INVESTM ENTS WERE FROM INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND RESULTANTLY NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CAN BE MADE. SINCE THE INVESTMENT IN TAX FREE BONDS AND SHARES O F GODREJ HI CARE FROM WHICH EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EARNED, CONSTITUTE A VERY SMALL PART OF TOTAL INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILA BLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE M ADE IN RELATION TO INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 17. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF JCIT V. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LIMITED IN ITA NO.5904/ MUM/2005 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 08 TH AUGUST, 2012 HAS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S 10(33) AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 10(15)(IV)(H). INSOFAR AS THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES IN R ELATION TO EXEMPT DIVIDEND AND INTEREST INCOME IS CONCERNED, W E FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN DDIT (IT) V. STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LIMITED IN ITA NO.2456/MUM/2006 & ORS. VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 03 RD OCTOBER, 2012 HAS UPHELD THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUN T OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME AT 2% OF SUCH EXEMPT INCOME. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUSTAIN DISALLOWANCE AT 2% OF TOTAL EXEMPT INCOME U/S 10(33) AND ALSO U/S 10(15). ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 15 18. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS B ECOME CONSEQUENTIAL TO OUR DECISION RENDERED ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE IS THEIR APPEALS. 19. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLO WED AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME CONSEQUE NTIAL TO OUR DECISION ON THE APPEALS BY BOTH THE SIDES ABOVE. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 20. FIRST GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IN RELATION TO INCOME U/S 10(33) AND 10(15)(IV)(H). IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN THIS YEAR UNLIKE THE DI SALLOWANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES ALSO IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE LEARNED CI T(A) ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTUAL POSITION, INDICATED BY THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH ITS DISPOSAL FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SUCH TAX FREE SECURITIES / SHARES FROM WHICH DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EARNED. THE L EARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT TH E FACTUAL POSITION RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. AS T HE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SUCH SECURITIES/SHARES FROM WHIC H EXEMPT INCOME WAS EARNED, OUT OF ITS OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS, THE RE CAN BE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IN THAT CASE. THIS IS IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN UP BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ABOVE. S INCE THE A.O. DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER EXPEN SES IN RELATION ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 16 TO EXEMPT INCOME, THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF S USTAINING ANY SUCH DISALLOWANCE WHEN THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS NOT MA DE IT. THIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWED. 21. SECOND GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINS T THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 4,34,54,000 ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF SECURITIES. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUND ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. IN SUCH EARLIER YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 8-99, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITIES IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDE R ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 22. LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL I S AGAINST THE EXCLUSION OF INCOME OF ` 1,10,61,554 ON UNMATURED FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTRACT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUN D ARE ALSO SIMILAR TO THOSE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY US FOR THE PRECE DING YEAR. THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS OVERTURNED AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS RESTORED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 23. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPO RT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH, IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION, HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 17 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 25. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST T HE APPLICATION OF HIGH RATE AS APPLICABLE TO FOREIGN COMPANIES IS NOT ALLOWED IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 26. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO TAX INTEREST OF ` 4,23,78,618 RECEIVED ON NOSTRO ACCOUNT AND OVERSEAS PLACEMENT WITH BRANCHES OUTSIDE INDIA. HERE AGAIN BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT T HAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1998-99. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 27. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST NOT ALLOWING OF DEDUCTIO N OF ` 12,12,993 BEING INTEREST PAID TO HEAD OFFICE / OVERSEAS BRANC H. FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY AS DISCUSSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, THIS DEDUCTION OF ` 12.12 LAKH, BEING THE INTEREST PAID TO HEAD OFFICE / OTHER OVERSEAS BRANCHES OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT ALL OWED. THIS GROUND FAILS. 28. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACTION OF THE A.O. FOR NOT CHARGING INTEREST OF ` 9,83,865 U/S 234C OF THE ACT. THIS ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 18 GROUND IS THE OUTCOME OF GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE APPEAL MEMO ITSELF. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED GROUND NO.1, THIS CONSEQUENTIAL GROUND IS ALSO LIAB LE TO BE DISMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 29. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION TOWARDS THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED BY THE A.O . IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THIS YEAR ALSO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED INTEREST IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME. TH ERE IS NO SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE IN RELATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE / MANAGE MENT EXPENSES. THE LEARNED CIT(A), ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTUAL POSITION, OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASS ESSEE WERE MUCH MORE THAN THOSE INVESTED IN SUCH TAX FREE SECURITIE S AND ACCORDINGLY NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE. THIS FACTUAL POSITI ON HAS REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN EARLIER YEARS IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOW ED. 30. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR LO SS OF ` 4,02,75,000 ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF SECURITIES BE AL LOWED. IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE WROTE BACK A PROVISION IN RESPECT OF R EVALUATION OF SECURITIES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 4.02 CRORE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 LOSS ON VALUATION OF INVE STMENT AMOUNTING TO ` 4,34,54,000 WAS DISALLOWED. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAY ED ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 19 THAT THE WRITE BACK OF ` 4.02 CRORE IN THIS YEAR SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THIS CONTENTION. THE LEA RNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 31. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION FOR ALLOWING OF LOSS ON REVALUATION OF S ECURITIES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY US. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THERE CANNOT BE ANY SCOPE FOR CLAIMING SEPARATE DEDUCTION OF ` 4.02 CRORE IN THIS YEAR. IT WAS STATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SUCH DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE FACTS I N THIS REGARD AND ADD BACK THIS AMOUNT, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDU CTION FOR IT IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. 32. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO EXCLUDE PROFIT OF ` 2,11,65,231 ON UNMATURED FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTRACT. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY US IN EARLIER YEARS, WE OVERTURN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 33. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONSEQUE NTIAL TO OUR DECISION ON THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY BOTH THE SIDES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CROSS APPEALS. ITA NO.5318 & ORS./MUM/2001 M/S.CREDIT LYONNAIS. 20 34. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLO WED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. !2 - 01( 3!'4 1 - 5 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (R.S.SYAL) $ ! $ ! $ ! $ ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 3!' DATED : 10 TH OCTOBER, 2012. DEVDAS* !2 - +$/6' 7'(/ !2 - +$/6' 7'(/ !2 - +$/6' 7'(/ !2 - +$/6' 7'(// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8 () / THE CIT(A)-XLIV, MUMBAI. 4. 8 / CIT 5. ';5 +$/$' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5< = / GUARD FILE. !2' !2' !2' !2' / BY ORDER, ,'/ +$/ //TRUE COPY// > > > >/ // /? # ? # ? # ? # ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI