DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI V. IMS LEARNING RESOURCES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7214/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0709 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHETAN KARIA LD
• Assessee Lawyers: B C S NAIK LD DR
• Section: 143(3); 5(2); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO. 6760/MUM/2014 & ./I.T.A. NO. 7214/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011) IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PVT. LTD. E-BLOCK, 6 TH FLOOR NCL BANDRA PREMISES BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA(EAST) MUMBAI 400 051 / VS. D EPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2) MUMBAI ! ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACI-5903-K ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) !# / APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHETAN KARIA, LD. AR $%!# / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.C.S.NAIK, LD. DR (CIT) / DATE OF HEARING : 04/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/05/2017 ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 2 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS-ONE BY ASSESSEE AND ONE BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2010-11 WHICH ASSAILS THE ORDE R OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS)-9 [CIT(A)] DA TED 05/09/2014 ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS. FIRST WE TAKE UP AS ASSESSEES A PPEAL ITA NO. 6760/M/2014 WHERE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE [AR] HAS PRESSED SOLE GROUND OF ADDITION U/S 14A FOR RS.57,65,217/- AND H ENCE, THE OTHER GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS BEING NOT PRESSED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE , WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRAINING STUDENTS FOR EXAMINATIONS LIKE CAT, CET, GMAT/GRE ETC. IT E-FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR IMPUGNED AY ON 30/09/2010 DECLARING A LO SS OF RS.6,29,78,803/- WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ASSESSME NT U/S 143(3) VIDE ASSESSING OFFICER [AO] ORDER DATED 28/03/2013 WHERE IN THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.24,28,81,270/- AFTER CERTAIN A DJUSTMENTS AND DISALLOWANCES, ONE OF WHICH WAS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE EARNED EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.11,90,434/- AND CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS.1,23,21,057/- WH ICH CALLED FOR A DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THE ASSESSEE MADE SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FOR RS.1,10,528/- WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME BUT REVISED THE SAME UPWARDS TO RS.4,97,112/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO WH O COMPUTED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D AT RS.57,65,217/- WHICH COMPRISED OF ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 3 INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.52,38,990/- U/R 8D(2)(I I) & EXPENSE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,26,227/- U/R 8D(2)(III). THE S AME WAS CONTESTED WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDE R DATED 05/09/2014 WHO UPHELD THE STAND OF LD. AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND CHALLENGED THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE [AR], WITHOUT CONTE STING THE APPLICATION OF RULE 8D, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE F INANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND THAT THE INVESTMENTS FIGURE S PICKED UP BY THE AO WERE NOT CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE HOLD CERTAIN ST RATEGIC INVESTMENTS IN SUBSIDIARIES / ASSOCIATED / SISTER CONCERNS WHER E THE PRIMARY MOTIVE OF THE INVESTMENT WAS TO GAIN CONTROLLING INTEREST/ FU RTHERANCE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND NOT TO EARN DIVIDEND AND HENCE THE SA ME WERE NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS IN VIEW OF V ARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, THE ASSESSE E HAD SUFFICIENT OWNED CAPITAL TO COVER THE SAID INVESTMENTS AND THE REFORE, A PRESUMPTION HAS TO BE DRAWN THAT THE INVESTMENTS WE RE MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE OWNED FUNDS. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GARWARE WALL ROPES LIMITED VS. ACIT ITA NO. 5408/MUM/2012 ORDER DATED 15/01/2014. PER CONTRA, LD. DR, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D MIXED FUNDS WHICH WERE USED TO MAKE THE INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE, RI GHTLY SUFFERED DISALLOWANCE U/R 8D IN VIEW OF THE STATUTORY MANDAT E NOTWITHSTANDING THE OBJECTIVE OF THE INVESTMENTS. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLA CED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE AVON CYCLES LTD. VS. CIT [53 TAXMANN.COM 297] & MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. M/S INDIA INFOLINE LTD. ITA NO.2490/MUM/2013 DATED 01/12/2015. ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 4 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.829.74 LACS & RS.833.04 LACS AS ON 31/03/2010 & 31/03/2009 RESPECTIVELY AS STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY / GROUP COS. THE LD. AR HAS STRESSED THAT POINT THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF TH ESE INVESTMENTS WAS NOT TO EARN DIVIDEND BUT TO GAIN CONTROLLING INTERE ST IN THESE COMPANIES AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THESE GROUP / SISTER CONCERN WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE SAME W ERE EXCLUDIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RULE 8D. THEREFORE, THE SHORT DISPUT E INVOLVED IS WITH REFERENCE TO COMPUTATIONAL PART ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AFTER EXCLUDING STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS FROM THE FIGURES OF INVESTMENTS WHEREAS THE LD. AO HAS INCLUDED THESE I NVESTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE. FURTHER, TH E ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN GROUP CONCERNS WAS MADE WHO ALL WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FURTHERANCE OF THE BUSINESS INTE REST OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO EARN INCOME FROM THESE CONCERNS. WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRE SOME VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF AO AS THE ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY T HE AO FROM THIS ANGLE AND THEREFORE, WITHOUT DELVING MUCH DEEPER IN TO THE ISSUE, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO TO RECONSIDER THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE ACCORDINGLY IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE ASSESSEE, IN TURN, IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM IN THIS REGARD FAILING WHICH THE AO SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE A STAND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES. ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 5 5. NOW, WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL ITA NO. 7214/M/ 2014 WHERE THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY DELETION OF CERTAIN ADDITIO NS VIZ. RS.20,44,788/- U/S 40A(2)(B), RS.10,70,51,133/- U/S 40(A)(IA) AND CERTAIN ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES. 6. FACTS RELEVANT TO THE DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.1,02,23,938/- TO AN ASSOCIATED ENTITY NAMELY M/S ORIGIN TEST & RESEARCH BUREAU FOR CONDUCTING CAT EXAMS WHICH INCLUDED PRINTING AND VENUE EXPENSES. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE NECESSITY AND Q UANTUM OF IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE AND MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% THEREFROM U/S 40A(2)(B), BEING EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE, WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.20,44,788/-. THE SAME WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) AFTER NOTING THAT THE LD. AO MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY COMPARABLE RATES WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID PAYEE CHARGED RS.78/- PER STUDENT FROM OUT SIDE PARTIES AS AGAINST RS.70/- CHARGED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD. AO WHEREAS THE LD. AR PLACED RE LIANCE ON FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID SIM ILAR PAYMENT AT SIMILAR RATES OVER SEVERAL AY WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) CLINCHED THE ISSUE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) COULD BE MADE ONLY A FTER HAVING REGARD TO THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICES OF GOODS / SERVICES AN D NO ADHOC DISALLOWANCE AGAINST THE SAME COULD BE MADE WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD THE COMPARABLE RATES. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 6 FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE DISMISS THIS G ROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. 7. IN SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS AGGRI EVED BY DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR RS.10,70,51,133/- WH ICH WAS PAID AS CLASSROOM SERVICE FEES BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS BUSINESS PARTNERS UNDER THE CONTRACT OF REVENUE SHARING ARRANGEMENT. THE AS SESSEE DEDUCTED TDS THEREUPON U/S 194C, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT HIGHER RATE U/S 194J WHICH LED TO IM PUGNED DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID DISA LLOWANCE ON THE PREMISES THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE STAND TAKEN BY LD. AO AND PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. P.V.S. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD. [60 TAXMANN.COM 69] TO CONTEND THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS APPLICABLE IN CASE OF SHORT DEDUCTION ALSO . PER CONTRA , LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN APPR ECIATING THE FIGURES PROPERLY AS THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN FACT , DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J ON RS.10,30,32,766/- & DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S 1 94C ON RS.40,18,367/- AS PER THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND TH E SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT WARRANTED FOR AT ALL. THEREFORE, ON THE FAC TS OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AR FOR RE- ADJUDICATION / RE-APPRECIATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAID FACTS AS STATED BY LD. AR. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CL AIM FORTHWITH FAILING WHICH THE LD. AO SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 7 8. IN THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS AGG RIEVED BY RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST CERTAIN ADVERTISEM ENT EXPENDITURE. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOU ND TO HAVE INCURRED ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF R S.680.15 LACS WHICH WERE STATED TO BE INCURRED PERIODICALLY FOR BRAND P ROMOTION, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF LD. AO, WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE ASSE SSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAME WERE INCURRED FOR BRAND PROMOTION AND KEEP ING ITS VISIBILITY, THE BENEFIT OF WHICH WAS FOR SHORT TERM AND HENCE REVEN UE IN NATURE. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AO MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% AGAINST THE SAME WHICH RESULTED INTO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.68.01 LACS. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME B EFORE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, AGAINST WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR WHEREIN LD. AO FOUND EXPENSES OF RS.39,603/- PE RTAINING TO EARLIER YEAR AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES WERE TO BE BORNE BY THE RESPECTIVE FRANCHISEES OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HEREFORE, ALLOWING THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. BEFORE LD. C IT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WERE I NCURRED MAINLY TOWARDS NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT/ POSTERS / BANNERS / CONDUCTING SEMINARS, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS BRAND PROMOTION AND GARNER STUDENTS TO THE VARIOUS COURSES OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND HENCE REVENUE IN NATURE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE REGULARLY CLAIMED THESE EXPENSES IN EARLIER AS WELL AS SUCCEEDING ASSESSMEN T YEARS WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN 143(3) PROCEEDINGS. MORE OVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED PARTY-WISE DETAILS, DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCT ED THEREUPON, LEDGER COPIES OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ALONG WITH SAMPLE INVOICES TO AO WHICH ARE NEVER DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AND THEREFO RE, ADHOC ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 8 DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF 10% WA S NOT JUSTIFIED WITHOUT POINTING PUT ANY DEFECT IN THE EXPENSES CLA IM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSEES SUBMISS IONS AND REMAND REPORT DELETED THE SAID EXPENDITURE, BARRING RS.39, 603/- BEING RELATED TO EARLIER YEARS. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF AO AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE HEAVY EXPENDITURE CONCLU SIVELY AND FURTHER, THESE EXPENSES WERE TO BE INCURRED BY THE FRANCHISE ES OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWING THE SAME HERE WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE D EDUCTION. PER CONTRA, LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE REGULARLY CLAIMED THESE EXPENDITURE IN PRECEDING AS WELL AS S UCCEEDING YEARS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN 143(3) AS SESSMENTS. FURTHER, THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED MAINLY TOWARD S NEWSPAPER EXPENDITURE AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS AND HENCE, THE S AME WERE CLEARLY REVENUE IN NATURE AND DISALLOWANCE OF 10% WAS NOT J USTIFIED AT ALL WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE MANNER / MET HOD OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION IS FURTHER D RAWN TO ONE SAMPLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK TO CON TEND THAT THE INCURRING OF SAID EXPENDITURE WAS THE RESPONSIBILIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION AT ALL AS THE ASSESSEE IS EITHER INCURRING EXPENDITURE HIMSELF DIRECTLY OR RE IMBURSING THE SAME TO THE FRANCHISEES, WHICH IN EITHER CASE IS AN EXPENDI TURE FOR THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE EXPENSES REIMBURSED TO THE FRANCHISEES WOULD GO ON TO REDUCE THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THEM AND HENCE TH E LD. AO ERRED IN RAISING THE APPREHENSION OF DOUBLE DEDUCTION. ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 9 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS POINTED OUT BY RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES. WE FIND THAT THE EXPENDITURE BEING MOSTLY IN THE NATURE OF NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT WERE REVENUE IN NATURE A S DUE TDS THEREUPON HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SE EXPENDITURE ARE BEING REGULARLY CLAIMED & ALLOWED TO THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED DETAILS OF THE SAME ALONG WIT H LEDGER EXTRACTS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. FURTHER, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT AO ERRED IN RAISING THE APPREHENSION OF DOUBLE DEDUCTI ON IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE HIMS ELF DIRECTLY OR REIMBURSED THE SAME TO THE FRANCHISES, NEVERTHELESS , THE SAME WERE AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND WHATEVER E XPENDITURE WERE REIMBURSED TO THE FRANCHISEES, THEY WOULD GO IN RED UCING THEIR RESPECTIVE EXPENDITURE. EVEN OTHERWISE IF THE PLEA OF DOUBLE D EDUCTION IS ACCEPTED, THEN IT SHOULD HAVE RESULTED INTO FULL DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS AGAINST 10% MADE BY AO. THEREFORE, FINDING CIT(A ) DECISION FAIR AND REASONABLE, WE DISMISS REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL. 10. THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE BOOK PROFI TS U/S 115JB AND CARRY FORWARD / SET-OFF OF LOSSES, IF REQUIRED. ITA NO.6760 & 7214/M/2014 IMS LEARNING RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 10 11. IN NUTSHELL THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS WELL AS RE VENUES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH MAY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 12 .05.17 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. , ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. , / CIT CONCERNED 5. $'. , . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI