DCIT RG 7(2), MUMBAI V. M/s. SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6822/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9289 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C TEJPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL M LALA; SHEETAL JAIN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 80HHC; 234B; 115JB; 37; 90

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J MUMBAI . . , . / BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER / AND , . . SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 6822/M/2007 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(2), R.NO. 670, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S. SI E MEN S INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED, WORLI WORKS, 3 RD FLOOR, 130, PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI -18. PAN: AAACS 9788 E . / ITA NO. 6963/M/2007 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED, 130, PANDURANG BUDHKAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018. PAN: AAACS 9788 E VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SHRI A.C. TEJPAL (DR) ASSESSEE BY : S / SHRI SUNIL M. LALA & SHEETAL JAIN ' #$% / DATE OF HEARING : 03-12-2012 &' ' #$% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-12-2012 () / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VII, MUMBAI DT. 14-08-2007, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE AP PEALS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO. 6822/M/2007 ITA NO. 6963/M/2007 M/S. SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. 2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL - ITA NO. 6822/M/2007 AY. 2004-05 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE SOFTWARE CONSUMABLE EXPENSES OF RS.4,3 2,48,000/- RELYING ON THE CIT(A)S DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 200 1-02 TO 2003-04 WITH APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A)S DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR AYS 2001-02 TO 2003-04 HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL FOR THE HONB LE ITAT; 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE SOFTWARE EXPENSES OF RS. 10,55,44,000/ - AND HARDWARE EXPENSES OF RS.4,83,89,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE RAJA STHAN HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ARAVALI CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. (259 ITR 30) IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE; 3.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING NOT TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S.234B IGNORING THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.13/2001 DATED 09.11.2004 WHICH STATES THAT ALL COMPANIES ARE LIAB LE FOR PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN NEW SECTION 1 15JB; 4.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING NOT TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S.234B IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 234B AND 234C DO NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO SECTION 115J (NOW 115JB) NOR DO THEY MENTION THAT IN CASE COVERED, BOTH THE SECTIONS WILL NOT BECOME APP LICABLE; 5.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CLT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING NOT TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S.234B IGNORING THE MP HIGH COURTS DECISION IN ITARSI OILS AND FLOURS PVT. (250 ITR 686); MADRAS HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CIT V/S HOLIDAY TRAVLS PVT. LTD IN 27 TAXMAN 258 AND PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COUR TS DECISION IN CIT V/S. UPPER INDIA STEEL MFG & ENGG CO.LTD. (141 TAXMAN 692); 6.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING NOT TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S.234B IGNORING THAT THERE HAS BEEN AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B AND 234C BUT THE SAME AR E EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2007 AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO A MEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL - ITA NO. 6963/M/2007 AY. 2004-05 THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE ORDER DATED 14 AUGUST 2007 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VII, ON THE FOLLOWING AMONG OT HER GROUNDS OF APPEAL: DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHE FOR THE PURPOSE OF S ECTION 115JB 1.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8OHHE AT R S. NIL AS AGAINST RS. 14,94,97,191/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTI NG BOOK PROFITS UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8OHHE SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF PROFITS COM PUTED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND ITA NO. 6822/M/2007 ITA NO. 6963/M/2007 M/S. SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. 3 GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND NOT ON THE BAS IS OF BOOK PROFITS AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 3.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT C ONSIDERING THE DECISION OF MUMBAI INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF SYNCOME FORMULATIONS (I) LIMITED 13 SOT 414 RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES 4.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT S PECIFICALLY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO QUANTIFY AND SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THE UNAB SORBED DEPRECIATION AND UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS TO BE CARRIED FORW ARD FOR SET OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. RELIEF UNDER SECTION 90 5.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT S PECIFICALLY ALLOWING RELIEF UNDER SECTION 90 OF RS. 1,69,232/- AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. ISSUE OF REFUND ORDER 6.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT D IRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT REFUND OF RS. 86,92,617/- DETERMINED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. 7.EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER. 8.THE APPELLANT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND EACH ONE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWAR E DEVELOPMENT & CONSULTANCY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-10-200 4 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. NIL. ASSESSMENT WAS FINALISED ON 29-12-2006 BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS. NIL WHERE AS BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115 JB WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 62.71 CRORES. ITA NO. 6822/M/2007 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT SOFTWARE CONSUM ABLE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4.32 CRORES. DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4.32 CRORES UNDER THE HEAD SOFTWARE CONSUMABLE EXPENSES. FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR THE AY 2003-04 AND OF EARLIER YEARS, AO CONSIDERED THE SAME AS CAPITA L EXPENDITURE. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA ). RELYING ON THE EARLIER YEARS ORDER PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSORS, HE ALLOWED THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE US, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS NOT REVENUE IN NATURE, THAT TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE MATTER FOR EARLIER YEARS TO THE FILE OF THE AO. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT EXPENDITURE INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR APPLICATION SOFTWARE AND NOT FOR SYSTEM SOFTWARE, T HAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR APPLICATION SOFTWARE WAS ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT), THAT TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE TH E MATTER FOR THE AY 2001-02 AND 2002-03 IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES, THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAD HELD IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA, THAT EXPENDITURE OF APP LICATION SOFTWARE WAS TO BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE ( 346 ITR 341). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS RECURRING IN NATURE, THAT IT CONSTI TUTED A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF TURN- ITA NO. 6822/M/2007 ITA NO. 6963/M/2007 M/S. SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. 4 OVER, THAT THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE SOFTW ARE WAS OF ENDURING NATURE AND WOULD NOT BECOME OBSOLETE. HE RELIED UPON THE CASE S OF VARINDER AGRO CHEMICALS LTD (309 ITR 272); ASAHI INDIA SAFETY GLASS LTD., [ 245 CTR 529 (DEL)]; O.K. PLAY INDIA LTD., (346 ITR 57). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. IT IS A FACT THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, TRIB UNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO. AFTER PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE AMWAY IND IA DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REVENUE IN NATURE AND IT WAS INCURRED FOR APPLICATION SOFTWARE AND NOT FOR SYSTEM SOFTWARE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER RELIED UPON BY THE AR, WE DECIDE GROUND NO.1 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS ABOUT SOFTWARE EXPENSES OF RS. 10.55 CRORES AND HARDWARE EXPENSES OF RS. 4.83 CRORES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RS. 15.38 CRORES (10.55 + 4.83 ) AS SOFTWARE CONSUMABLE EXPENSES/COST OF HARDWARE, AO HELD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND HENCE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. AGAINST THE DECISION MADE BY THE AO, ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSES SEE-COMPANY, FAA HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED SOFTWARE/HARDWARE AMOUNTING TO RS. 15.38 CRORES AS PART OF ITS TRADING OPERATIONS, THAT THESE PURCHASES DID NO T FORM PART OF ASSET OF THE APPELLANT, THAT THE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE AND THE HARDWARE HAD BEEN EXCLUSIVELY MADE FOR THE CUSTOMERS, THAT THE SALE OF SOFTWARE/HARDWARE HAD B EEN CREDITED IN THE P&L A/C AND WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION, THAT DIS-ALLOWANCE MADE O N THIS ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 6. BEFORE US, DR SUBMITTED THAT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR HARDWARE/SOFTWARE WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ARAVALI CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., (259 ITR 30) DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIG H COURT. AR SUBMITTED THAT HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE WERE PURCHASED FOR TRADING PU RPOSES, THAT THEY WERE NEVER CLAIMED AS ASSETS OF THE APPELLANT-COMPANY, PROFIT ARISING OUT OF TRANSACTION WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION DURING THE AY UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. IT IS FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT BEFORE THE AO, ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE A CLAIM THAT HARDWARE/SOFTWARE WAS PART OF ITS TRADING ACTIVITIE S, WHILE FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED. FAA WITHOUT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE AO. 8. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 6 PERTAIN TO INTEREST LEVIABLE U/S . 234B/234C OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT INTEREST U/S. 23 4B OF THE ACT WAS NOT LEVIED BY THE ITA NO. 6822/M/2007 ITA NO. 6963/M/2007 M/S. SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. 5 AO NOR THE SAME WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE FAA BY THE APPELLANT-COMPANY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234C OF THE ACT WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AR CONCEDED THAT ISSUE OF 234C INTERES T WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. AS BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED ABOUT NON-APPLICABI LITY OF INTEREST U/S. 234B AND APPLICABILITY OF INTEREST U/S. 234C, GROUND NOS . 3 TO 6 ARE DISPOSED ACCORDINGLY. AS THE ISSUE OF LEVYING OF INTEREST U/S. 234 IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE FAA, GROUND FILED BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO 234B WAS DECI DED AGAINST HIM WHERE AS GROUND PERTAINING TO 234C INTEREST IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 6963/M/2007 9. SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US, AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTE RESTED IN PRESSING GROUND NOS. 4 TO 6. AS THE THREE GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED, SAME S TAND DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE ABOUT DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHE F OR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , AO FOUND THAT APPELLANT HAD COMPUTED BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 47.67 CRORES, THAT WHIL E COMPUTING THE PROFIT IT HAD CLAIMED ADJUSTMENT AS PER EXPLANATION 5 IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC AT RS. 14.94 CRORES, THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANA TION OR TO THE SECTION 80HHE PROFIT OF BUSINESS WOULD BE APPLICABLE WHEN THE DEDUCTION WAS TO BE CLAIMED FOR NORMAL TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS O F THE ACT, THAT WHEN BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB WERE TO BE COMPUTED AFTER ALLOWING THE D EDUCTION OF EXPORT PROFITS COMPUTATION HAD TO BE BASED ON THE PROFITS AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF PART-II AND PART-III OF THE SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT. FINALLY, HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. BEFORE US, AR SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS JUDGMENTS, FOR ALLOWING 80HHE DEDUCTION WAS TO BE CALCULATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF 115JB OF THE ACT, THAT NORMAL PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT FOR DETERMINING THE TAXABLE INCOME WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE UNDE R CONSIDERATION. HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF BHARI INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS P . LTD., [340 ITR 593 (SC)]; ALKABEER EXPORTS LTD., (TIOL-09-SC-IT-LB); AND SYNC OME FORMULATION (I) LTD (106 ITD 193). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF BHARI INFORM ATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS P. LTD., (SUPRA), HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN PA RT 4 & 5 AS UNDER: 4.IN THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE CONCERNED WITH S. 80H HE WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN THE EXPLANATION TO S. 115JA, CL. (IX). IN OUR VIEW, TH E JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SYNCOME FORMULATIONS (SUPRA) SQUARELY A PPLIES TO THE PRESENT CASE. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN SYNCOME FORM ULATIONS (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL IN THE PRESENT CASE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S. 80HHE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT UNDER S. 115JA AND NOT ON THE BASIS ITA NO. 6822/M/2007 ITA NO. 6963/M/2007 M/S. SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. 6 OF THE PROFITS COMPUTED UNDER REGULAR PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE TO COMPUTATION OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNA L HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURT. 5.WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF SYNCOME FORMULATIONS (SUPRA) VIDE PARA 61 OF THE JUDGMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012. () ' &' % + ,(- 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012 ' ' . / SD/- SD/- ( . . / B.R. MITTAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) (0 / JUDICIAL MEMBER % (0 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, ,( DATE: 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012 TNMM COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE !1# # //TRUE COPY// () () () () / BY ORDER, 2 22 2 / 3 3 3 3 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI