ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI V. DIGI JPR NETWORK P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6070/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 607019914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) . . , ./ I.T.A. NO . 6070 / MUM/20 14 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 11(1), ROOM NO.439, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. M/S DIGI JPR NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED., NO.30, GANESH NIWAS, OPP, VALLABH VIDYALAYA SION WEST, MUMBAI - 400022 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABCJ7105P / APPELLANT BY SHRI K P R R MURTY / RSPONDENT BY SHRI ANUJ KISNADWALA / DATE OF HEARING : 4 .8 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4. 8. 201 5 / O R D E R PER B ENCH: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 14.7.2014 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) - 3, MUMBAI AND IT R ELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. THE S OLITARY ISSUE URGED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.13,76,800/ - TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA NO. 6070 / MUM/20 14 2 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE DISPUTE AR E STATED IN BRIEF . T HE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF ANOTHER COMPANY NAMED AS M/S DIGI CABLE NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED . THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CABLE TELEVISION DISTRIBUTION AND OTHER RELATED SERVICE S. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE PAYMENT TOWARDS BROAD CASTERS PAY CHANNEL CHARGES FOR PROVIDING CABLE SERVICES FOR THE ANALOG AREA AND CAS AREAS. THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR CAS DIVISION WERE REIMBURSED BY THE HOLDING COMPANY , CITED ABOVE, TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN . AT THE TIME OF REIMBURSEMENT , THE HOLDING COMPANY HAS DEDUCTED T AX AT SOURCE FROM THE AMOUNT SO REIMBURSED @ 2%. 4. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED THAT IT HAS MADE PAYMENT PAY CHANNEL CHARGES FOR CAS AREAS ONLY AS REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS HOLDING COMPANY , IT ACCOUNTED FOR THE PAYMENT AS WELL AS THE REIMBURSEMENTS AS A BALANCE SHEET ITEM (DEBTORS ACCOUNT), I.E., IT DID NOT ROUTE THE PAYMENTS AND REIMBURSEMENT S THROUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CLAIMED CREDIT OF TDS AMOUNT DEDUCTED BY THE HOLD ING COMPANY . SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE REIMBURSEMENTS RECEIVED BY IT WAS NOT PART OF ITS INCOME, T HE AO REFUSED TO ALLOW CREDIT FOR TDS AMOUNT, I.E., THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE OFFERED THE INCOME RELATING TO THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FOR TAXATION IN ORDER TO CLAIM CREDIT FOR TDS AMOUNT. 5 . IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CREDIT OF TDS AND HENCE THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . I HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. I NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF ITS HOLDING COMPANY HAS BEEN REIMBURSE D BY THE ITA NO. 6070 / MUM/20 14 3 HOLDING COMPANY DURING THE CURRENT YEAR ITSELF AND HENCE THERE WAS NO REVENUE IMPACT, EVEN IF THE PAYME NTS AND RECEIPTS WERE NOT ROUTED THROUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT . FURTHER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE DELHI BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD (15 SOT 368) , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THA T THE IT DEPARTMENT CANNOT REFUSE TO GIVE CREDIT MERELY BY CONTESTING THAT THE INCOME HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW TDS CREDIT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, I EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) : 2.5 I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE POSITION OF LAW. THE OBJECTION OF THE AO IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CREDITED THE REIMBURSED EXPENSES AMOUNT TO THE P& L ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 199, R.W.R. 37BA, THE APPELL ANT CANNOT CLAIM CREDIT FOR THE TDS DEDUCTED ON SUCH RECEIPTS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 199 R.W.R. 37BA READ AS UNDER : SECTION 199: CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED. (1) AN Y DEDUCTION MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE TREATED AS A PAYMENT OF TAX ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON FROM WHOSE INCOME THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE, OR OF THE OWNER OF THE SECURITY, OR OF TH E DEPOSITOR OR OF THE OWNER OF PROPERTY OR OF THE UNIT - HOLDER, OR OF THE SHAREHOLDER, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (2) ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE TREATED AS THE TAX PAID ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOSE INCOME SUCH PAYMENT OF TAX HAS BEEN MADE. (3) THE BOARD MAY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF GIVING CREDIT IN RESPECT OF TAX DEDUCTED OR TAX PAID IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, MAKE SUCH RULES 53 AS MAY BE NECESSARY, INCLUDING THE RULES FOR THE PURPOSES OF GIVING CREDIT TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THOSE REFERRED TO IN ITA NO. 6070 / MUM/20 14 4 SUB - SECTION (1) AND SUB - SECTION (2) AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH SUCH CREDIT MAY BE GIVEN RULE 37BA CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 199. (1) CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PR OVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII, SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PERSON TO WHOM PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OR CREDIT HAS BEEN GIVEN (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS DEDUCTEE) ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TAX FURNISHED BY THE DEDUCTOR TO THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORI TY OR THE PERSON AUTHORISED BY SUCH AUTHORITY. (2) (I) WHERE UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE INCOME ON WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON OTHER THAN THE DEDUCTEE, CREDIT FOR THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE OTHER PERSON AND NOT TO THE DEDUCTEE : PROVIDED THAT THE DEDUCTEE FILES A DECLARATION WITH THE DEDUCTOR AND THE DEDUCTOR REPORTS THE TAX DEDUCTION IN THE NAME OF THE OTH ER PERSON IN THE INFORMATION RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TAX REFERRED TO IN SUB - RULE (1). (II) THE DECLARATION FILED BY THE DEDUCTEE UNDER CLAUSE ( I ) SHALL CONTAIN THE NAME, ADDRESS, PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF THE PERSON TO WHOM CREDIT IS TO BE GIVEN, PAYME NT OR CREDIT IN RELATION TO WHICH CREDIT IS TO BE GIVEN AND REASONS FOR GIVING CREDIT TO SUCH PERSON. (III) THE DEDUCTOR SHALL ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME CREDIT IS SHOWN IN THE INFORMATION RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TAX REFERRED TO IN SUB - RULE (1) AND SHALL KEEP THE DECLARATION IN HIS SAFE CUSTODY. ITA NO. 6070 / MUM/20 14 5 (3) (I) CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, SHALL BE GIVEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH SUCH INCOME IS ASSE SSABLE. (II) WHERE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE SHALL BE ALLOWED ACROSS THOSE YEARS IN THE SAME PROPORTION IN WHICH THE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX. (4) CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF (I) THE INFORMATION RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF TAX FURNISHED BY THE DEDUCTOR TO THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY OR THE PE RSON AUTHORISED BY SUCH AUTHORITY; AND (II) THE INFORMATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM FOR THE CREDIT, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FORMULATED BY THE BOARD FROM TIME TO TIME. 2. 6 THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. CITED SURPA, WAS EXAMINING A SIMILAR ISSUE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD: ONCE TAX IS DEDUCTED ON THE INCOME CREDITED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND A REQUISITE CERTIFICATE TO THIS EFFECT IS ISSUED BY DEDUCTOR AFTER DEPOSIT OF TAX AMOUNT IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY, THE ASSESSEE BECOMES ENTITLED FOR THE CREDIT OF SUCH TDS WHILE COMPUTING THE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD (PARA 5) . CREDIT FOR TDS MUST IN EVERY CASE BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FROM WHOSE INCOME TAX WAS D EDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. IF THE RECIPIENT OF THE INCOME CONSIDERS THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, THEREFORE, DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH INCOME IN HIS RETURN, THE INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT CANNOT REFUSE TO GIVE CREDIT MERELY BY CONTENDING THAT THE INCOME HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE MAY AS PER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF INCOME - TAX ACT, CONSIDER THE ITA NO. 6070 / MUM/20 14 6 INCOME E ITHER AS NOT TAXABLE IN HIS HANDS OR AS BEING RELATABLE TO A DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HE MAY EVEN CLAIM SET OFF OF LOSS OR OTHER DEDUCTIONS AGAINST SUCH INCOME. .. IT WOULD BE, THEREFORE, IMPROPER AND EVEN IMPERMISSIBLE FOR THE REVENUE TO SWALLO W THE AMOUNT OF TDS AFTER HAVING RECEIVED AND ENJOYED THE SAME. IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT EVERY ITEM OF TDS CARRIES WITH IT AN OBLIGATION OF TRUST AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO RETURN THE AMOUNT AND/OR GIVE CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT SO DEDUCTED DEPENDING UPON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE RECIPIENT TO BE DETERMINED IN THE COURSE OF HIS ASSESSMENT. . . BEING A CASE OF DIRECT TAX, THERE IS ALSO NO QUESTION OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT BEING CLAIMED SO AS TO TAKE THE CREDIT OF TAX WITHOUT AN OBLIGATION TO RETURN THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PAYER DOES NOT PAY THE AMOUNT OF TDS AS HIS OWN LIABILITY AND HE ONLY ACTS AS THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR AS TRUSTEE TO COLLECT THE TDS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, FREE OF COST. IF NO CREDIT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PAYER AND/OR TO THE PAYEE, THE GOV ERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO TREAT THE SAME AS TAX AND ARTICLE 265 DOES NOT EMPOWER THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE ANY LEVY OR COLLECTION OF TAX NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW. (PARAS 7 TO 9). 2.7 THUS , IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT CREDIT WILL HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO THE PER SON TO WHOM THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE ONCE THE TAX HAS BEEN DEP OSITED I N THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE INCOME IS TAXABLE OR EXEMPT . 2.8 THE AO IS ALSO INCORRECT IN HOLDING TH A T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION THE IMPUGNED R ECEIPTS FROM M/S. DIGICABLE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT VIDE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. DIGICABLE, DATED 01.04.2009, M/S. DIGICABLE WAS REQUIRED TO REIMBURSED TO THE APPELLANT THE PAY CHANNEL CHARGES PAYABLE TO BROADCASTERS RELATING TO CAS AREA. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE APPELLANT HAS DEBITED THE BROADCASTER PAYOUT DIGITAL ACCOUNT WITH THE FEE PAID TO THE TV CHANNELS AND CREDI TED THE ACCOUNT WITH THE AMOUNT REIMBURSE D BY DIGICABLE. THERE FORE, FOR THE F.Y. 2009 - 10. T HE TOTAL DEBIT A ND CREDIT COMES TO RS.6 .49 CRORES AND TOR F.Y. 2010 - 11, IT COMES TO RS.6.26 CRORES. IN OTHER WORDS, IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE ACCOUNT ST ANDS SQUARED UP. AS A RESULT, THE BALANCE TO BE CARRIED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF BROADCASTER PAYOU T FOR CAS AREA WOULD BE NIL. THIS IS NOT THE ITA NO. 6070 / MUM/20 14 7 SAME AS SAYING THA T THE AMOUNTS REIMBURSED HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IF, AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT , M/S. D GICABLE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO REIMBURSE THE BROADCASTER CAS EXPENSES, THESE EXPENSES WOULD HAV E BEEN REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CAS REIMBURSEMENT HAS GONE TO REDUCE THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUN T . IN THE CIRCUMS T ANCES, THE AO IS INCORRECT IN DENYING CREDIT OF T D S AMOUNTING TO RS.13 ,76,800/ - FOR A.Y.2011 - 12 AND RS.14,14,841/ - FOR A.Y. 2 010 - 11. THE AO IS THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAID CREDITS 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD D.R PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD A.R, BESIDES SUPPORTING THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A), ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ARVIND MURJANI BRANDS (P) LTD VS. ITO (2012)(137 ITD 173), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: - THE POSITION IS, THEREFORE, CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE A MOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE HAS TO BE NECESSARILY ALLOWED CREDIT SOMEWHERE. IT CANNOT BE A CASE THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX DEDUCTED AND PAID TO THE EXCHEQUER IS NOT TO BE REFUNDED, IF THE TAX DUE ON THE AMOUNT OF INCOME RECEIVED IS EITHER LOWER THAN THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED OR THERE DOES NOT EXIST ANY LIABILITY TO TAX IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED. WE MAY FRUITFULLY REFER TO ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WHICH PROVIDES THAT : NO TAX SHALL BE LEVIED OR COLLECTED EXCEPT BY AUTHORITY OF LAW. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT FOLLOWS THAT THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST SOME TAX LIABILITY OF THE PAYEE AND IN CASE THERE IS NO SUCH LIABILITY, IT HAS TO BE REFUNDED TO PAYEE BECAUSE OF THE VERY MANDATE OF SECT ION 199 AS PER WHICH SUCH AMOUNT IS TREATED AS PAYMENT OF TAX ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON FROM WHOSE INCOME THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE, THAT IS THE PAYEE.. THE AO HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY HELD THAT THE AMOUNT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDING OF THE AO IS NOT THAT SUCH RECEIPT IS LIABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN A LATER OR AN EARLIER YEAR. RATHER IT IS THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL CHARGEABLE TO TAX EITHER IN THE CURRENT YEAR OR IN AN EARLIER OR A LATER YEAR. IF THE AO HAD HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN A LATER OR AN EARLIER YEAR, THEN OF COURSE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE VALIDLY CLAIMED THE CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AGAINST ITS INCOME FOR THE CURREN T ITA NO. 6070 / MUM/20 14 8 YEAR. AS THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IS NOT AT ALL CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THEN THE COMMAND OF SECTION 199 WILL HAVE TO BE HARMONIOUSLY AND PRAGMATICALLY READ AS PROVIDING FOR ALLOWING CREDIT FOR THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE IN THE YEAR OF R ECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT, ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. IF THE VIEW POINT CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWED CREDIT FOR THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, AN ARDUOUS SITUATION WILL ARISE. THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WILL REMAIN IN LIMBO. THE REVENUE WILL NEVER BE IN POSITION TO ALLOW CREDIT FOR SUCH TAX BECAUSE THE AMOUNT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT CANNOT RETAIN SUCH AMOUNT WITH IT IN CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. TO CIRCUMVENT SUCH A SITUATION, THE ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION IS TO ALLOW CREDIT FOR THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO THE PAYEE OF THE AMOUNT IN THE YEAR FOR WHICH SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCTED AND THE AMOUNT WAS PAID AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THUS, THE DIVISION BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.199 OF THE ACT AND HAS RENDERED ITS DECISION BY CONSIDERING THE ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION ALSO. 8. ON FACTS, I HAVE NOTICED EARLIER THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO REVENUE IMPACT, SINCE THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FULLY REIMBURSED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, MEANING THEREBY, IF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS RECAST BY INCLUDING THE PAYMENTS AND REIMBURSEMENTS AS ITS EXPENDITURE AND INCOME RESPECTIVELY, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 199 OF THE ACT READ WILL RULE 37BA WOULD STAND COMPLIED WITH. 9. SINCE THE LD CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD (SUPRA ) AND SINCE THE SAID VIEW ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ARVIND MURJANI BRANDS (P) LTD (SUPRA) AND FURTHER SINCE THE ENTRIES PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE ANY REVENUE IMPACT, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). ITA NO. 6070 / MUM/20 14 9 1 0 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 4 TH AUGUST 2015. 4 TH AUGUST, 2015 S D ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 4 TH AUG , 2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RES PONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, T RUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI