DCIT 14(2), MUMBAI V. ADNANI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 6885/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 688519914 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MENON
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6912/MUM./2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ) DATE OF HEARING: 16.6.2011 M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES 24, KRISHNA NIWAS, NEW SILK BAZAR KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002 PAN - AAEFA6895R .. APPELLANT V/S JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-14(2), MUMBAI .... RESPONDENT ITA NO. 6885/MUM./2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-14(2), MUMBAI .. APPELLANT V/S M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES 24, KRISHNA NIWAS, NEW SILK BAZAR KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002 PAN - AAEFA6895R .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MR. P.K. MENON ASSESSEE BY : MR. SAMEER DALAL M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 6912/MUM./2008 ITA NO.6885/MUM./2008 2 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGN ED COMMON ORDER DATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER 2008, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S)-XIV, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND MANUFACTURING OF TEXTILE ITEMS. ITS ENTIRE SALES CONSIST OF EXPORT. DURING T HE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ` 3,00,00,000 APPROXIMATELY. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25 TH OCTOBER 2005, DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF ` 34,51,850. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER UNDE R SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) ON 10 TH OCTOBER 2007, DETERMINING THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT ` 93,93,669. HE, INTER-ALIA, DISALLOWED INTEREST UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, EXPORT PROMOTION EXPENSES, MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, ETC. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L, WHEREIN THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FAIR PARTICIPATION EXPENSES AS WELL AS ON ACCOUNT OF FOR EIGN TRAVELING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR VISITING EUROPE AND OTHER COUNTRIES. H E CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVELING E XPENDITURE INCURRED FOR VISITING AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH EAST ASIA AS WELL THE CLAIM FOR BANK CHARGES, ETC. BEING AGGRIEVED, BOTH, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVE NUE ARE IN APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL, MR. SAMEER DALAL , ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E, MR. P.K. MENON, ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.6885/MU M./2008 AND THE FIRST GROUND IS, DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS) OF M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 6912/MUM./2008 ITA NO.6885/MUM./2008 3 EXPENSES INCURRED FOR PARTICIPATION IN FAIR. THE CO MMISSIONER (APPEALS), AT PARA-10.1, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 10.1 THE A.OS OBJECTION IN THE REMAND REPORT IS D EVOID OF ANY MERIT IN VIEW OF HIS HAVING NOT DISPUTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE LAST HEARING THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNIT Y DUE TO A.OS BUSY SCHEDULE WITH COMMISSIONER. HE HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTE D OF HAVING NOT FIXED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 24.9.2007. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOW FURNISHED CAN BE ADMITTED UNDER RULE 4 6A OF THE I.T. RULES. MOREOVER, THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON MERIT ABOUT THE DETAILS OF FAIR PARTICIPATION EXPENSES AND COPIES O F INVOICES AND CLEARANCE OF PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, ETC. ON CLOSELY EXAMINING THE SAME, I FIND THESE DOCUMENTS BEING GE NUINE AND ARE RELATED TO THE FAIR PARTICIPATION EXPENSES AND THE PAYMENTS ARE ALSO FOUND HAVING MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. MOREOVE R, THE A.O. MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE EXPENSES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE AND NOW W HEN THE DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCED, THERE IS NO REASON AND GROU ND LEFT FOR CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. THEREF ORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT OF ` 14,21,184 IS DELETED. THIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPE LLANT. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT R EBUT THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ON THE O THER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 113 PAG ES AND AT PAGES-27 TO 41, DETAILS OF FAIR PARTICIPATION EXPENSES HAVE BEE N GIVEN. HE NOTICED THAT IN ITS GROUND OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS NOT CHALLENGIN G THE DECISION THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . IT IS ONLY CHALLENGING THE FINDINGS ON MERIT MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER (APP EALS). THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ON EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUM ENTS, FOUND THAT THE SAME ARE GENUINE AND THAT THE PAYMENTS, HAVE GONE T HROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE REQUEST BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, IS WITHOUT MERIT. WE, THUS, UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROUND NO.2(A) OF THE REVENUE 7. NOW, COMING TO GROUND NO.2(B) I.E., DELETION OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF ` 30,03,850, MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 6912/MUM./2008 ITA NO.6885/MUM./2008 4 EXPENSES. WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y, AT PARA-12.9, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 12.1 THE APPELLA NT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ` 40,05,133 WAS SPENT ON FOREIGN TOUR FOR EUROPE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND THIS IS BECAUSE OF THIS EXTENSIVE TOUR BY THE PERSONS, THE APPELLAN T COULD ACHIEVE EXPORT TURNOVER EXCEEDING ` 3 CRORES DURING THE YEAR. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE A.O. HAS OBJECTED TO ADMITTING ADDITION AL EVIDENCES MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE CONTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT A.O. DID NOT RAISE ANY QUESTION IN RESPECT OF TRAVELING TO SOUTH EAST ASIA IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGA RD VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DT. 17.8.2007. FROM THIS REPORT, I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT SERIOUSLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS RELATING TO THIS I SSUE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. IT APPEARS THAT MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF REJECTING THE C LAIM OF THE APPELLANT, THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS OBSERVATION IN HI S REMAND REPORT AND ALSO AS HE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE CONTENTION OF T HE APPELLANT THAT DURING THE LAST HEARING FIXED ON 24.9.2007, APPELLA NT WAS NOT AFFORDED OPPORTUNITY. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FO R NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITION EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. FURTH ER, THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS ON MERITS. CONVERSELY, FROM THE DETAILS VIDE ANNEXURE 4, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GIVE N DATE WISE, PERSON WISE, PERIOD WISE, DAY WISE, PLACE WISE AND RELATIO NS WITH FIRM, AMOUNT WISE, TICKET CHARGES AND VISA CHARGES, ETC. OF THE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THE FOREIGN TRAVELING. ALONG WITH THIS DETAIL, T HE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE BILLS OF THE TRAVEL AGENTS AND THE PA YMENTS THEREOF ETC. SINCE, THE FOREIGN TRAVELS PARTICULARLY TO THE EURO PEAN COUNTRIES ARE FOUND TO BE RELATING TO THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS, A S THE APPELLANT HAS ADMITTEDLY BEEN EXPORTING GOODS AND ARTICLES TO THE SE COUNTRIES, THE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES MERELY FOR WANT OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES TO EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WITH EVIDENCES AND ALSO HAVING FACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF 75% OF THE EXPENSES. ACCORDI NGLY, THIS DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED. THIS GROUND, THEREFORE, IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 8. FOR THE SAME REASONS, AS UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF FAIR PART ICIPATION EXPENDITURE, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) A ND REJECT THE GROUND NO.2(B) OF THE REVENUE. M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 6912/MUM./2008 ITA NO.6885/MUM./2008 5 9. GROUNDS NO.1, 3 AND 4, BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION OF THESE GROUNDS ARE NEEDED. 10. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. NOW, WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.6912/MU M./2008. 11. GROUND NO.1, IS ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 2,31,949, ON ACCOUNT OF BANK CHARGES PAID. 12. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT OUT O F ` 2,31,949, BILL DISCOUNTING WAS OF ` 23,041. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CERTIFICATE FROM THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS INCURRED AS BANK CHARGES. PERUSAL OF THIS CERTIFICATE WHICH IS AT PA GE-26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THE BANK STATES THAT THE AMOUNT CONSISTS OF INTEREST AND BILL DISCOUNTING. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER A NALYSING THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT, FOUND THAT THE SAME HAVE HUGE AMOUNT OF NE GATIVE BALANCES. HE HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE BORROWINGS WERE U TILISED FOR THE PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS AND ALSO FOR INVESTMENT OF ABOUT ` 1,00,00,000 IN MUTUAL FUNDS. THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS COULD NOT BE S HOWN AS WRONG BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST AS IT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE. AS FAR AS BILL DISCOUNTING CHA RGES OF ` 23,041, IS CONCERNED, WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THIS CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED T O ` 2,08,908 [ ` 2,31,949 (- ) ` 23,041]. THIS GROUND IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. GROUND NO.2, PERTAINS TO CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWAN CE OF ` 11,32,931 ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES TO AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH EAST ASIAN COUNTRIES. 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT PARA-5.9 OF HIS ORDER, HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER HAD ANY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH EAST ASIAN COUNTRIES EARLIER OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD AND THAT NO EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT, THAT ANY M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 6912/MUM./2008 ITA NO.6885/MUM./2008 6 BUSINESS MEETING WAS HELD WITH ANYBODY IN THOSE TRI PS. HE HELD THAT THE TRIPS WERE FOR TOURIST PURPOSE. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY REFUSED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 46A, THOUGH THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A REQUEST T O EXAMINE THE SAME AND SUBMIT THE REPORT. AT PARA-8, THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMIS SIONS AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN P ARA 5.4 AND 5.9 OF HIS ORDER AND GIVEN A FINDING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEVER HAD ANY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH EAST ASIA EAR LIER OR IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THAT ANY BUSINESS MEETING WAS HELD WITH ANYBODY IN THOSE TRIPS AND BASICALLY THE TRIPS TO S.E. ASIA AND AUSTRALIA WAS FOR TOURIST PURPOSES AND THUS EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THESE TRIPS ARE DISALLO WED TOTALLY AS NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON TH IS ISSUE, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE LIST OF FOREIGN PARTIES OF AUSTRALIA AND S.E. ASIA WERE FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDER ED WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHY THE ASSESSEE IS NOW REQUESTING FOR ADMITTING THIS LIST AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHEN AS PER RECORDS, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR ADMITTING THESE DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. AGAINST THIS REPORT OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT MADE NAY COUNTER ARGUMENT AND S UBMISSIONS. THIS BEING THE ADMITTED FACT THAT NO NEW EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEE N FURNISHED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THIS GROUND, MERELY ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR ADDRESSES, THE TRA VELING EXPENSES CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THIS DISAL LOWANCE. THIS GROUND, THEREFORE, IS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 15. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL DRAWS THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PAGES-42 TO 89 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONSISTS OF EVIDENCE OF TRAVELING EXPENSES AND ARGUES THAT DESPITE GIVING FULL EVIDEN CE, TO PROVE THAT THE FOREIGN TRAVEL WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE, ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES, COME TO A CONCLUSION T HAT FOREIGN TRIPS WERE FOR TOURIST PURPOSES. HE CONTENDS THAT THE PARTNERS HAV E TRAVELED ALONE AND THAT THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OF EXPO RT. HE REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE MET CERTAIN P ARTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS DURING HIS VISIT TO AUSTRALIA AND SOUT H EAST ASIAN COUNTRIES. HE M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 6912/MUM./2008 ITA NO.6885/MUM./2008 7 RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN U.P. CERAMICS & POTTERIES LTD. V/S DCIT, (1995) 52 ITD (DEL.) 334, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE A SUBSEQUENT BUSINESS DEAL TO HOLD THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON TRAVELING WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE PRAYED FOR THE RELIEF. 16. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTS OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THA T THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 17. AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAPERS ON RECORD, WE FIND THA T THE ASSESSEE, AT PAGE-42 OF THE PAPER BOOK HAS SIMPLY GIVEN A LIST O F SIX PARTIES, WHICH HE CLAIMS THAT THE PARTNERS TRAVEL TO FOREIGN COUNTRI ES WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. OTHER THAN THIS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY EVIDE NCE WHICH IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE GIVEN A CONCURRENT FINDING O F THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEMONSTRATED BEFORE THEM THAT THE TRIPS TO AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH EAST ASIAN COUNTRIES WERE BUSINESS TRIPS BY P ROVIDING THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE. THIS FACTUAL FINDING, IN OUR OPINION, HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WITH EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ASSESSMENT ORDERS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-01 TO 2004-05 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE IN EACH OF THE YEARS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. THIS, IN OUR OPINION, DOES NOT HELP T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT DURING THIS YEAR, THE TRAVEL TO SOU TH EAST ASIAN COUNTRIES AND AUSTRALIA HAS NOT BEEN PROVED AS TRAVELING DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS WITH EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE DISCUSSION, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. GROUND NO.3, IS ON THE AD-HOC DISALLOWANCE MADE ON MOTOR CAR EXPENSES. 19. THE REVENUE HAS DISALLOWED 25% OF THE MOTOR CARE AN D 10% ON MOTOR CAR DEPRECIATION. SUCH A VARIATION IN PERCENTAGE OF DISALLOWANCE IS M/S. ADNANI ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 6912/MUM./2008 ITA NO.6885/MUM./2008 8 UNWARRANTED. HENCE, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% IN THE MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AS IN THE CASE OF MOTOR CAR DEPRECIATION. THIS GROUND IS, THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 20. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART . 21. TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND ASSESS EES APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.6.2011 SD/- D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 24.6.2011 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI