ACIT 4(3), MUMBAI V. M/s. J.P. MORGAN (I) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6919/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: 691919914 RSA 2004
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARSI PRASAD
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Permanent establishment; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN (VP) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SIN GH(AM) ITA NO.6919/M/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE ACIT 4(3), ROOM NO.649, M/S. J.P.MORGAN INDIA PVT.LTD. 6RH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN J.P. MORGAN TOWERS, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. C.S.T.ROAD, KALINA SANTACRUZ (EAST), MUMBAI 400 098. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI ARSI PRASAD ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1.7.2004 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE REVE NUE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED DISPUTES ON SIX DIFFERENT GROUNDS. 2. THE FIRST DISPUTE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF E XPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF CLUB MEMBERSHIP. THE AO NOTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,14,000/- TO SECURE LIFE MEMBERS HIP OF ROYAL MUMBAI YATCH CLUB. SINCE THE BENEFIT WAS SPREAD OVER THE LIFE OF THE MEMBERSHIP AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN APPEAL CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT BY MAKING PAYMENT FOR CLUB MEMBERSHIP THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT ACQUIRED ANY CAPITAL ASSETS AND THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INC URRED ONLY FOR EFFICIENT WORKING OF THE BUSINESS. THE ADVANTAGE WAS THEREFOR E ONLY IN THE COMMERCIAL SENSE AND NOT IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. THE EXPENDITURE WAS THEREFORE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUD GMENT OF HONBLE HIGH 2 COURT OF GUJARAT IN CASE OF GUJARAT STATE EXPORT CO RPORATION VS CIT (209 ITR 649). AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT (A) WHEREAS THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. WE HAVE PERUSED THE R ECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECO RD AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CLUB TO BE USED BY THE EMPLOYEES OR THE MEMBERSHIP HAD BEEN GRANTED IN THE NAME OF INDI VIDUAL EMPLOYEES. IN CASE OF THE LATTER, AN EMPLOYEE CAN USE THE MEMBERS HIP EVEN AFTER LEAVING THE COMPANY AND THE EXPENDITURE THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SINCE THE FACTS ARE NOT CLEAR, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RES TORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMIN ATION IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUN ITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE SECOND DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.63,19,732/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PRINTING RESEARCH REPORTS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE FOR PRINTING RESEARC H REPORTS ABROAD WAS TAXABLE IN INDIA. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY HIM THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS OF THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE EXPENDIT URE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I). IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS RENDER ING BROKING SERVICES TO SEVERAL FOREIGN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS WHO OPERATE D OUTSIDE INDIA. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE INSTITUTIONAL CLIENTS THE RESEARCH REP ORTS ON INDIAN CAPITAL MARKET 3 AND THESE REPORTS WERE GOT PRINTED OUTSIDE AS THE C LIENTS WERE LOCATED OUTSIDE. THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THESE PAYMENTS DID NOT ACC RUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTIES WHICH HAD PRINT ED THE REPORT HAD NOT RENDERED ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES. CIT(A) WAS SATISFI ED BY THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT THE FO REIGN PARTIES WHO HAD PRINTED THE REPORTS HAD NO BUSINESS CONNECTION IN I NDIA AND THEY HAD NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND THEREFORE INCO ME WAS NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY HIM THAT PRINTING OF RES EARCH REPORTS DID NOT AMOUNT TO RENDERING TECHNICAL SERVICES. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE LOWE R AUTHORITIES WHEREAS THE LEARNED DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO. WE H AVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE ISSUE IS R EGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PRINTING OF RESEARCH REPORTS ABROAD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS REN DERING BROKING SERVICES TO SEVERAL FOREIGN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AND THE RES EARCH REPORTS HAD BEEN GOT PRINTED FROM THE PARTIES OUTSIDE INDIA FOR USE BY T HE OVERSEAS INVESTORS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS ONLY ON PR INTING OF REPORTS AND NOT ON RESEARCH ON BROKING SERVICES. SUCH CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN CONTRAVERTED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE MERE PRINTING OF RESE ARCH REPORTS ABROAD CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES. IT H AS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THESE PARTIES HAD NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN IND IA AND THEREFORE PAYMENTS IN THEIR HANDS WERE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. THIS CLAI M HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CONTRAVERTED BEFORE US AND THEREFORE ON THE FACTS O F THE CASE IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THESE PAYMENT WAS NOT TAX ABLE IN INDIA AND 4 THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR TDS AND A CCORDINGLY NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I). WE THEREFORE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND THE SA ME IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 4. THE THIRD DISPUTE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF E XPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACQUISITION OF SOFTWARE. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAI M AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS THE SOFTWARE IN HIS OPINION GAVE ENDURING BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRESENT DAY OF FAST CHA NGING TECHNOLOGY, SUCH TECHNICAL PRODUCTS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVIN G ENDURING LIFE. HE REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ALAMBIC CHEMICAL WORK LTD. VS CIT (177 ITR 377) IN THIS REGARD. HE ALSO R EFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF EMPIRE JUTE COMPAN Y LTD. VS CIT (124 ITR 1) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT IN CASE THERE IS NO AD VANTAGE IN THE CAPITAL FIELD AND THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR MORE EFFI CIENT CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE I N NATURE. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TRE ATING THE EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE IN NATURE AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION TH E REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4.1 BEFORE US THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISS UE WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BE NCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES (111 ITD 112). THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON SO FTWARE HAD TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDG MENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN CASE OF SUNDARAM CLAYTOM LTD. (321 IT R 69) AND ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN CASE OF CIT VS VARINDER AGRO CHEMICALS LTD. (309 ITR 272). IT WAS ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT IN CASE THE ISSUE 5 WAS RESTORED TO THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION THE AO MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THESE JUDGMENTS ALSO. 4.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE IN CURRED ON ACQUISITION OF SOFTWARE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. WE FIND THE SAME I SSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAILS BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) IN WHICH SPECIAL BENCH AFTER CO NSIDERING SEVERAL JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT HAS LAID DOWN C ERTAIN GUIDELINES IN UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE ON ACQ UISITION OF SOFTWARE. THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR VIEW MATTER REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF SAID DECISION. WE THEREFORE SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSING A F RESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH (SUPRA) AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE FOURTH DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS.15 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPEN DITURE OF RS.15 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS TO PLANET ASIA FOR CONDUCTING S TUDY ON THE INTERNET BROKING ACTIVITIES I.E. USING THE INTERNET TO CONDU CT BUSINESS. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HOLDING THAT THE P AYMENTS GAVE ENDURING BENEFITS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FO R PROVIDING VALUE ADDED SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEES CUSTOMERS AND THUS PROVI DING A COMPARATIVE EDGE TO THE ASSESSEE OVER ITS COMPETITORS. THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR CONDUCTING THE EXISTING BUSINESS MORE ADVANTAGEOUSL Y AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD 6 BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE NOT FOR SETTING UP OF ANY NEW BUSINESS BUT FOR CARRYING ON THE EXISTING BUSINESS MORE EFFICIENTLY. HE THERE FORE ALLOWED THE CLAIM AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5.1 BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRE D FOR EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS AND WAS THEREFORE REVENUE IN NATURE. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRA DESH IN CASE OF CIT VS COROMANDAL FERTILIZERS (247 ITR 417). THE LEARNED D R ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO. 5.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE IN CURRED AS LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR CONDUCTING A STUDY ON THE INT ERNET BROKING ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING BROKING SERVICES TO ITS CLIE NTS. THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR PROVIDING VALU E ADDED SERVICES TO THE CUSTOMERS THROUGH THE INTERNET. THE EXPENDITURE DID NOT RESULT IN ACQUISITION OF ANY NEW ASSETS OR IN ANY NEW SOURCE OF INCOME. WE A GREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED F OR MORE EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS. THEREFORE WE SEE NO INFIRMIT Y IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE SAME IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 6. THE FIFTH DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF E XPENSES RELATING TO EXEMPT INCOME UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAD RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.42,57,450/- 7 WHICH WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX. HE THEREFORE ATTRIBUTED 5% OF DIVIDEND INCOME AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED RELATING TO THE DIVIDEND INCOM E AMOUNTING TO RS.2,12,872/- WHICH WAS DISALLOWED. IN APPEAL THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD ACQUIRED 94651 PREFERENCE SHARES OF KCL FOR CON SIDERATION OF RS.11,07,00,000/- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31.3.97 AND DIVIDEND INCOME HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE SAID SHARES. THE SAID SHARES HAD BEEN ACQUIRED OUT OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVE AMOUNTING TO RS.90,99,61,000/-. THEREFORE NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR ACQUI RING THE SHARES AND THERE WAS NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE INVOLVED. SINCE THE DIV IDEND HAD BEEN RECEIVED ONLY FROM ONE COMPANY, THERE WAS ALSO NO OTHER EXPE NDITURE INVOLVED. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RE WERE NO EXPENSES EITHER DIRECT OR INDIRECT WAS INVOLVED AND ACCORDINGLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 6.1 BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT DIVIDEND HAD BEEN RECEIVED ONLY FROM ONE COMPANY FROM SHARES ACQ UIRED LONG AGO AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO EXPENDITURE INVOLVED. THE LE ARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT SOME INDIRECT EXPENSES HAVE TO BE IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. (328 ITR 8 1). 6.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SHARES OF KCL FROM WH ICH DIVIDEND HAD BEEN RECEIVED WERE ACQUIRED DURING THE F.Y.1996-97 OUT O F OWN FUNDS. THIS CLAIM IS NOT CONTRAVERTED BEFORE US. EVEN THE AO HAS NOT GIV EN ANY FINDING THAT THE SHARES WERE ACQUIRED OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. THEREFO RE THERE IS NO INTEREST 8 EXPENDITURE INVOLVED. HOWEVER AS HELD BY HONBLE HI GH COURT OF MUMBAI IN CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD, (SUPR A) BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE ON A REASONABLE BASIS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS RECEIVED DIVID END ONLY FROM ONE COMPANY SOME INDIRECT EXPENSES ON COLLECTION OF DIVIDEND AN D ACCOUNTING OF INCOME ETC HAVE TO BE INCURRED EVEN THOUGH THIS MAY BE ONLY NO MINAL. IN OUR VIEW ON FACTS OF THE CASE IT WILL BE REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE SUCH EXPENSES AT RS.10,000/- . WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON T HIS POINT AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 7. THE SIXTH DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF E XPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES AND EMPLO YERS TO PROVIDENT FUND. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PAYMENT AFTER THE DUE DATE. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.34,30,278/- UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA). IN APPEA L CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PAYMENT WITHIN THE DUE DATE A ND THE AO HAD NOTED DIFFERENT DATES BY MISTAKE. HE THEREFORE ALLOWED TH E CLAIM. 7.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE REC ORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. CONTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDE NT FUND CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) ONLY IF THE PAYME NTS ARE MADE WITHIN DUE DATES. THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE AFTER DUE DATE AND ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM HAD BEEN DISALLOWED. CIT(A) HAS HOWEVER HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE WITHIN DUE DATES BU T HE HAS NOT GIVEN DETAILS OF ACTUAL DATE OF PAYMENT. WE ARE THEREFORE UNABLE TO ARRIVE AT ANY CONCLUSION. THE MATTER IN OUR VIEW REQUIRES VERIFIC ATION. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE F ILE OF AO FOR PASSING A FRESH 9 ORDER AFTER NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND AFTER ALLOWI NG OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY AL LOWED. 9. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.04.2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.MANMOHAN) ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 20.04.2011 AT :MUMBAI COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED 5. THE DR L BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ALK