CDSL VENTURES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6859/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70693 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T ROUMUAN PAITE
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVARAM
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence; Onus to prove; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUM BAI , ! ! ! ! '! !, $ BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, A. M. AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J. M. ./ I.T.A. NO. 6859/MUM/2011 ( ' ( !)( ' ( !)( ' ( !)( ' ( !)( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) CDSL VENTURES LIMITED 17 TH FLOOR, PHEROZ JEEJOBHOY TOWER, DALAL STREET, MUMBAI-400 001 ' ' ' ' / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1(1), MUMBAI * ./ + ./ PAN/GIR NO. ( *, / APPELLANT ) : ( -.*, / RESPONDENT ) *, / / APPELLANT BY : DR. K. SHIVARAM & SHRI RAHUL HAKANI -.*, 0 / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. ROUMUAN PAITE '! 0 12 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 03.07.2013 3) 0 12 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .08.2013 4 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 11.07.2011, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2009. 2 ITA NO. 6859/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) CDSL VENTURES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT 2.1 WE BEGIN BY STATING THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE . THE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSIDIARY OF CENTRAL DEPOSITORY SERVICES (INDIA) LIMITED, INCORP ORATED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, I.E., ON 25.09.2006. THE COMPANY IS FORMED TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A SYSTEM FOR CREATING, HOLDING OR MAINTAINING ANY INFORMATION, R ECORDS, DOCUMENTS OR DATABASE IN THE ELECTRONIC FORM. ITS MAIDEN PROJECT IS THAT OF PROF ILING OF INVESTORS OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS, WHO ARE ITS CUSTOMERS, ALSO POPULARLY KNOWN AS KNO WN YOUR CLIENT (KYC) PROJECT. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ON 22.10.20 07, CLAIMING A NET LOSS OF RS.115.58 LACS. THIS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE IN THE SUM OF RS.116.69 LACS, DETAILED AS UNDER; THE INCOME BEING IN A PALTRY SUM OF RS.81 ,000/-: PRELIMINARY EXPENSES 2,40,000 PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES 8,04,000 OPERATING EXPENSES 56,63,000 OTHER EXPENSES 25,56,000 DEPRECIATION 24,06,000 TOTAL 1,16,69,000 THE BREAK-UP OF THE OPERATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.56.63 LACS, FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IS AS UNDER: POINT OF SERVICES CHARGES (POS) 29,22,000 DATA STORAGE 11,37,000 SCANNING CHARGES 11,04,000 OTHER EXPENSES 5,00,000 TOTAL 56,63,000 THE ASSESSEE, ON BEING QUERIED IN THE MATTER, EXPLA INED ITS MODUS OPERANDI . IT OPERATES THROUGH THE AGENCY OF POINT OF SERVICES (POS) CENTE RS, WHO ENABLE COLLECTION OF DATA FROM THE FIELD, GETTING THE REQUIRED APPLICATION FO RM FILLED BY THE INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS. THE SAME, ALONG WITH THE REQUIRED SUPPORTING DOCUME NTS, IS THEN FORWARDED TO THE COMPANY, WHICH VETS THE SAME, VERIFIES THE DATA ENT ERED IN THE FORM, AND FINALLY DIGITIZES IT BY SCANNING. THE ASSESSEE, THUS, MAINTAINS A CENTRAL DEPOSITORY IN WHICH DIGITIZED INFORMATION OF THE MUTUAL FUND INVESTORS IS MAINTAINED FOR ACCE SS AND USE BY THE MUTUAL FUNDS AND MF INDUSTRY AT LARGE. THE SAME INVOLVES COSTS TOWAR D SCANNING OF INFORMATION AND ITS 3 ITA NO. 6859/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) CDSL VENTURES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT SUBSEQUENT STORAGE. THIS EXPLAINS THE INCURRING OF COST BY WAY OF DATA STORAGE AND SCANNING CHARGES. CLEARLY, THE SAME IS IN THE REALM OF AN INTANGIBLE ASSET. ACCOUNTING STANDARD (AS-26), THE APPLICABLE ACCOUNTING STANDAR D, MANDATES THAT ONLY COSTS WHICH RESULT IN DEFINED LONG TERM BENEFITS IS TO BE CAPIT ALIZED. THIS BEING NOT SO IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE EXPENSES ARE CHARGED TO THE OPERATING STA TEMENT FOR THE YEAR. FURTHER, MAINTENANCE COST IS INCURRED AS INVESTORS ARE TO BE SERVICED IN CASE OF A REQUEST FOR CHANGE. 2.2 IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.), THE AS SESSEE WAS CLEARLY IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP ITS BUSINESS, THE PREPARATION OF DATA BA SE, FOR WHICH EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED, BEING TOWARD THE SAME. THE SAID PROCESS H AD BEEN COMPLETED ONLY DURING THE FOLLOWING YEAR. HE DREW SUPPORT FROM THE FACT THAT EVEN THE FURNITURE AND FIXTURE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF INSTALLATION AS AT THE YEAR-END AND, ACCORDINGLY, STOOD CLASSIFIED THEREAT AS CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HI M ON THE DECISION BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WESTERN INDIA VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 151 (BOM), ALSO REPRODUCING THERE-FRO M. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT BUSINESS CAN BE SAID TO BE SET-UP ONLY WHEN IT IS R EADY TO BE COMMENCED, SO THAT BEFORE THE BUSINESS IS READY TO BE COMMENCED, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SET-UP. HOW COULD THE ASSESSEE CLAIM SETTING UP ITS BUSINESS WHEN THE FU RNITURE AND FIXTURE ITSELF, FORMING AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE START-UP, IS UNDER INSTALLATIO N ? THE SAID VIEW BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, IN FACT, REPRESENTS THE SETTLED LAW IN THE M ATTER, IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS, AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SARABHAI MANAGEMENT CORPN. LTD. [1991] 192 ITR 151 (SC) AND CIT VS. SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. [1973] 91 ITR 170 (GUJ). THE RETURNED LOSS WAS, THUS, ASSESSED AT NIL, ASSESSING THE RECE IPT OF RS.80,501/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL ON, PRI NCIPALLY, THE SAME GROUNDS; THE ASSESSEE BEING UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE OF I TS BUSINESS HAVING BEEN SET-UP. THE VERY FACT OF NON-RECEIPT OF ANY INCOME OR INCOME GENERAT ION SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO COMMENCE THE BUSINESS, WHICH HAD C LEARLY NOT COMMENCED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 4 ITA NO. 6859/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) CDSL VENTURES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT 3.1 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE WOULD PLEAD FOR ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN TERMS OF RULE 29 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. R ELIANCE STANDS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH VS. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (BOM) AND ABHAY KUMAR SHROFF VS. ITO [1997] 63 ITD 144 (PAT.) (TM). A CLAIM FOR ADMISSIO N OF ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS ALSO MADE, PRAYING FOR ALLOWA NCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE OF RS.116.69 LACS, WHERE CONSIDERED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, QUA ADMISSION OF WHICH (ADDITIONAL GROUND) RELIANCE STOOD PLACED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIBA OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 1 (BOM); AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (BOM); JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC); AND NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC). 3.2 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR), ON TH E OTHER HAND, WOULD SUBMIT THAT NO CASE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BE EN MADE OUT; THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN ALLOWED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT EVEN CLAIM OF LACK OF OPPORTUNITY, AND THERE IS EVE N NO GROUND EITHER BEFORE THE FIRST OR THE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN ITS RESPECT. ITS CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION IS, AGAIN, WITHOUT MERIT INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF CLAIMS OF NO DEFINED BENEFITS FROM THE SAID EXPENDITURE, RELYING ON THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING STA NDARD (AS-26). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE LAW IN THE MATTER, WHICH IS TRITE, EVEN AS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH DURING THE HEARING, SO THAT A BUSINESS CA N BE SAID TO BE SET-UP ONLY WHERE IT IS IN A READY TO COMMENCE STATE. THE REVENUE MAY OR MA Y NOT FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, OR THERE MAY A DELAY EVEN IN THE ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS FOR SOME REASON, BUT THAT IS IMMATERIAL, AND ALL THE EX PENDITURE INCURRED IN THE INTERREGNUM, I.E., AFTER SET-UP AND PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL COMMENCE MENT OF BUSINESS, WHERE NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE, WOULD BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE, SO THAT SUBJE CT TO THE CONDITION OF BEING INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, DEDUCTIBLE IN TERMS O F THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED AFTER THE SAID DATE WOULD LARG ELY BE METED THE SAME TREATMENT AS THAT INCURRED PRIOR TO THE SAID DATE. 5 ITA NO. 6859/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) CDSL VENTURES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT 4.2 COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIN D IT TO BE, IN THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS, FACTUALLY INDETERMINATE. THE ASSESSEE-APPE LLANT IS WORKING ON A PROJECT, THE KYC PROJECT, AND WHICH WOULD ONLY BE IN PURSUANCE TO SO ME AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING, WITH ONE OR MORE ENTITIES, ITS CUSTOMERS. WHAT IS THE CR ITICAL STAGE OR POINT OF TIME WHEN THE PROJECT IS OR CAN BE SAID TO BE COMPLETE, SO THAT I T IS READY TO BE DELIVERED OR IN AN OPERABLE STATE, WOULD NEED TO BE DETERMINED, AND WH ICH CAN ONLY BE ON THE BASIS OF HARD FACTS AND EVIDENCES. THE MATTER, THUS, IN OUR VIEW, IS CLEARLY FACTUAL . THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), WHEN QUESTIONED IN THIS REGARD DURING HEARING; THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT SPECIFIED ANY DATE ON/BY WHICH ITS PROJECT STOO D COMPLETED, RATHER, CLAIMING ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE COMPAN Y, STATED THE SAME AS 10.01.2007. THE SAME IS DE HORS ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD NOR WE FIND ANY CLAIM BEFOR E THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. AS FURTHER OBSERVED, AND EVEN AS AGREE D TO BY HIM, ALL THE EXPENDITURE ANTERIOR TO SUCH DATE WOULD NECESSARILY FORM PART O F THE PROJECT COST AND CAPITALIZED. IN FACT, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE AS TO HOW THE SAID COSTS , BEING ADMITTEDLY TOWARD BUILDING OF A DATA BASE, WHICH AS WE UNDERSTAND IS TO SERVE AS TH E EDIFICE FOR THE OPERATION OF THE KYC PROJECT BY THE MUTUAL FUNDS, AND UPON WHICH RESTS T HE FUTURE REVENUE STREAM OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, CANNOT BE SAID TO GIVE RISE TO DE FINED LONG TERM BENEFITS, FOR IT TO CAPITALIZE THE SAID COSTS. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE PROJECT IS TO BE DELIVERED ON COMPLETION, LEADING TO ONE-TIME REVENUE, THE PROJEC T IS ONLY A STOCK-IN-TRADE AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS CONCERNED, WHICH WOULD RAIS E CHARGES IN ITS RESPECT ON THE CUSTOMER ON ITS COMPLETION AND DELIVERY IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, ADJUSTING IT AGAINST THE COST OF PRODUCTION. THE BASIS OF CLAIM OF DEPRE CIATION (RS.24.06 LACS) AND OTHER EXPENSES (IN THE ROUND FIGURE OF RS.5.0 LACS) IS AL SO NOT CLEAR. THE MAINTENANCE COSTS, ASSUMING A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AS WELL (WHICH POS ITION OR STATUS COULD VARY FROM CUSTOMER TO CUSTOMER) OR EVEN A SEPARATE CLAUSE IN THE PRINCIPAL AGREEMENT, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD REQUIRE INDEPENDENT TREATMENT, I.E., PE RFORMANCE OF THE REQUISITE MAINTENANCE SERVICES IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, INC URRING COSTS, AND RAISING OF THE CHARGES ON THE CUSTOMER ON ITS BASIS. WHAT IS THE B ASIS OF EARNING OR RECEIPT OF RS. 80,501/-, WHICH APPEARS TO BE FROM A MF/S, IS ALSO NOT CLEAR NOR STANDS EXPLAINED OR DEALT 6 ITA NO. 6859/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) CDSL VENTURES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT WITH BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, AND WHICH WOULD AL SO DEFINITELY BE RELEVANT. THE SAME WOULD ALSO CLARIFY THE BASIS FOR CONSIDERING IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHICH, SURPRISINGLY THOUGH, HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WHAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, AND, AGA IN, IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL, VIZ. THE AGREEMENTS, ETC., IS THAT ALL SU CH EXPENDITURE AS IS REQUIRED TO SET-UP THE PROJECT IN AN OPERABLE STATE ONLY WOULD NEED TO BE CAPITALIZED, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IT MEANS WHEN THE ASSESSEE REFERS TO THE RELEVANT PROV ISION OF AS-26. THE MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE, EVEN AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR RE GULAR CHANGES OR UPDATING THE INFORMATION ON RECORD, WOULD ONLY BE IN THE NATURE OF MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE, I.E., TO KEEP THE DATA BASE CURRENT AND, THUS, RELEVANT, BES IDES FOR ITS UP-GRADATION, AS (SAY) FOR ADDING MORE INFORMATION, OR CREATION OF NEW RECORDS , AS THE CUSTOMER BASE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OVER TIME, WHILE DELETING THE RECORDS OF THE CUSTOMERS LEAVING THE MF. AGAIN, WHAT NEEDS ALSO TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS THAT THERE HA S TO BE A MATCHING OF THE EXPENDITURE WITH THE REVENUE, SO THAT THE RELEVANT COSTS CAN BE SET OFF THERE-AGAINST. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT IF A PARTICULAR COST HAS NO DIRECT BEARING ON THE REVENUE, BUT STANDS INCURRED ALL THE SAME, THE SAME WOULD NEED TO BE WRITTEN OFF IN THE YEAR IT IS INCURRED. WE CAN ONLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR FACTS, STATE THE BROAD GUIDELINES. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ARE OF THE CLEAR VI EW THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY EXAMINED, WHICH IT HAS NOT BEEN AT ANY STA GE. NO DOUBT THE BLAME FOR THE SAME FALLS CLEARLY ON THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE ONUS TO PROVE ITS CASE OR LEAD EVIDENCE IN ITS RESPECT IS ONLY ON IT. SO HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE CRITICALITY OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE FACTS; THIS BEING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE COMPANY, SO THAT A DECISION QUA THE CAPITALIZATION OR OTHERWISE OF COSTS, INCLUDING AS TO ITS QUANTUM, WO ULD HAVE A BEARING ON THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT PROPER THAT THE MATTER IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF NON- DISCHARGE OF THE ONUS, AS WOULD NORMALLY PREVAIL WI TH US THIS BEING THE SECOND APPELLATE STAGE, AS WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION WAS A DISALLOWANCE OF A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE, ETC. IN FACT, EVEN THE PRIMARY ASPECT OF THE REVENUE MODEL OR CRITERION OF REVENUE GENERATION HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED OR ASCERT AINED. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE, THEREFORE, 7 ITA NO. 6859/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) CDSL VENTURES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. AR THAT THE MATTER REQUIR ES PROPER EXAMINATION AFTER ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS BEING SOUGHT TO BE A DMITTED, AS THE MATTER HAS NECESSARILY TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THE ASSES SEE, ON WHOM THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIMS LIE, WOULD ALSO BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ANY A DDITIONAL CLAIM BEFORE THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE SAID DECISION, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSA RY TO ADMIT THE ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL GROUND, WHICH BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. FURTHER, WE ARE CONSCIOUS, AND ONLY ACUTELY AWARE THAT IN SO DECIDING, I.E., SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, WE ARE EFFECTIVELY PUTTING THE CLOCK BACK BY YEARS, REVERSING THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL PROCESS UP TO NOW. HOWEVER, IT IS HERE THAT THE ROLE OF THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) ASSUMES RELEVANCE; THE LAW GRANTING HIM CO-TERMINUS POWERS, SO THAT ANY GAPS AND BREACHES IN ASSESSMENT OR THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS COULD BE REMEDIED BY ADOPTING SUITABLE PROCEDURES AND PROCESSES. AND A STATE AS THE PRESEN T ONE, WITH THE RELEVANT AND CRUCIAL EVIDENCES HAVING NOT SEEN THE LIGHT OF THE DAY, AND THE RELEVANT ISSUES NOT DEFINED, MUCH LESS DETERMINED, POSSIBLY AVOIDED. IN FACT, IN THAT CASE EVEN OUR STAND MAY WELL HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. A REFERENCE, IN RELATION TO THE RESPONSI BILITIES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, MAY PROFITABLY BE MADE TO THE DECISION IN KAPURCHAND SRIMAL V. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 (SC). THIS IS ALSO THE PREMISE OF THE DECISIONS CIT ED AT BAR BY THE LD. COUNSELS, I.E., SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF LAW, AS FAR AS POSSIB LE, ENDEAVOUR SHOULD BE MADE THAT EQUITY AND TAXATION GO HAND IN HAND. THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF T HE ASSESSING, OR THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN GENERAL, IS TO ASSESS THE INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NOT TO FOCUS ON ASSESSING A HIGHER INCOME. THIS WE BELIEVE WOULD ALSO ADDRESS THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. DR BEFORE US. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 16 ' (51 0 70 89: ! ;1 0 1 <= ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 23, 20 13 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; >' DATED : 23.08.2013 8 ITA NO. 6859/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) CDSL VENTURES LIMITED VS. DY. CIT !.'. ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS 4 0 -1' ?')1 4 0 -1' ?')1 4 0 -1' ?')1 4 0 -1' ?')1/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.*, / THE RESPONDENT 3. @ ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. @ / CIT CONCERNED 5. '!CD -1' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. DE( F / GUARD FILE 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, 8 88 8/ // / < < < < (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI