WOCKHARDT LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 10(1), MUMBAI

ITA 687/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0204 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANT KUMARSAURABH DESH
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH THAN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; Earning of tax free income; Wholly owned subsidiary; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 92C; 14A; 115JB; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES K , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 687 /MUM/20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 M/S WOCKHARDT LTD., WOCKHARDT TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400 051 PAN: AAACW2472M VS. THE ADDITIONAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - RANGE 10 (1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & ITA NO. 879 /MUM/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 THE D.C.I.T. 10 (1), 455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M.K. MARG, M UMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S WOCKHARDT LTD., WOCKHARDT TOWERS, B K C, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400051 PAN: AAACW2472M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI YOGESH THAN (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAYANT KUMAR/SAURABH DESHPANDE (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 11 /0 8 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 /0 8 /2017 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMEN T AGAINST ORDER DATED 27/11/2012 PASSED BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 15 , MUMBAI, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) R/W 2 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 SECTION 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) , PERTAI NING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. ITA NO. 687/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 ) 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A): - GR OUND NO. I: ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ARMS LENGTH ADJUSTMENT TO INCOME FROM INTEREST ON LOANS ADVANCED TO SUBSIDIARIES : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 15, MUMBAI (CIT (A)) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 10(1), MUMBAI (THE AO) AND THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TP) - II(2) (THE TPO) TO RE - COMPUTE THE ADDITION U/S 92C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT) ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS GIVE N TO ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE (AES) BY ADOPTING 6 MONTHS BENCHMARKING AT LIBOR + 150 BASIS POINTS FOR LOANS HAVING MATURITY BETWEEN THREE TO FIVE YEARS AND 6 MONTHS LIBOR + 250 BASIS POINTS FOR LOANS HAVING MATURITY PERIOD BEYOND MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES PRAYS THAT IT BE HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN GIVEN TO THE AES ARE AT ARMS LENGTH AND NO FURTHER ADDITION IS WARRANTED U/S 92C OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. II: WANT OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS REGARDS TREATING EQUITY INVESTMENT IN OVERSEAS SUB SIDIARY AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED TPO/AO IN PASSING AN ORDER U/S 92CA(3) OF THE ACT TREATING EQUITY INVESTMENT IN EXIS TING OVERSEAS SUBSIDIARY AS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION U/S 92B(1) OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO BE STRUCK DOWN AS BAD - IN - LAW. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND II: GROUND NO. III: RECLASSIFICATION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS LOAN FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN DATE OF REMITTANCE TILL THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF EQUITY SHARES: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT (A) ERRED IN RECLASSIFYING THE INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHARES AS A LOAN, FOR THE TIME PERIOD FROM REMITTING THE MONEY TILL THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AND DIRECTING THE AO TO CALCULATE INTEREST AT 6 MONTHS LIBOR PLUS 150 BASIS POINTS FOR THE AFORESAID PERIOD. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS TH AT THE ACTION OF THE HONBLE CIT (A) TO RECLA SSIFY EQUITY INFUSION IN THE WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY INTO LOAN BE HELD AS AB - INITIO VOID AND BAD - IN - LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION BE WITHDRAWN. GROUND NO. IV: DISALLOWANCE OF WEIGHTED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) OF T HE ACT ON EXPENSES OF RS. 18,81,14,518/ - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT (A) OF THE ACT ON EXPENSES OF RS. 18,81,14,518/ - ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE IN - HOUSE RESEARCH B Y THE APPELLANT. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPELLANT BE GRANTED WEIGHTED DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) ON EXPENSES OF RS. 18,81,14,518/ - . GROUND NO. V: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,81,641/ - : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE HONBLE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE 4 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 AO IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 22,81,641/ - U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R. 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 (THE RULES) AS EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS EARNING EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME U/S 10(35) OF THE ACT OF RS. 80,000/ - . 2. THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22,81,641/ - SHOULD BE DELETED OR BE APPROPRIATELY REDUCED. ITA NO. 879/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 2008 - 2009 ) 3. THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENG ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WHETHER THE CIT (A)S ERRED IN DELETING ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS GUARANTEE FEE: 1(I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE WHETHER CIT (A) ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE TPO CONSIDERED BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION RATE AS CUP WHEN HE HAS CONSIDERED THE BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION AS ONLY THE BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT A CUP RATE AND ADDING 0.35% FOR ADDITIONAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH FO REIGN CURRENCY, AS LOAN IS IN GREAT BRITAIN POUND (GBP). 1. (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER CIT (A) ERRED IN EQUATING BANK GUARANTEE WITH CORPORATE GUARANTEE WHEN BANK GUARANTEE CANNOT BE ISSUED AGAINST A LOAN AND ALSO WHEN THE R ISK IN CASE OF CORPORATE GUARANTEE IS HIGHER THAN THAT IN BANK GUARANTEE. 1. (III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER CIT (A) ERRED IN EQUATING THE RISK IN CORPORATE GUARANTEE WITH THAT IN BANK GUARANTEE EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE CANNOT SPRE AD ITS RISK TO OTHERS AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING GUARANTEES WHEREAS THE BANK CAN SPREAD CHARGED BY THE BANK IS REFLECTED SUCH REDUCED RISK. 5 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 2. (IV) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER CIT (A) ERRED IN CONSIDE RING BANK GUARANTEE COMMISSION RATE PROPOSED BY HSBC AS CUP WHEN THE RISK IN ISSUING CORPORATE GUARANTEE FOR THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHER THAN FOR A BANK ISSUING A BANK GUARANTEE. 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WHETHER THE CIT (A)S ER RED IN DELETING ADJUSTMENT OF DIFFERENCE ON INTEREST FOR LOANS ADVANCED TO (ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES) AES: 2 (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN EQUATING A LENDING TRANSACTION WITH A BORROWING TRANSACTION AND THUS C OMPARING WITH INTEREST RATES ON ECB WHICH IS A BORROWING TRANSACTION. 2(II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN EQUATING THE LOAN EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY AS LENDING IN FOREIGN CURRENCY WH EN IN FACTS IT IS A RUPEE LOAN WHICH IS CONVERTED INTO FOREIGN CURRENCY AS INDIAN RUPEE IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CURRENCY IN THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE AES ARE LOCATED. 2(III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE COST OF FUNDS IN INDIA, WHETHER BORROWED OR SURPLUS WOULD BE LINKED TO INTEREST RATE PREVENT IN INDIA AND THUS LENDING TRANSACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BENCHMARKED USING THE INTEREST RATE PREVALENT IN INDIA. 2 (IV) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN BENCHMARKING THE INTEREST ON LENDING TRANSACTION IN FOREIGN CURRENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK LIKE LIBOR WHEN THE INDIAN ENTITIES IS ALSO BEARING FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND OTHER RISKS AND THE PREVAILING INTER EST RATES IN INDIA WOULD TAKE CARE OF ALL SUCH RISKS AND THUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED FOR BENCHMARKING INTEREST RATES. 2(V) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ADOPTING LIBOR PLUS 150 /250 BASIS POINTS WHEN THE ASSESS EE IS BEARING ADDITIONAL RISK ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN 6 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 EXCHANGE RISK, WHICH IS MEASURED BY WAY OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE PREMIUM ON INR - GBP/INR - USD/INR - EURO CONTRACTS WHICH WAS HOVERING AROUND 3% P.A. DURING THE F.Y. 2007 - 08. 2(VI) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETEHR THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ADOPTING LIBOR PLUS 150/250 BASIS POINTS WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS BEARING ADDITIONAL RISK ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT RISK AND TENURE RISK INVOLVED IN EXTENDING LOAN BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING ADJUSTMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST TREATED AS LOAN IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF SHARES: 3 (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN GIVING A FINDING WHICH OTHERWISE DOES NOT ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ORDER OF THE TPO. 3 (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ADJUDICATING A ISSUE WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED BY THE TPO WHILE MAKING THE ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PAYMENT MADE FO R OVERVALUATION OF SHARES OF THE AE WHILE SUBSCRIBING TO THE SHARES OF THE AE. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 800IC OF THE ACT SHOULD BE GRANTED WITHOUT ALLOCATING R&D EXPENSES AND INTEREST EXPENSES TO UNITS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT OF DEDUCTION IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED INTEREST COST TO UNITS ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) AMOUNTING TO RS. 65,30,88,285/ - WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO FOR WANT OF FORM 3CL FROM THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY (DSIR) FOR THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER REFERENCE. 7 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 40 (A) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,94,82,067/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO NON - RESIDENTS ON ACCOUNT OF PILOT BIO - STUDY, CLINICAL RESEARCH, WHEREAS PER SECTION 195 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO WITHHOLD TAX ON SUCH PAYMENTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO SO. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,69,50,000/ - BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 36(1) (VII) OF THE ACT. 8. O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 51,65,056/ - (BEING ROYALTY FEE) WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB, WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACCRUAL ONLY. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF PROVISI ON FOR UNREALIZED MARKED - TOMARKET (MTM) LOSS RS. 51,00,00,000/ - WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ANY AMOUNT SET ASIDE TO PROVISION MADE FOR MEETING UNASCERTAINED LIABILITIES HAS TO B E ADDED BACK FOR COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT U/S 115JB. 10. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF PROVISION FOR GRATUITY RS. 45,39,118/ - WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF BOOK PR OFIT U/S 115JB, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ANY AMOUNT SET ASIDE TO PROVISION MADE FOR MEETING UNASCERTAINED LIABILITIES HAS TO BE ADDED BACK FOR COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT U/S 115JB. 11. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER 8 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 THE CIT (A) ER RED IN DELETING DELETING THE ADDITION OF PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS RS. 3,69,50,000/ - WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ANY AMOUNT SET ASIDE TO PROVISION MADE FOR MEETING UNA SCERTAINED LIABILITIES HAS TO BE ADDED BACK FOR COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT U/S 115JB. 12. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING DELETING THE ADDITION OF EXPENSES DISALLOWABLE U/S 14A RS. 22,81,641/ - WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME HAVE TO BE ADDED BACK FOR COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT U/S 115JB . 4. THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26/07 /2017. ON THE SAID DATE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THESE CROSS APPEAL ARE ARISING OUT OF THE DRAFT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. SINCE, THE AO H AS ALSO PASSED A FINAL ORDER , AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) AN D THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENT HAVE BOTH COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE CIT (A) ORDER ARISING OUT OF THE FINAL ORDER. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS ARISING OUT DRAFT ORDER MAY BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS . THE MATTER WAS KE PT FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION FOR 11/08/2017 . T ODAY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRESENTED AN APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF RELEVANT ORDERS AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID APPEALS ARISING FROM DRAFT ORDER MAY BE DISMISSED AS THE SAME HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 5. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ALSO ADMITTED THE ABOVE FACTS. 6. WE NOTICE THAT AO PASSED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 19.1 2.2011. THEREAFTER THE AO PASSED FINAL ORDER O N 24.2.2012. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED DRAFT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED DETAILED ORDER DATED 9 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 27.11.2012. THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(A) AGAIN PASSED ORDER DATED 26.2.2013 HOLDING THAT APPEAL AGAINST DRAFT ORDER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NULLIFIED HIS OWN ORDER , WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE, THESE CROSS APPEALS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. HENCE, WE ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 11/08/2017 AND DISMISS BOTH THE APPEALS BEING INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, CROSS APPEALS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH AUGUST , 2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 18 / 0 8 / 2017 ALINDRA PS / COPY OF T HE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 10 ITA NO S . 687 & 879/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009