DANDVATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. D.C.I.T. 1, MUMBAI

ITA 7262/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5007 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEKAR L GAJBHIYE
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYESH I SHAH
• Keywords: Capital expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 7262/M/2011 (AY: 2008 - 20 09 ) ./I.T.A. NO. 7263/M/2011 (AY: 2007 - 20 0 8 ) M/S. DANDVATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., THE INTERNATIONAL, 5 TH FLOOR, 16, NEW MARINE LINES, CORSS ROAD NO.1, CHURCHGATE - 400020. / VS. DCIT - 1, MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAACD 3925 E ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DIVYESH I SHAH / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHEKAR L. GAJBHIYE, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 6 .8.2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .9 . 2013 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) - 1, MUMBAI FOR THE AYS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE, THE I SSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND BEING DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE AND GROUND WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 2. FIRSTLY WE SHALL TAKE UP ITA NO. 7262/M/2011 WHICH IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.1.2011 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I, MUMBAI DATED 5.8.2011 FOR THE AY 2008 - 09. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, SHRI DIVYESH I SHAH, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ME NTIONED THAT THE GROUND NOS. 1.1, 1.2 AND 5.1 ARE NOT PRESSED. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED THAT GROUND NOS. 5.2, 5.3 AND 6.1 ARE GENERAL IN 2 NATURE. THEREFORE, ALL THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED OR GENERAL IN NATURE. GROUND NOS. 2.2, 3.2 AND 4.3 CO N TAIN THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, REST OF THE GROUNDS READ AS UNDER: 2.1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,96,680/ - BY TREATING AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 2.3. WITHOUT PREJ UDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS A DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID SHARES COULD BE TRANSFERRED / SOLD. 3.1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 1,63,750/ - BEING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR HANDLING A SUIT FI LED BY APPELLANT ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THEY WERE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF SHARES AND AS SUCH WAS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE . 4.1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DIS ALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 6,35,000/ - BEING THE EXPENDITURE IN ACCOUNT OF DISPUTE IN RESPECT O F TRADEMARK AND TREATED AS SUCH AS EXPENDITURE. 4.2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABO V E, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE AO TO NOT TO OFFER THE AMOUNT FOR TAX IN THE YE AR OF REIMBURSEMENT BY JUMBO WORLD HOLDING LTD. 4. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENTS. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,25,13,480/ - . AFTER SCRUTINY OF T HE RETURN U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 5,56,99,570/ - . ONE OF THE ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT IS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S THE HEAD LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES. ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE O N THIS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 32,85,699/ - . AFTER PERUSING THE FACTS AND BILLS FURNISHED, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED THE BILL ARE NOT RAISED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY ARE RAISED IN THE NAME OF JU MBO GROUP COMPANIES . THESE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES RELATING TO THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE DYNASTY DEVELOPERS P. LTD A ND JUMBO WORLD HOLDINGS AND OTHERS. OUT OF THE CLAIM, AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,22,250/ - AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE NOT ALLOWABLE. PARA 4(I) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 4 LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES: PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID LEGA L AND PROFESSIONAL FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 32,85,699/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE DETAILS. PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS REVEALS THAT THE FOLLOWING BILLS HAVE BEEN RAISED TO JUMBO GROUP AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3 S.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT 1. GAGRATS 73,500/ - 2. GAGRATS 1,06,000/ - 3. GAGRATS 2,52,000/ - 4. GAGRATS 2,56,000/ - 5. GAGRATS 77,000/ - 6. R. SUBRAMANIAM & ASSOCIATES 50,000/ - 7. R. S UBRAMANIAM & ASSOCIATES 1,50,000/ - 8. GAGRATS 30,000/ - 9. CYRUS BARUCHA 5,250/ - 10. CYRUS BARUCHA 10,500/ - 11. CYRUS BARUCHA 12,000/ - TOTAL 10,22,250 / - SINCE, THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES ARE RELATED TO THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE DYNASTY DEVELOPERS P. LTD. AND JUMBO WORLD HOLDINGS AND OTHER AND THE BILLS HAVE BEEN RAISED TO JUMBO GROUP, THE SAID PAYMENTS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE FACTS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 10,22,250/ - RAISED TO JUMBO GROU P IS HEREBY DISALLOWED AND IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE AO, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 6. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , ISSUE WAS DISCUS SED BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,22,250/ - ASSESSEE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT AND JUMBO WORLD HOLDING LTD JOINTLY HELD 1,76 ,67,695 SHARES OF GWL PROPERTIES LTD. THERE IS A DISPUTE ON THE SALE OF ALL THE ABOVE SHARES AND A SUIT WAS FILED JOINTLY AND WHICH WAS UNDER ARBITRATION. THE SUM OF RS. 2,23,500/ - WAS THE EXPENSES OF LAWYERS WHICH WAS DIVIDED IN THE RATIO OF THE SHAREHOL DING AND THE SAID SHARE OF THE APPELLANT IS RS. 1,96,680/ - . THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITS THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,63,750/ - WERE INCURRED FOR HANDLING A SUIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT , JUMBO WORLD HOLDINGS LTD, AND JEROM TRADING & INVESTMENT P. LTD IN RELATION TO A COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST BENETT COALMAN & CO LTD. THE ABOVE SAID OF EXPENSES WERE ALSO DIVIDED IN THE RATIO OF SHAREHOLDING AND THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT WAS RS. 1,40,825/ - . THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT A SUM OF RS. 6,35,000/ - WERE INCURRED ON BEHA LF OF JUMBO WORLD HOLDING RELATING TO VARIOUS LEGAL SERVICE IN RELATION TO TRADE MARK IN THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS REIMBURSED TO THE APPELLANT IN THE AY 2009 - 2010 AND AS SUCH IT WAS REVERSED IN THE AY 2009 - 2010 7. AFTER EXAMINATION OF TH E ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. RELEVANT PARA FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) READS AS UNDER: 4 I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL AND LEGAL EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF DISPUTE ON THE SALE OF SHARES OF GWL PROPERTIES LTD. THE SHARES OF THIS COMPANY WERE JOINTLY HELD BY THE APPELLANT AND JUMBO WORLD HOLDINGS LTD. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL CHARGES WERE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE JUMBO WORLD HOLDING L TD IN THE PROPORTION OF SHARE HOLDING IN THAT COMPANY BY THESE TWO CONCERNS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED A SUM OF RS. 1,63,750/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ANOTHER DISPUTE FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST BENETT COALMAN & CO. LTD. THESE EXPENSES WERE ALSO SHARED BY THE APPELLANT AND JUMBO WORLD HOLDINGS LTD IN THE RATIO OF SHARE HOLDING. SIMILARLY, CERTAIN OTHER LEGAL EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,35,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISPUTE IN RESPECT OF TRADE MARK WHICH WAS REIMBURSED BY JUMBO WORLD HOLDI NG LTD AND THE AMOUNT ENTERED WAS REVERSED BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE, THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF SHARES THEY ARE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. HENCE, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS CONFI RMED. 8. AGGR IEVED WITH THE ABOVE DECISION O F THE CIT (A) ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,22, 250/ - HAS THREE COMPONENTS IE (1) AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,23,500/ - WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES ON LAWYERS . IT WAS REVISED IN THE RATIO OF THE SHAREHOLDING AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE COMES TO RS. 1,96,680/ - ; (2) AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,63,750/ - WAS INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH A SUIT IN RELATION TO COMPLAINT A GAINST M/S BENETT COALMAN & CO. LTD WHERE THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 1,40,825/ - AND (3) AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,35,000/ - WAS INCURRED ON THE GROUP RELATING TO VARIOUS LEGAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO TRADE MARK AND THE SAID AMOUNT HAS REIMBURSED IN TH E NEXT ASSESSMENT YE AR. THE TOTAL COMES TO RS. 10,22,250/ - . IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUES 1 & 2 ABOVE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TITLE OR OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES. IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED ON THE COPIES OF THE INVOICES PLACED BEFORE US, WHICH DESCRIBES THE NATURE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE LAWYERS. THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) IS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE SAME CONSTITUTES CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND THEY RELATED TO OTHER GROUP OF COMPANIE S. REGARDING THE SUM OF RS. 6,35,000/ - , LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE REIMBURSED SUBSEQUENTLY AS EVIDENT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMING OF ADDITION IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORD ER OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A). 5 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE PAPERS FILED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED MINUTELY THE DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE LEGAL FIRMS OR PERSONS FOR WHIC H THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS WERE PAID. 12. TO START WITH, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPIES OF THE INVOICED PLACED AT PAGES 32 TO 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FOUND THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON THE LAWYERS AND THEY ARE OF ROUTINE IN NATURE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETE NESS OF THE ORDER, WE REPRODUCE THE LIST OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY LEGAL FIRMS IE M/S. GAGRATS, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, MUMBAI AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: TOWARDS OUR PROFESSIONAL COSTS IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE MATTER, FOR ATTENDANCES OF OUR MR . R.J. GAGRAT, MS. S. AVHAD AND MR. K. GADHIA FOR ATTENDING MEETINGS, PERUSING PAPERS, REVIEW DOCUMENTS, PREPARING SHORT INSTRUCTIONS AND BRIEF FOR SENIOR COUNSEL, FINALIZING BRIEFS, DELIVERING PAPERS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO COUNSEL, HOLDING MEETING WITH SENIO R COUNSEL DISCUSSING THE MATTER WITH YOUR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION AND ADVISING YOU FROM TIME TO TIME. 13 . FURTHER, LD A R ALSO READ OUT SIMILAR DESCRIPTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEGAL SERVICES INVOLVING THE SUIT (LODG.) NO. 963 OF 2007 AGAINST THE BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD & ORS. THE DETAILS OF SERVICES ARE AS UNDER: TOWARDS OUR PROFESSIONAL COSTS IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE MATTER, FOR ATTENDANCES OF OUR MR. R.J. GAGRAT, MR. C.M. MEHTA, MR. M. SALIAN, MS. S. AVHAD AND OUR OTH ER ASSOCIATES FOR ATTENDING MEETINGS, PERUSING PAPERS, PREPARING NOTICE TO TIME OF INDIA, FINALIZING AND SENDING THE SAME, HOLDING MEETING WITH COUNSEL, PREPARING DRA F T PLAINT, SETTLING, FINALIZING AND FILING THE SAME IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, CONSIDERING T HE LEGAL POSITION AND ADVISING YOU. 14 . PRIMA FACIE , T HE ABOVE SERVICES DO NOT SUGGEST THAT IMPUGNED EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH OWNERSHIP TITLE OF THE ASSETS INVOLVED FOR CONSTITUTING THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. AS SUCH THE AO HAS NOT MADE O UT ANY CASE IN THAT DIRECTION. FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE, AO IS EXPECTED TO HAVE MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE IMPUGNED LITIGATION IS FOR DEFENDING THE TITLE OF THE ASSET AND NOT ABOUT THE SALE OF SHARES , ARBITRATIONS ET C. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH ARBITRATION AND THE SUIT AGAINST BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD SHOULD NOT CONSTITUTE THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS 2.1, 2.3 AND 3.1 ARE ALLOWED . 6 15 . REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES OF RS. 6,35,000/ - , WHICH WAS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF DISPUTE IN RELATION TO TRADE MARK. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE ON BEHALF OF JUMBO GROUP RELATING TO VARIOUS LEGAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO TR ADE MARKS IN THE AY 2008 - 2009. THESE EXPENSES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE AY 2009 - 2010 AND THE ENTRIES ARE REVERSED ACCORDINGLY . THE CASE OF THE REVENU E IS THAT THESE EXPENSES SINCE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF SHARES, CONSTITUTE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS PLACED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO FACT OF FINDING THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH TH E TITLE OR OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES THEREFORE, IT IS PREMATURE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SAME CONSTITUTES CAPITAL NATURE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE REIMBURSED AND THE ACCOUNTS ARE REVERSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PER THE ACCOUN TING PRINCIPLES IN THE AY 2009 - 2010. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO THE FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,35,000/ - RECEIVED AS REIMBURSEMENTS WAS OFFERED TO TAX AFTER DULY NOTING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. AO SHOULD ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON EXAMINING THE ABOVE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I N PRINCIPLE, WE ALLOW THE GROUND NO. 4.1 AND 4.2 AS INDICATED ABOVE. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ./I.T.A. NO.7263/M/2011 (AY: 2007 - 2008) 17 . THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.1.2011 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 1, MUMBAI DATED 11.8.2011, FOR THE AY 2007 - 2008. 18 . AS INDICATED ABOVE IN PARA 1 OF THIS ORDER , THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL AND THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ABOVE APPEAL ITA NO.7262/M/2011 FOR THE AY 2008 - 2009. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US , LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT GROUND NOS. 1.1, 1.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES R AISED IN THE SAID GROUNDS RELATING TO THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND THE DISALLOWANCE 7 U/S 14A READ WITH RULE - 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . GROUND NOS. 5.1 & 5.2, BEING CONSEQUENTIAL, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS CONSEQUENTIAL. GROUN D NO.6.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. THAT LEAVES GROUND NO.2.1, 2.2 AND 3.1 FOR ADJUDICATION. ALL THESE GROUNDS REVOLVE AROUND THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS. 20,36,005/ - WHICH WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THIS ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ONES ALREADY ADJUDICATED VIDE ITA NO.7262/M/2011 IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO APPLY THE RELEVANT CONCLUSIONS AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 19 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (VIJAY PAL RAO) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 13 .9.2013. . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI