FILMKRAFT PRODUCTIONS (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7358/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93201 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KU MAR BEERLA
• Assessee Lawyers: R PRASAD RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 14A; 32

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , , BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER / I .T.A. NO . 7358/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 M/S. FILMKRAFT PRODUCTIONS (I) LTD., B/27, COMMERCE CENTRE, OFF NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400 053 / VS. THE ADDL CIT, RANGE - 11(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACF 3549E ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI R. PRASAD RAO / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA / DATE OF HEARING : 09 . 0 7 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .0 7 .2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: T HIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 3 , MUMBAI DT. 2 0 . 11 .201 2 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE REASONS: ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 2 1) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 33,75,231/ - OUT OF DEPRE CIATION CLAIMED THEREBY BRINGING TO TAX PROFIT ON SALE OF MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT SOLD DURING THE YEAR . THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONCEPTS OF BLOCK OF ASSETS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED. 2. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE RELATES TO DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 2,00,00,000/ - CLAIMED TO BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND 3. THE THIRD GRIEVANCE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,53,960/ - . 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A FILM PRODUCER , DISTRIBUTOR AND EXHIBITOR. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING INCOME FROM PROPERTY, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAINS. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD MACHINERY AND HAS REALIZED POSITIVE INCOME OF RS. 30,75,231/ - . THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADJUSTED THE SAME AGAINST WDV OF MOTOR CAR CLAIMING THAT BOTH THE BLOCK OF ASSETS HAVE SAME RATE OF DEPRECIATION, HENCE PROFIT ON ONE CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PENDING WDV OF THE OTHER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY ITS STAND VIDE LETTER DT. 30.11.2011 . THE ASSESSEE REPLIED AS UNDER: SO FAR AS SALE OF MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT IS CONCERNED, THE BLOCK OF PLANT & MACH INERY HAS ALWAYS BEEN SHOWN AS COMPRISING PLANT & MACHINERY, MOTOR CARS ETC SINCE THE SAID BLOCK PRESCRIBES THE SAME RATE OF DEPRECIATION I.E. 15% WHICH IS DULY CERTIFIED IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BY THE TAX AUDITORS. SINCE THE FINANCIAL STATEME NTS ARE DULY AUDITED AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FINALIZED ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ADOPTED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WHILE FILING ITS INCOME TAX RETURN. SINCE THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION PRESCRIBED IS THE SAME FOR THE BLOCK WHICH INCLUDES PLANT & MACHINERY AND MOTOR CARS, THE QUESTION OF ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 3 GIVING A SEPARATE TREATMENT FOR MACHINERY & EQUIPMENTS DOES NOT ARISE. HENCE, NO ADDITION BE MADE U/S. 50 IN RESPECT OF MACHINERY SOLD DURING THE YEAR. 4. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE AO. THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE BLOCK OF ASSET PERTAINING TO PLANT AND MACHINERY CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE WDV OF MOTOR CARS. SINCE BOTH ARE DIFFERENT BLOCKS AND THE PROFITS EARNED IN SELLING AN ASSET IN ONE BLOCK CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE WD V IN THE SAME BLOCK BUT NOT AGAINST ANOTHER BLOCK. THE AO WENT ON TO DISALLOW RS. 33,75,231/ - . 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME PLEA WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BUT FAILED TO CONVINCE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 33,75,231/ - WAS UPHELD. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE D EFINITION OF BLOCK OF ASSETS AS PROVIDED U/S. 2(11) OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ALL ASSETS FALL WITHIN THE SAME RATE OF DEPRECIATION AND FORM PART OF BLOCK OF ASSETS AND THEREFORE ANY GAIN ON THE SALE OF ASSET OF THE BLOCK CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE WDV OF THE ASSETS IN THE SAME BLOCK. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 20 TAXMAN.COM 770. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD . DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SECTION 2(11) DEFINES BLOCK OF ASSETS AS UNDER: ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 4 BLOCK OF ASSETS MEANS A GROUP OF ASSETS FALLING WITHIN A CLASS OF ASSETS COMPRISING - A) TANGIBLE ASSETS, BEING BUILDINGS, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITURE B) INTANGIBLE ASSETS, BEING KNOW - HOW, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NAT URE, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF DEPRECIATION IS PRESCRIBED 9. WHEN WE READ THIS SECTION WITH THE APPENDIX OF RATE OF DEPRECIATION PROVIDED IN THE INCOME TAX RULE, WE FIND THAT PLANT AND MACHINERY AND MOTOR CAR HAVE THE SAME RATE OF DEPRE CIATION I.E. 15%. THUS IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PROVISION, READ WITH THE RULES, PLANT AND MACHINERY AND MOTOR CAR FALL WITHIN THE SAME BLOCK OF ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE GAIN ON THE SALE OF MACHINERY AND THE SAME IS SET OFF AGAINST THE WDV OF THE MOTOR CAR. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IT IS WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTR UCTURE (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ALL ASSETS , WHICH MAY BE OF DIFFERENT TYPES , BUT IN RESPECT OF WHICH SAME PERCENTAGE OF DEPRECIATION IS PRESCRIBED , ARE TO BE TREATED AND FORM PART OF BLOCK OF ASSETS . T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: AS PER SECTION 2(11), THE EXPRESSION BLOCK OF ASSETSMEANS GROUP OF ASSETS FALLING WITHIN THE ASSETS ENUMERATED IN CLAUSES (A) AND (B). CLAUSE (A) REFERS TO TANGIBLE ASSETS, INCLUDING BUILDING, MACHINERY PLANT AND CLAUSE (B) REFERS TO INTANGIBLE ASSETS LIKE COPYRIGHT, KNOW HOW, TRADE MARK, ETC. THE AFORESAID SECTION DOES NOT MAKE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT UNITS OR DIFFERENT TYPE OF BUSINESS, WHICH MAY BE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TERM ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 5 BUSINESS MENTIONED ABOVE REFERS TO DIFFERENT TYPE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT IN RESPECT OF ASSETS WHICH FORM THE BLOCK OF ASSETS, SAME PERCENTAGE OF DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED. THE WORK SAME PERCENTAGE SHOWS THAT THE BLOCK OF ASSETS REFERS TO S AME RATE OF DEPRECIATION WHICH IS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RULES. ALL ASSETS, WHICH MAY BE OF DIFFERENT TYPES, BUT IN RESPECT OF WHICH SAME PERCENTAGE OF DEPRECIATION IS PRESCRIBED, ARE TO BE TREATED AND FORM PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS. 10. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,75,231/ - . GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ALLEGED DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 CRORES CLAIMED TO BE OF REVENUE IN NATURE. 11.1 WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 2 CRORES TO SHRI RAM SAMPAT AS PER CONSENT TERMS FILED WITH THE HIGH COURT VIDE SUIT NO. 1135 OF 2008. ON FURTHER PROBE, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A FILM KRAZZY 4 IN WHICH HE HAD UTILIZED A MUSICAL COMPOSITION/THEME ENTITLED THUMP IN THE SOUND TRACK. SHRI RAM SAMPAT HAS FILED A SUIT CLAIMING INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT C OMPOSED BY HIM AND BY WAY OF CONSENT TERMS, THE ASSESSEE PAID RS. 2 CRORES TO SHRI RAM SAMPAT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ACQUISITION OF MUSICAL ASSETS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INTANGIBLE ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 32 OF THE ACT. 11 .2. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO STATING THAT IT HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY COPY RIGHT OF MUSICAL COMPOSITION. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2 CRORES WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE UNDER THE LAW. FURTHER THE SAID PAYMENT DOES NOT ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 6 REPRESENT ANY PENALTY NOR A PUNISHMENT FOR INFRACTION OF LAW NOR FOR ANY ILLEGAL PURPOSE NOR FOR ANY VIOLATION OR AN OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT IS SIMPLY COMPE NSATORY IN NATURE PAID IN TERMS OF THE CONSENT TERMS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM MADE BY SHRI RAM SAMPAT. SINCE THE FILM WAS ON THE VERGE OF RELEASE AND ANY LEGAL DISPUTE WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN EXEMPLARY FINANCIAL LOSSES, RUNNING INTO CRORES OF RUPEES BESIDES CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE IMAGE, GOODWILL AND REPUTATION OF THE PRODUCERS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 2 CRORES THEREFORE THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 11.3. THE AO DID NOT ACCEP T THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT AS PER THE CONSENT TERMS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE MUSICAL WORK/COMPOSITION OF THUMP FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 CRORES. THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET AND ACCORDIN GLY TREATED RS. 2 CRORES AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 25%. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 13. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REPEATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES CLAIMING RS. 2 CRORES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 14. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US. LET US FIRST UNDERSTAND THE CONSENT TERMS WHICH READ AS UNDER: ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 7 1. THE PLAINTIFF HEREBY ASSIGNS HIS MUSICAL WORK/COMPOSITION THUMP TO DEFENDANT NOS.2 AND 3 FOR A SUM OF RS. CRORES (RUPEES TWO CRORES ONLY). IN CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT NOS. 2 & 3 PAYING A SUM OF RS.2,00,000/ - (RUPEES TWO CRORES ONLY) TO THE PLAINTIFF, THE PLAINTIFF DO HEREBY ASSIGN THE PLAINTIFFS MUSICAL WORK /COMPOSITION THUMP TO DEFENDANT NO.2 AND 3 THE ASSIGNMENT BECOMING EFFECTIVE ONLY ON THE ENCASHMENT OF THE CHEQUE REFERRED TO BELOW. 2. DEFENDANT NOS. 2 AND 3 HAVE TENDERED THE SUM OF RS.1,77,34600/ - (RUPEES ONE CRORE SEVENTY SEVEN LAKHS THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND SEX HUNDRED ONLY) TO PLAINTIFF (I.E. 2,00,00,000/ - (RUPEES TWO CRORES ONLY) LESS TDS BY CHEQUE DATED 10.04.2008 BEARING NO.600612 DRAWN ON ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, STANTACRUZ BRANCH, MUMBAI THE RECEIPT WHEREOF THE PLAINTIFF ADMITS AND ACKNOWLEDGES. DEFENDANT NOS.2 AND 3 UNDERTAKE T HAT THE SAID CHQUE SHALL BE HONOURED ON FIRST PRESENTMENT. THE DEFENDANT NOS. 2 & 3 UNDERTAKE TO DELIVER THE TDS CERTIFICATE TO THE PLAINTIFFS THROUGH HIS ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS M/S. JEHANGIR GULABBHAI AND BILMORIA AND DARUWALLA, HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT RAJABAHADUR MANSION, 20, AMBALAL DOSHI MARG. (HAMAM STREET), FORT, MUMBAI 400 0213 ON OR BEFORE 21 ST APRIL, 2008. 3. IN THE EVENT OF THE SAID CHEQUE BEING DISHONOURED THE PLAINTIFFS SUIT TO STAND DECREED IN TERMS OF PRAYER CLAUSE PRAYERS (A), (B),(BI), (C ), (D), (E), (F), (G) (H) AND (S) OF THE PLAINT AND PLAINTIFF SHALL BE ENTITLED TO EXECUTE DECREE AGAINST DEFENDANT NOS.2 AND 3 FORTHWITH. 4. THE PLAINTIFF SHALL NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER IN THE SAID WORK THUMB ON AND FROM THE ENCASHMENT OF THE SAID CHEQUE ON ITS FIRST PRESENTMENT. THE SUIT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT NOS. 4 TO 7 BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 16. A PERUSAL OF THIS CONSENT TERM CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PLAINTIFFS I.E. SHRI RAM SAMPAT HAS ASSIGNED HIS MUSICA L WORKS/COMPOSITION THUMP TO THE DEFENDANT ONE OF WHICH IS ASSESSEE. IT CAN ALSO BE SEEN THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE AFTER DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. THE MOST RELEVANT CLAUSE IS CLAUSE (4) WHICH CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE PLAINTIFF I.E. SHRI ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 8 RAM SAMPT S HALL NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER IN THE SAID WORK THUMP. 16.1. A PERUSAL OF THESE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE CONSENT TERMS LEAVES NO AMBIGUITY TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFACT ACQUIRE D THE COPY RIGHT OF THE MUSICAL COMPOSITION THUMP. THE AO HAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY TREATED THE SAME AS INTANGIBLE ASSET AND ALLOWED PERMISSIBLE RATE OF DEPRECIATION. SINCE THIS ACT OF THE AO HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D. 17.1. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUND DIVIDEND AT RS. 2.40 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY SECTION 14A READ WITH RU LE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT ASSESSEES SUBMISSION. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE INVESTMENT HAVE INCREASED TO RS. 39.40 CRO RES FROM RS. 2.5 CRORES FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2008. THE AO PROCEEDED BY COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE FORMULA GIVEN IN RULE 8D AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 10,53,961/ - AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE DISALLOWANCE ALREADY MADE BY THE ASSESSE E AT RS. 4,81,914/ - , THE AO ADDED RS. 5,72,047/ - . 18. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 19. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 9 20. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 21. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT RULE 8D HAS BEEN HELD TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCEE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS DCIT 328 ITR 01 AND THE METHOD HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE REASONABLE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE. THE AO HAS ALREADY DEDUCTED T HE AMOUNT SUO MOTO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DISALLOWANCE IS ONLY FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 21.1. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DE BITED BANK INTEREST, BANK CHARGES, DEMAT CHARGES, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE EXPENSES AND INTERNET EXPENSES. ON CERTAIN PORTION OF SUCH EXPENSES MUST HAVE GONE TOWARDS EARNING THE DIVIDEND INCOME. SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JU LY , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( A.D. JAIN ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 15 TH JU LY , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA. NO. 7358/MUM/2012 10 / 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 . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI