IMA PG INDIA LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5960/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 596019914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACCHIDANAND DUBEY
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHIT GANDHI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 5(2); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 5960 / MUM./ 2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 11 ) M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PRECISION GEARS LTD.) P LOT NO.R 677, MIDC TTC INDL. AREA THANE BELAPUR ROAD, RABALE NAVI MUMBAI 400 720 PAN AAACP6442Q .. APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 101, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NISHIT GANDHI REVENUE BY : SHRI SACCHIDANAND DUBEY DATE OF HEARING 09.07.2015 DATE OF ORDER 22.07.2015 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A.M.: TH E PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20 TH AUGUST 2013 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 9 , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 11 . THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 2 1. ALLEGED DIRECTORS' EXCESS REMUNERATION OF RS.29,63,051: (1) THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT AS WELL IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY A. O . FOR ALLEGED EXCESS REMUNERATION OF RS.29,63,051 PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. (2) THE C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE A. O . MADE THE DISALLOWANCE SIMPLY RELYING ON REMARK IN AUDITORS' REPO RT DT. 26.08.2010, DISREGARDING SUBSEQUENT SANCTIONS GRANTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVT. AVAILABLE WITH HIM WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL, AND FURTHER NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE CENTRAL GOVT. IS VESTED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO SANCTION THE EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION PAID OR TO BE PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. (3) THE C.I.T.(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE AUDITORS' REMARK IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. (4) THE C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, VIDE LETTERS DT. 31.8.10 AND 30.8.10 SANCTIONED EXCESS REMUNERATION OF RS.29,63,051 PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. (5) THE C.I.T.(A) HAS OVERLOOKED THE I.T.A.T.'S COMPOSITE ORDER IN APPELLANTS' OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS ALLOWING REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS WITHIN LIMIT PRESCRIBING BY THE PRO VISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. (6) THE C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN OT APPRECIATING THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT'S SANCTIONS VIDE LETTERS DT. 31 - 8 - 10 AND 30 - 9 - 10 WERE DULY RECEIVED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 4.3.2013 BY THE A.O. AND THE APPEAL WAS DECID ED BY THE C.I.T.(A) ON 20.8.2013 AND THEREFORE, THE A.A. OUGHT NOT TO HAVE MADE THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AND THE C.I.T.(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F MANUFACTURE, EXPORT AND DOMESTIC SALE OF BLISTER PACKING AND ALLIED MACHINES USED IN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND MANUFACTURE OF SMALL SCALE RIVETS USED IN AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 5, 74,40,436 FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 3 THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHILE GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PAID EXCESS REMUNERATION OF ` 29,63,051 TO T HE DIRECTORS. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE EXCESS REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE AUDITORS COMMENTS AND PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE . IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT AN APPLICATION TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR APPROVAL OF EXCESS REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS WAS FILED AND THE SAME WAS APPROVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND PROCEEDED TO ADD THE EXCESS RE MUNERATION OF ` 29,63,051, PAID TO THE DIRECTORS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LAR. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, WHER E VIDE APPEAL ORDER CIT(A)9/AC - 5(2)/162/2010 - 11 DATED 16/11/2011 THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE R EMUNERA TION PAID TO DIRECTORS WAS CONFIRMED. RELEVANT PARA OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: '6.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY AND DISPASSIONATELY CONSIDERED T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 4 APPELLANT'S OWN AUDITOR IN AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE APPELLANT'S RETURN OF INCOME AND IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO.3C B VIDE NOTE NO.3 HAS REPORTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID EXCE SSIVE REMUNERATION IN EXCESS OF LIMITS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE COMPANY'S ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.36,40,038 / - FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE APPROVAL WAS AWAITED. HAD THE AFORESAID EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION BEEN CONSIDER ED AS RECOVE R A BLE, FROM THE DIRECTORS, LOANS AND A DVANCES WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT THAN THE STATED FIGURES IN THE FINAL ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT FURNISHED A COPY OF SANCTIONED LETTER GRANTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION OF RS.36,40, 038 / PAID TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHRI SATISH RAO. 6.2 DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LAO VIDE LETTER NO. DCIT 5(2) / APPEAL / CIT(A) /1 1 - 12 DATED 11.10.2011 SUBMITTED A REPORT ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, THE RELEV ANT PART OF WHICH MAY BE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 'BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND READY REFERENCE, RELEVANT PART OF PROVISION OF SECTION 309 OF COMPANIES ACT 1962 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: (5 A) IF ANY DIRECTOR DRAWS OR RECEIVES, DI RECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY WAY OF R EMUNERATION ANY SUCH SUMS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THIS SECTION OR WITHOUT THE PRIOR SANCTION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, WHERE IT IS REQUIRED, HE SHALL REFUND SUCH SUMS TO THE COMPANY AND UNTIL SUCH SUM IS REFUN DED, HOLD IT IN TRUST FOR THE COMPANY. (5 B) THE COMPANY SHALL NOT WAIVE THE RECOVERY OF ANY SUM REFUNDABLE TO IT UNDER SECTION SUB - SECTION ( 5 A) UNLESS PERMITTED BY THE CENTRAL G OVERNMENT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS MENTIONED IN THE M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 5 ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AS SESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID REMUNERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.36,40,038/ - TO THE DIRECTOR OVER AND ABOVE THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT SUCH EXCESS REMUNERATION WAS PAID WITHOUT THE PRIOR SANCTION OF THE CENTRAL GOVE RN M ENT. THEREFORE, SUCH PAYMENT AMOUNTS CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISION UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, SUCH SUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE CALLS FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE IT ACT BEING SUM PAID WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. 6.3 A COPY OF THE SAID REMAND REPORT WAS FORWARDED TO THE LAR AND HE HAS FURNISHED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 20.10.2011 WHICH WAS FILED ON 1.11.2011. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LAR THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN ITS L ETTER DATED 11.03.2011 WAIVED THE RECOVERY OF SUCH EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION WHICH TANTAMOUNT TO SANCTION. I AGREE WITH THE LAO'S REMAND REPORT DATED 11.10.2011 THAT UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 309(5A) AND 309(5B), THE APPELLANT DOES NOT GET DEDUCTION OF THE EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION PAID. SUCH EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT BECAUSE IT IS PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND ALSO PROHIBITED BY LAW. THE LAO'S ACTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS IVE REMUNERATION OF RS.36,40,038/ - IS CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.7(1) TO 7(7) ARE NOT ALLOWE D. 5.2. IT IS SEEN THAT NEITHER THE LAR HAS BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAID APPEAL ORDER OF MY LD. PREDECESSOR, NOR I FIND ANY REASON TO DEV IATE FROM THE REASONED FINDING OF MY PREDECESSOR. HAVING REGARD TO THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO EARLIER YEAR, I AGREE WITH MY PREDECESSOR THAT THE EXCESS REMUNERATION IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE, THE REFORE, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.29,63,051/ - WORKED OUT BY THE LAO VIDE PARA 4 AND 5 OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER APPEARS JUSTIFIED, HENCE THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 6 AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF EXCESS REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY A CO ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.378/MUM./2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09, ORDER DATED 13 TH MARCH 2015 AND IN ITA NO.6577/MUM./2012, ORDER DATED 25 TH MARCH 2015, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 10. COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED SUPRA IS PLACED ON RECORD. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, DUTIFULLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON A PERUSAL OF THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS COVERED BY A CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 AND 2009 10 CITED SUPRA, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: FOR THE A.Y. 2008 09 M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 7 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE EXCESSIVE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTOR, BUT SAME WAS APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, AS REQUIRED BY THE COMPANIES ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA, WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . FOR THE A.Y. 200 9 10 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT EXCESS REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTOR. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE EARLIER A . Y ALSO. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THAT YEAR(ITA/ 378/MUM/2012 - DT. 13.03.2015,WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: '6. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT EXCESS REMUNERATION, AMOUNTING TO RS. 36.40 LAKHS, PAID TO DIRECTOR. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE AUDITOR INFORM NO.3CB, VIDE NOTE NO.3,HAD REPORTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD PAID RS.36,40,038/ - IN EXCESS OF LIMITS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY SUCH EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION PAID IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED ULS.37(1) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE, THE AO HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE TOTAL REMUNERATION DEBITED AND THE REMARKS MADE BY THE AUDITORS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT WORKING GIVEN BY THE AUDITORS WAS INCORRE CT. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO 37(1) OF THE ACT, THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION OF RS. 36.40 LAKHS AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE FAA. BEFORE HIM, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE AUDITORS HAD NOT CONSIDERED SCHEDULE 13 OF THE COMPANIES ACT WHILE WORKING OUT THE REMUNERATION, THAT AN APPLICATION WAS MADE IN FORM NO.25A TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR APPROVAL OF EXCESS REMUNERATION WHIC H WAS SANCTIONED VIDE LETTER DATED 14.04.2010, THAT THE EXCESS REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS WAS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 8 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE FAA HELD THAT ASSESSE'S OWN AUDITOR HAD REPORT ED THE PAYMENT OF EXCESS REMUNERATION, THAT A COPY OF SANCTIONED LETTER GRANTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION PAID WAS FILED BEFORE HIM. THE FAA CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM OF THE SANCTION LETTER OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, DATED 11.02.11,THE FAA HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 309(5A) AND 309(5B) OF THE COMPANIES ACT WERE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION OF THE EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION PAID, THAT THE EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 37(1) OF THE ACT, THAT IT WAS PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS OF THE COMPANIES ACT. HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO. 8. BEFORE US, THE AR ARGUED THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAD ALLOWED PAYMENT OF EXCESS REMUNE RATION TO THE DIRECTORS THAT SANCTION LETTER WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE FAA, THAT PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) WERE NOT APP LICABLE WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT. HE REFERRED TO THE PAGE NO.38 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED FOR THE YEAR 2001 - 02 TO 2004 - 05 WHEREIN ALLEGED EXCESSIVE REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS DISALLOWED U/S. 40A (2) (B) OF THE WAS DELETED. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE EXCESSIVE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTOR BUT SAME WAS APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GO VERNMENT, AS REQUIRED BY THE COMPANIES ACT.1N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA, WE DECIDE GROUND NO. 2 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ' 3 . AT PA GE NO.7 - 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO PAY EXCESS REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTOR. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE EARLIER YEAR, THEREFORE, FOLLOWI NG THE ORDER FOR THAT YEAR, WE ARE DECIDING GROUND NO.1 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 9 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN UPON TWO LETTERS ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DATED 31 ST AUGUST 2010 AND 30 TH S EPTEMBER 2010, WHEREIN SANCTION HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FOR THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO SHRI MAHADEVAN GOPALAKRISHNAN IYER , THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY FOR RS. 72 , 10 , 996; AND SHRI S.G. RAO, WHOLE - T IME DIRECTOR, FOR RS. 51,00,000 , RESPECTIVELY. THUS, AFTER TH E S E APPROVAL LETTER S , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTOR IS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT LAW. SINCE THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE BEFORE US ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE D ECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES CITED SUPRA, FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED . ORDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N JULY 22, 2015 SD/ - SD/ - SD/ - D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - SANJAY ARORA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 22.07.2015 M/S. IMA PG INDIA LIMITED 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT , MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI