JANAM CORPORATION P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6489/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4443 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transactions in derivatives; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 43(5); 37

Judgement Text

, , J, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6489/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 & ITA NO.351/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. JANAM CORPORATION P. LTD., 512-A, PANCHARAND MARG, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI -400004 / VS. DCIT 5 ( 2 ) , R.NO.571, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD. MUMBAI (ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE) P.A. NO. AACJ1263H / ASSESSEE BY SHRI NITESH JOSHI (AR) / REVENUE BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR (DR) ! ' / DATE OF HEARING : 3/12/2015 ! ' / DATE OF ORDER: 6/01/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THESE APPEALS INVOLVE COMMON ISSUES, AND THEREFORE THESE ARE BEING DECIDED TOGETHER: JANAM CORPORATION 2 FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.6489/MUM/2012: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9 , MUMBAI {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, DATED 10.09.2012 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2009-10 PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: '1. IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.5,18,875/- BEING LOS S ON ACCOUNT OF MARK TO MARKET OF DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS D ONE AS PER ACCOUNTING STIPULATIONS. 2. IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.14,77,500/- BEING LOS S ON CANCELLATION OF FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACTS DURING T HE YEAR. 3.1. IN CONFIRMING A DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A BY MECHAN ICALLY APPLYING RULE 8D. 3.2. IN MAKING VARIOUS AVERMENTS ABOUT INTEREST BEA RING FUNDS BEING USE FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS WITHOUT REAL IZING THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH STATEMENT EVEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. ' 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y SHRI NITESH JOSHI, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. GROUND NO.1: IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN DISALLOWING A SU M OF RS.5,18,875/- BEING LOSS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF MAR K-TO- MARKET LOSS ARISING OUT OF DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS. I N THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSES SEE HAS JANAM CORPORATION 3 ALSO CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) FOR TREATI NG IT AS SPECULATIVE LOSS. 3.1. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED A LOSS OF RS.5,18,875/- ON ACCOUNT OF MARK- TO-MARKET LOSS ON FUTURES AND OPTIONS. THE SAID LOSS IN FUTUR ES AND OPTION WAS ACCOUNTED FOR BASED ON TREATMENT REQUIRE D AS PER GUIDANCE NOTED ON ACCOUNTING FOR EQUITY INDEX AND E QUITY TAX FUTURE AND OPTIONS, ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHAR TERED ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA. BUT THE AO TREATED THE SAID LO SS AS CONTINGENT IN NATURE AND DISALLOWED IT AS NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS LOSS. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN IT SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE ABOVE LOSS HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR FOLLOWING GUIDANCE NOTE ISSUED BY THE ICAI AND IS THUS A PART OF THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP), FOLLOWED IN INDIA AND IS A METHOD ADOPTED CONSISTENTLY BY THE APPELLANT. ANY LOSS WHICH ARISE S ON ACCOUNT OF ADOPTION OF ACCOUNTING POLICIES WHICH ARE REGULARLY FOLLOWED IS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION AND THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMEN T IN CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR 312 ITR 254. A PARALLEL CAN BE DRAWN TO A CONSISTENT METHOD OF VALUING STOCK IN TRADE AT COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER. WHERE STOCK IS VALUED AT MARKET VALUE WHICH IS LOWER THAN COST, THE SAID LOSS IS ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THIS L OSS MAY OR MAY NOT ACTUALLY MATERIALIZE WHEN THE STOCK IS ULTIMATELY SOLD. THE LOSS ON MARK TO MARKET OF JANAM CORPORATION 4 DERIVATIVES HELD, INCOME FORM WHICH IS TAXED AS BUS INESS INCOME, IS ON THE EXACT SOME FOOTING. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE SAID LOSS IS DIFF ERENT FORM A CONTINGENT LIABILITY WHICH IS A LIABILITY FO R AN EXPENSE WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE PAYABLE. A LOSS CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH AN EXPENSE / LIABILITY INCUR RED. WE ALSO SUBMIT THAT A CBDT INSTRUCTION CANNOT BE THE BASE FOR THE LEVY OF A TAX OR FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF AN ITEM WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT DISALLOWABLE AS PER THE LEGISLATED TAX LAW. 3.2. BUT, LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW THE LOSS ON THE GROU ND THAT LOSS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE SINCE THE LIABILITY HAD NOT CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY HIM THAT THE LOSS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE ALSO FOR THE RE ASON THAT IT WAS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSE E FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3.3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COUNSE L OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COV ERED IN ITS FAVOUR ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE TRI BUNAL. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : I. PRIME WOVEN LTD. ITA NO.1503/M/2012- COPY ATTACH ED II. EDELWEISS CAPITAL LTD. ITA NO.5324/M/2007-COPY ATTACHED III. WOODWORD GOVERNOR INDIA LTD. SUPREME COURT 31 2 ITR 254 JANAM CORPORATION 5 3.4. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO PLA CED COPY OF JUDGMENTS PASSED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF PERFECT CIRCULAR INDIA LTD. (ITA NO.7241/MUM/2012 DATED 27.03.2015. ON THE OTHER HAN D, LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. 3.5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS JUDGMENT PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS NOTED THAT IN ALL THESE JUDGMENTS, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MARK-TO- MARKET LO SS IS NOT CONTINGENT IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE LOSS ARISING IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS WAS ALLOWABLE. RELEVANT PARAS FROM ON E OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF PERFECT CIRCULAR INDIA LTD . (SUPRA) ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN: 6. IT MAY BE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE HON'B!E SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF 'CIT V. WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDI A (P.) LTD.' (2009) 179 TAXMAN 326, WHILE DEALING WITH THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY ARI SING ON ACCOUNT OF FLUCTUATION IN THE RATE OF EXCHANGE CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE ADJUSTED PENDING ACTUAL PAYMENT OF TH E VARIED, HAS OBSERVED THAT 'EXPENDITURE' AS USED IN SECTION 37 IN INCOME TAX ACT MAY IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF A PARTICULAR CASE COVER AN AMOUNT WHICH IS A 'LO SS' EVEN THOUGH SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN FROM THE POCKET OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF THE NATURE OF FORWARD CONTRACTS IN COMMODITY DERIVATIVES, THE CO- JANAM CORPORATION 6 ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. KOTAK MAHINDRA INVESTMENT LTD.' RELATING TO A.Y. 20 08- 09,{(2013) 59 SOT 4; 35 TAXRNANN.COM 225 (MUMBAI- TRIB.)] (JUDICIAL MEMBER OF THE BENCH BEING PARTY T O THAT ORDER ALSO) HAS OBSERVED THAT SUCH TYPE OF FORWARD CONTRACTS ARE NOT PURELY CONTINGENT IN NATURE RATHE R LOSS OR PROFIT IS SOMEWHAT ASCERTAINABLE IN SUCH TYPE OF CO NTRACTS BECAUSE OF CONSTANT WATCH ON DAILY MARKET RATES. TH E QUANTUM OF PROFIT OR LOSS THOUGH NOT ACTUALLY ASCERTAINABLE CAN BE ANTICIPATED IN VIEW OF THE TRE NDS OF THE MARKET. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PREDETERMINE D PRICE AND MARKET PRICE IS SETTLED DAILY ON MARK-TO- MARKET BASIS. IN SUCH TYPE OF CONTRACTS, IT IS NOT THE STO CK VALUE WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTRACT RATHE R THE CONTRACT ITSELF IS THE STOCK IN TRADE. CONTRACTS IN SUCH TYPE OF CASES CAN BE SQUARED OFF BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF ACTUAL PERFORMANCE OF DATE OF CONTRACT, AS THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ARE CALCULATED ON DAILY BASIS AND THE MARG INS ARE SETTLED ACCORDINGLY. 3.5 . IT IS NOTED THAT JUDGMENT OF KOTAK MAHINDRA INVES TMENT LTD HAS BEEN AUTHORED BY ONE OF US ( HONBLE JUDICI AL MEMBER). THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF COORDINATE BENCH, WE ALLOW THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALL OWED. 4. GROUND NO.2: IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,77,500/- BEING LOSS JANAM CORPORATION 7 ON CANCELLATION OF FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACTS INCUR RED DURING THE YEAR. 4.1. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LOSS OF RS.14,77,450/- ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION FORWARD D ERIVATIVE OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTRACTS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAIN ED TO AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT TH E SAID LOSS WAS COVERED BY PROVISO (D) TO SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT. BUT THE AO HELD THAT TRANSACTIONS OF FOREIGN DERIVATIVES DO NOT SATISFY ANY OF THE CONDITIONS GIVEN UNDER PROVISO (D) TO SE CTION 43(5), AND FOR THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIM IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER HE CONCLUDED THAT FOREIGN DERIVATIVES TRANSACTIONS WERE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. 4.2. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SP ECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS ARE DEFINED U/S 43(5) OF THE ACT. THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WERE COVERED BY THE EX CEPTIONS PROVIDED BY THE SUB-SECTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PROFITS WERE EXPOSED TO FLUCTUA TIONS IN THE RATE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY AND TO GUARD AGAINST THAT, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS FOR HEDGING FOREIGN CURRENCY. THEREFORE, THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT SP ECULATIVE IN NATURE. ONCE THEY ARE NOT SPECULATIVE IN NATURE, AN Y PROFIT/LOSS ON CANCELLATION OF THESE CONTRACTS WOUL D BE A BUSINESS GAIN/ LOSS SINCE THE UNDERLYING TRANSACTIO N ALSO BECOMES HEDGED AND THE CORRESPONDING LOSS/GAIN THER EON GETS TREATED AS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. RELIANCE WAS PLA CED ON THE JANAM CORPORATION 8 JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F BADRIDAS GAURIDU (P) LTD REPORTED AT 261 ITR 256, A ND THE JUDGMENTS OF MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF INTERGOLD R EPORTED AT 27 SOT 239 AND VOLTAS INTERNATIONAL 31 DTR 432 IN T HIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES PLEA WAS THAT T HE LD. AO WAS INCORRECT IN TREATING THIS AS A SPECULATIVE LOS S. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THESE TRANSACTIONS TO BE SPECULATIVE IN NATURE, AND THERE FORE, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 4.3. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EXPORTER AND FORWARD CONTRACTS W ERE ENTERED INTO FOR HEDGING THE EXPOSURE TO FLUCTUATION IN FOR EIGN CURRENCY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CONTRACTS W ERE ENTERED FOR BOOKING REMITTANCE AND CERTAIN CONTRACTS WERE C ANCELLED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON THE CHART CONTAINING DET AILS OF ALL THE CONTRACTS WHICH WERE UTILIZED OR CANCELLED DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISS UE WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS JUDGME NTS, AND SPECIFIC RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGM ENTS: (I) LONDON STORE D. CO. INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA NO.6169/MUM/2012(MUMBAI ITAT) (II) JAMIN JEWELLERY EXPORT PVT. LTD. ITA NO.5770/MUM/2012 4.4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW PROPERLY FROM THE FACTS THAT THESE WER E PURELY HEDGED TRANSACTIONS TO COVER THE RISK UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSEE JANAM CORPORATION 9 ON ACCOUNT OF ITS EXPOSE ONLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTIONS MORE THA N THE REQUIREMENT OF COVERING RISK OF THE EXPOSURE UNDERT AKEN BY IT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORTS EARNING. 4.5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM IS CORRECT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN PRINCIPALLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BADRIDAS GAURIDU (P) LTD, SUPRA HAS DECIDED THIS IS SUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. COUNSEL WAS NO T ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE BEFORE US, ON FACTS THAT HEDGING OF FOR EIGN CURRENCY WAS DONE PURELY AND LIMITED UPTO THE EXPOR TS TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS BEING SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ENABLE THE ASSES SEE TO SHOW TO THE AO THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS IN THIS REGARD WERE DONE BY THE ASSESSEE TO COVER THE RISK AND LIMITED TO THE E XPOSURES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE EXPORT RECEIPTS. IF THE TRANSAC TIONS ARE FOUND NOT RELATED WITH THE EXPORTS TRANSACTIONS OR IF THESE ARE FOUND TO BE MORE THAN THE EXPECTED EXPORTS RECEIPTS , THEN THESE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND WO ULD BE HELD AS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO R AISE ALL FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE AO. THE AO SHALL GIVE FULL OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE IN THIS REGARD, AND SHALL KEEP IN MIND THE RATIO OF THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BADRIDAS G AURIDU (P) LTD, SUPRA, AS WELL AS OTHER JUDGMENTS AS MAY B E MADE JANAM CORPORATION 10 AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THAT TIME, WHILE DECID ING THIS ISSUE AFRESH. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NO.3: IN THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE U/S 14A BY MECHANICALLY APPLYING RULE 8D. 5.1. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVID END INCOME OF RS.9,21,593/- DURING THE YEAR. THE AO MA DE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) @ OF 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS. 5.2. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN NO RELIEF WAS GIVEN AND DISA LLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED. 5.3. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING DISALLO WANCE OF EXPENSES @ OF 0.5%. HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DELITE ENT ERPRISES (ITA NO.110 OF 2009) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IF NO INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED FORM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM THEN THE INVE STMENT MADE UNDER THE SAID FIRM AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED F OR COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). JANAM CORPORATION 11 5.4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY BOTH T HE SIDES. IT IS NOTED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIR M, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO BY COMPUTING AVER AGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING DISAL LOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D. IT IS FURTHER NOTED BY US THAT NO PR OFIT HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID FIRM RATHER SH ARE OF LOSS HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. DELITE ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) THAT IN CASE NO PROFIT H AS BEEN EARNED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THEN IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE DECI DE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO T O EXCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PARTNERSHI P FIRM, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET BY THE ASSESSEE . THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED. NOW, WE TAKE UP ITA NO.351/MUM/2014: 7. IN THIS APPEAL ALL THE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL TO TH E GROUNDS DECIDED BY US IN ITA NO.6489/MUM/2012 FOR A.Y. 2009 -10 ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW OUR ORDER OF FOR A.Y. 2009-10. JANAM CORPORATION 12 8. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JANUARY, 2016. SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER $# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; $ DATED : /1/2016 CTX? P.S/. .. %'&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & '( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. , ( & ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. /0 ) 1 , &' 12 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 3 4 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, * /& ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI