DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI V. SYNOVATE INIDA P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7057/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 705719914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: M M GOLVALA
• Keywords: Proportionate interest; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 260A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI .. , , #$, % & BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010:A.YEARS 2006-2007 & 20 07-2008 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 8(3) MUMBAI. . APPELLANT VS. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 3 RD FLOOR, AMI CENTRE, 1-B, MAHUL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OPP : MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 093. . RESPONDENT PAN : AACCB0907A. '( /APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP '( /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.M.GOLVALA / DATE OF HEARING : 01.06.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.06.2015. / O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA (JM) : BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST S EPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), BOTH DATE D 06.08.2010, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-2007 AND 2007-2008 AGAINST ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PVT.LTD. 2 2. THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS HAS RAISED IDENT ICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS.6,97,723 FOR A.Y. 2006-2007 & RS.6,37,882 FOR A.Y. 2007-2008 ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST EXPE NSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE O N IDENTICAL ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS OF ITA NO.7057/MUM/2010 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 4. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS SQUARELY COV ERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2004-2005 AND 2005-2006. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS BELOW THE LIMI T PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS BELOW THE LIMITS NOW PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT. IN RESPECT OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.7057/MUM/2010 IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DELETION OF ADDITION ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PVT.LTD. 3 OF RS.6,91,724 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 BY THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.6,37,882. 5.1. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE TOTAL TAX EFFECT IN THE PRES ENT APPEALS IS BELOW RS.4 LAKHS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEALS WAS LESS THAN RS.4 LAKHS. 5.2 WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS I S SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR REPORTED IN (2013) 350 ITR 2 37 (BOM) THAT THE PROPOSITION REGARDING THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE C BDT ARE NOT ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE NEW CASES BUT WOULD ALSO APPLICAB LE TO THE PENDING APPEALS. 5.3 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 268(1) OF THE A CT, THE CBDT IS EMPOWERED TO ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS FIXING THE MONETARY LIMITS FOR THE REVENUE TO FILE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ALL THE HIGH COUR TS AND THE SUPREME COURT. THE CBDT FROM TIME TO TIME, ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS FIX ING THE MONETARY LIMITS WITH THE OBJECT OF NOT BURDENING THE COURTS AND THE TRIBUNAL WITH MATTERS WHERE THE TAX EFFECT WAS ON A LOWER SIDE. THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2014 ISSUED ON 10.07.2014 HAD REVISED THE EARLIER I NSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2011, DATED 09.02.2011 WHEREIN, THE MONETARY LIMITS AND O THER CONDITIONS FOR FILING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS IN INCOME TAX MATTERS BEFO RE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS, HIGH COURTS AND SUPREME COURT WERE SPECI FIED. THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED ON 10.07.2014 WERE IN SUPERSESSION OF THE EA RLIER INSTRUCTIONS AND THE MONETARY LIMITS HAVE BEEN ENHANCED BY THE PRESENT I NSTRUCTION AND IT HAS ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PVT.LTD. 4 BEEN PROVIDED THAT THE APPEALS SHALL NOT BE FILED I N CASES WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS GIVEN HE REUNDER:- S NO APPEALS IN INCOME - TAX MATTERS MONETARY LIMIT (IN RS) 1. BEFORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 4,00,000/ - 2. U/S 260A BEFORE HIGH COURT 10,00,000/ - 3. BEFORE SUPREME COURT 25,00,000/ - 5.4 THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEA LS BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS FIXED AT IN EXCESS OF RS.4 LACS. FURT HER, UNDER THE SAID INSTRUCTION, IT WAS ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHALL CALCULATE THE TAX EFFECT SEPARATELY FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUES. IN CASE OF EVERY ASSESSEE WHERE, THE DISPU TED ISSUE ARISES IN MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT WAS DIRECTED THAT APPE AL COULD BE FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS IN WHICH, THE TAX EFFECT IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED ISSUE EXCEEDED THE MONETARY LIMIT F IXED. IN OTHER WORDS AND HENCEFORTH, THE APPEALS CAN BE FILED ONLY WITH REFE RENCE TO THE TAX EFFECT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN CASE OF COMPOSITE ORDER OF ANY HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED TH AT IF THE APPEAL IS TO BE FILED IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR/S IN WHICH, TAX EFFECT EXCEEDS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED THEN, SUCH APPEALS COULD ALSO BE FILED I N RESPECT OF ALL SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS EVEN IF THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THA N PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMITS. 5.5 IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUE H AD FILED ALL THE APPEALS ON 12.10.2010. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE YEARS UNDER APPE AL, THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.4 LACS AS PRESCRIBED IN INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2014 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS, THE MONETARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PVT.LTD. 5 CBDT STAND REVISED BY THE SAID INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2014, DATED 10.07.2014 UNDER WHICH, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE TA X EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED RS.4 LACS IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THEN, NO AP PEAL CAN BE FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE U S IS WHETHER THE SAID REVISED INSTRUCTIONS WHICH WERE ISSUED SUBSEQUENT T O THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE COULD BE APPLIED TO THE PENDING APPE AL OR APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE NEW CASES TO BE FILED BY THE REVENUE AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE INSTRUCTIONS. 5.6 WE FIND THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VIJAY A V. KAVEKAR (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR (SUPRA), HAD IN TURN FOLLOWED THE RATIO LAID DOWN B Y ANOTHER DIVISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. POLYCOTT C ORPORATION REPORTED IN (2009) 318 ITR 144 (BOM) WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD AS UN DER:- 8. IN CASE OF 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S POLY COTT CORPORATION' REPORTED AT '(2009) 318 ITR 144 (BOM), A ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT CONSTRUED THE SAME INS TRUCTION NO. 2 OF 2005, DATED 24TH OCTOBER, 2005. THE DIVISION BENCH OBSERVED WHILE CONSTRUING THE PARAGRAPH NO. 5 OF THE CIRCULAR, AS THUS : '9. HAVING CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS, IN OUR OPINI ON, THE INSTRUCTIONS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS A STATUTE THO UGH IT IS PURSUANT TO THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 268A OF THE IT ACT. WHAT THE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER IS THE PLAIN LA NGUAGE OF THE PARA AND THE OBJECT BEHIND THE SAID PROVISIONS. THE OBJECT APPEARS TO BE NOT TO BURDEN COURTS AND TRIBUNALS IN RESPECT OF MATTERS WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED. EVEN BEFORE THIS INSTRUCTION, CBDT HAS BEEN ISSUING INSTRUCTIONS, THE LAST ONE BEING ON 24TH OCT., 2005 WHERE THE MONETARY LIMIT HAS BEEN FIXED. IN THOSE INSTRUCTION S THE ONLY ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PVT.LTD. 6 EXCEPTION HAD BEEN THAT IN CASES INVOLVING, SUBSTAN TIAL QUESTION OF LAW OF IMPORTANCE AS WELL AS IN CASES WHERE THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW WILL REPEATEDLY ARISE, EITHER IN TH E CASE CONCERNED OR IN SIMILAR CASE, APPEAL SHOULD BE FILE D WITHOUT BEING HINDERED BY THE MONETARY LIMITS. THE PRESENT INSTRUCTIONS SEEM EVEN TO LIMIT THE ISSUES INSOFAR AS THE SAME Q UESTION OF LAW OR RECURRING ISSUE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PROVIDE D IN PARA 5. ON A PROPER READING OF PARA 5 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS I T WOULD BE CLEAR THAT A DUTY IS CAST ON THE AO THAT EVEN IF TH E DISPUTED QUESTIONS ARISE FOR MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR T HEN AN APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE YEA RS WHERE THE MONETARY LIMIT AS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 OF THE INSTRU CTION. THE EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, IS CARVED OUT IN RESPECT OF A C OMPOSITE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OTHER WORDS WHERE THE HIGH COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED A COMPO SITE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE ON THE SAME QUESTIO N AND/OR ON DIFFERENT QUESTION AND FOR ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS, THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT THEN THE APP EAL SHALL ALSO BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. TH E SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMPOSITE ORD ER MUST RELATE TO A COMMON ISSUE. WE BEG TO DISAGREE ON A PLAIN AN D LITERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE INSTRUCTION. THE EXPRESSION 'WH ICH INVOLVES MORE THAN ONE YEAR' WOULD HAVE NO MEANING IF IT WAS RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXPRESSION 'COMMON ISSUES'. THE EXPRESS ION, THEREFORE, OF A COMPOSITE ORDER WILL HAVE TO BE REA D TO MEAN AN ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. AN (ORDER) DISPOSING OF SEVERAL APPEALS ON A COMMON QUESTION OF LAW BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A COMPOSITE ORDER AS THE ORDER INVOLVES APPEALS BY DIFFERENT PE RSONS, WHICH APPEALS FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE HAVE BEEN ONLY CLUBBED TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL ON THAT ISSUE. IN OUR OPINION, THIS WOULD BE THE CORRECT READING OF PARA 5 OF THE INSTRUCTION.' 5.7 THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD AS U NDER:- 15. THE POSITION OF LAW, THEREFORE, EMERGING FROM THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENTS, IS THAT THE CIRCULARS OR INSTRUCTIONS I SSUED UNDER SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, ARE ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PVT.LTD. 7 APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO NEW CASES BUT TO PENDING CAS ES AS WELL. SUCH CIRCULARS HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER SECTION 268A OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 260 OF THE ACT. THE CBDT BEING MINDFUL OF THIS POSITION HAS ISSUED THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, THE INSTRU CTIONS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES AS WELL. WE HAVE ALREAD Y FOUND THAT THE INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 AND INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2011 ARE PARA- MATERIA. THE INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 HAS ALREADY BEEN INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT IN CIT V/S MADHUKAR INAMDAR (SUPRA). IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THIS JUDGEMENT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVEN UE AND THEREFORE STILL HOLDS THE FIELD. 5.8 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT IN VIEW OF THE REVISED INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE CBDT UNDER WHICH, THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE AP PELLATE AUTHORITIES, TRIBUNALS HAS BEEN REVISED AND FIXED AT RS.4 LACS I.E. ONLY A PPEALS WITH TAX EFFECT EXCEEDING RS.4 LACS WERE MAINTAINABLE. IN THE PRES ENT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE MONETARY LIMIT ADMITTEDLY, IS LESS THA N RS.4 LACS. IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2014 WHICH ARE APPLICABLE NOT O NLY TO THE NEW APPEALS TO BE FILED BY THE REVENUE, BUT ALSO TO THE APPEALS PE NDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE BEC AUSE OF SMALL TAX EFFECT. 6. IN ANY CASE, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APP EAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE . THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.7257/MUM/2008 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2 005 AND ITA NO.7334/MUM/2008 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2 006, VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 27.10.2010 HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF RECOMPUTATION OF THE VALUE OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGR ESS BY ATTRIBUTING INTEREST PROPORTION TO THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS. HOWEVER, THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PVT.LTD. 8 BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES WAS THAT THE VALUATION OF WO RK-IN-PROGRESS HAD BEEN DONE AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA, AND THERE WAS NO MERIT IN INC LUDING THE INTEREST COMPONENT IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGR ESS. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 5 AND 6 HELD AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE RECORDS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS I N THE BUSINESS OF MARKET RESEARCH, AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF DEPARTMENT THAT THE WORK IN PROGRESS AS SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES . THEREFORE, ACCOUNTING STANDARD-2 IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND NOT THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD-7, DEALING WITH ACCOUNTING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS OPENING AND CLOSING WIP BASED ON DIRECT COST. THE INTEREST WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF WIP. 6. FROM PARA 12 OF THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD-2 DEALI NG WITH VALUATION OF INVENTORIES, IT IS EVIDENT THAT INTERE ST AND OTHER BORROWING COSTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF INVENTORIES. THEREFORE, SINCE, THE VALUATION HAD BEEN DONE AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD-2, THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(2 ), WHEREIN ACCOUNTING STANDARD-2 HAS BEEN NOTIFIED TO BE FOLLO WED. 6.1 THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDEN TICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-2005 AND 2005 -2006. THE AO IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IN TURN, FOLLOWING THE DECISION MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-2003, 2004-2005 AND 2005-2006 HAD RECOMPUTED T HE VALUATION OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.6,91,723 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND RS.6,37,882 IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007- 2008. SINCE THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE ITA NOS.7057 & 7058/MUM/2010. M/S.SYNOVATE INDIA PVT.LTD. 9 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSES SMENT YEARS 2004-2005 AND 2005-2006, FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONI NG, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6.2. THUS, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR BOT H THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF LOW TAX EFFECT AND ALSO BECAUS E OF THE ISSUE BEING COVERED BY THE EARLIER YEARS OF THE TRIBUNAL. 7. !'# IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. $%&'(%)* SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ) MUMBAI; (%) DATED : 5 TH JUNE, 2015. DEVDAS* '*%+,-.-#+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, -. //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ) / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ $ / ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. $ $ / / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -2* ..34 , $ 34 , ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *678 / GUARD FILE.