ACIT 7(2), MUMBAI V. SONATA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 745/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3819 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANT LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ARVIND SONDE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Diversion of income; Wholly owned subsidiary; Commercial expediency; TDS; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, (JM) AND SHRI R.K. PAND A,(AM) ITA NO.745/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7(2) ROOM NO.624, 6 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-20. ..( APPELLANT ) VS. M/S. SONATA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. 208, T.V. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE S.K. AHIRE MARG, WORLI MUMBAI-25. ..( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. (AAECS 8734 J) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HEMANT LAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A RVIND SONDE O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY SONATA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. (SITL) IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE . IT IS A FULLY OWNED SUBSIDY OF SONATA S OFTWARE LTD. IT FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,13,88,932/ - .DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.13,02,42,275/- ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES TO M/S. SO NATA SOFTWARE LTD. (SSL). THIS EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITA NO.745/M/10 A.Y:06-07 2 AN AGREEMENT DATED 28.9.2000 ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH SSL WHICH HAS BEEN REVISED ON 9.7.2002 AND 16.8.2004. AS P ER THE SAID AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY SERVICE CHARGES TO SSL F OR RENDERING THE FOLLOWING SERVICES( EXTRACTED FROM PARA 4 .1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER): (A) ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO SITL RELATING TO COM PLIANCE OF VARIOUS LAWS, ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND LEGAL REQUIRE MENTS OF THE CENTRAL, STATE, OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AND LOCAL AUTHOR ITIES CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS AND AFFAIRS OF SITL. (B) TRAINING EMPLOYEES OF SITL IN THE ABOVE AREAS; (C) ASSIST AND LIAISE WITH VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPA RTMENTS AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY SITL. (D) OVERSEEING THE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS IN REGA RD TO COMPANIES ACT, INCLUDING MATTERS RELATED TO BOARD O F DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOLDERS, CONTRACTUAL MATTERS, ADVICE AND A SSISTANCE IN MAINTENANCE OF STATUTORY RECORDS, FILING REQUIRED R ETURNS AND FORM ETC. FURTHER, ALL OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES INCLUDING TRAVE L, CONVEYANCE ETC. WERE TO BE BILLED SEPARATELY BY SONATA SOFTWAR E LTD. AND WAS TO BE REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE QUANTUM OF S ERVICE CHARGES WAS DETERMINED BY ADOPTING THE FOLLOWING BA SIS: THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY SSL ON ACCOUNT OF INSURANCE, SALARIES, ALLOWANCES, DIRECTORS REMUNE RATIONS, ELECTRICITY & CHARGES, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, PRO FESSIONAL CHARGES, REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE, RENT FOR OFFICES, E TC. AND ALSO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN APPORTIONED TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE BASIS OF TURNOVER AS SERVICE CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ALLOWABILITY OF ITS CLAIM WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN RESPONSE, IT WAS INTERALIA EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 31.12.2008 THAT AS PER AGREE MENT SSL HAS RAISED DEBIT NOTE OF RS.13,02,42,275/- TO THE ASSESSEE FO R RENDERING SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED MONTH WISE SUMMARY OF DEBI T NOTE SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES AND TDS. IT WAS F URTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS IN CURRED OUT ITA NO.745/M/10 A.Y:06-07 3 OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS NECESSITATED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE SERVICES IT REQUIR ED. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IS GE NUINE AND IT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PAYEE ALSO. THE ASSESSEE WH ILE RELYING ON CERTAIN DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM SUBMITTED TH AT THE SIMILAR EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL , THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.13,02,42,275/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS(EXTRACTED FROM PARA 4.3.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ):- (I) PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES FROM SITL TO SSL IS MERE DIVERSION OF INCOME WITHOUT SERVICES RENDERED BY SS L. MENS REA FOR THIS CLAIM IS TO REDUCE TAXABLE PROFIT AND CLAIM MORE 10- A PROFIT IN SSL. (II) THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES IN THE HANDS OF SSL HAVE NOT BEEN CREDITED SEPARATELY AS THE INCOME OF ITS NON- 10A ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, THESE RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN RE DUCED FROM THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED OF 10A ACTIVITY OF SSL. TH E NET IMPLICATION OF THIS IS THAT THE PROFITS OF THE 10A ACTIVITY OF SSL HAVE INCREASED AND ON WHICH NO TAX HAS BEEN PAID. WHEREAS IN FACT, THESE RECEIPTS ARE CLEARLY PERTAINING TO THE NON 10A ACTIVITY OF SSL AND THEREFORE SUCH RECEIPTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX. (III) THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID AG REEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS BETWEEN TWO INDEPENDENT CORPORATE ENTITIES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN C ONTENDED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN INCURRED OUT OF COMMERCIAL E XPEDIENCY. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT IS PREROGATIV E OF THE BUSINESSMAN AS TO HOW TO RUN ITS BUSINESS AND THE D EPARTMENT SHOULD NOT BE PRESCRIBED THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE ETC. THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CCEPTABLE IF THIS AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN TWO INDE PENDENT ENTITIES NOT UNDER THE COMMON MANAGEMENT AND CONTRO L. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% SUBSIDIARY OF SSL. THE IMPLICATION OF THIS AGREEMENT IS THAT THE TAXAB LE PROFITS OF ITA NO.745/M/10 A.Y:06-07 4 THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REDUCED AND AT THE SAME TIME INCREASING THE NONTAXABLE PROFITS OF ITS HOLDING CO MPANY SSL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASONS AS MENTIONED ABOVE A ND KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN MCDOWELL AND CO. LTD. VS. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148(SC ) DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES OF RS.13,02,42,275/- AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSME NT AT AN INCOME OF RS.16,16,31,210/- VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12 .2008 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, (THE ACT). 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,0 2,42,275/- AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SERVICE CHARGES REIMBURSED / PAID T O THE HOLDING COMPANY M/S. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD. HAS NOT BEEN SUBS TANTIATED BY PROOF OF THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE HOLDING COM PANY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1, THE LD. CIT(A) ER RED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AGREEMENT BY WAY OF WHIC H SERVICE CHARGES WERE REIMBURSED/PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY TO M/S. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD. WAS ONLY A COLLUSIVE ARRA NGEMENT TO REDUCE THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION AND INCREASE THE PROFITS OF SONATA SOFTWARE LTD. WHICH IS A COMPANY ENJOYING UNDER SEC TION10A. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE ISSUE O N THE BASIS OF THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND ITAT FOR EARLIER YEARS IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CASE ON MERITS EVEN THOUGH THESE DECISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ITA NO.745/M/10 A.Y:06-07 5 REVENUE AND APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED UNDER SECTION 2 60A TO THE HIGH COURT IN ALL THE YEARS. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR A LTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND THAT MAY BE NECESSARY. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. DR WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SERV ICES RENDERED BY SSL TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSU E MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN PARA 4.3.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN T HERE IS NO SUCH FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSAR Y DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY SS L TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE NEW PLEA TAKEN BY THE LD. DR I S NOT MAINTAINABLE. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS DIRE CTLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 AND ALSO BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SSL FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ALONGWITH CHART SHOWING THE ASSES SMENT YEAR WISE REFERENCE OF THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, APPEARING AT PAGE 1 TO 42 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE BE UPH ELD. ITA NO.745/M/10 A.Y:06-07 6 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.13,02,42,275/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES TO M/S. SSL AS PER AGR EEMENT DATED 28.9.2000 WHICH WAS REVISED SUBSEQUENTLY ON 9.7.20 02 AND 16.8.2004. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS FOUND TO BE SHAM OR THERE IS NO SUCH AGREEMENT OR THE P AYMENT OF SERVICE CHARGES HAS NOT BEEN MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH AGREEMENT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN ALL THE PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2005-06 THE SIMILAR D ISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN SONATA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LTD. VS. DCIT AND VICE- VERSA IN ITA N.3702 & 4789/MUM/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 DATED 11.11.2 005 AFTER CONSIDERING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE CASE OF SSL AND THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE THAT ALLOCATION OF EXPENSE REQUIRES VERIFICATIO N AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION HAS HELD VIDE PARA-11 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDE R :- 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE R EGARDING ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF SERVICE CHARGE S AROSE IN THE CASE OF SSL. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S OF THE VIEW THAT ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES FOR NON-10A UNIT (NOT E LIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION) WAS EXCESSIVE AS EXEMPTED UNIT WAS MUCH MORE EXPENDITURE ORIENTED. THE MATTER ULTIMATELY REACHED THE TRIBUNAL WHICH ACCEPTED THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THAT A LLOCATION OF SUPPORT SERVICE EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER W AS JUSTIFIED. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 34 OF ITS ORDER DATED 17.03. 2003 IN ITA NO.495/496/M/02 HELD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND WE HAVE PERUSED THE VARIOUS RECORDS PLACED IN THE PAPE R BOOK. IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 27 TO 34 THE ASSESS EE HAS PLACED EACH AND EVERY HEAD OF EXPENDITURE AND T HIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN BIFURCATED UNDER THE THREE HEA DS STP UNIT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.10A, NON STP N OT ITA NO.745/M/10 A.Y:06-07 7 ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.10A AND SUPPORT SERVICES. FURTHER IT IS FOUND THAT THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION AM ONGST THE THREE HEADS IS ACTUAL EXPENSES, NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND RATIO OF FIXED ASSETS, FLOOR AREA AND TURNOVER RATIO. THUS, ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FIVE CR ITERIA, EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ALLOCATED TO THE THREE HEADS. FURTHER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE A LLOCATED UNDER THIRD HEAD I.E. SUPPORT SERVICES, HAS BEEN AG AIN ALLOCATED UNDER TWO HEADS 1) STP UNITS ENTITLED T O DEDUCTION U/S.10A AND NON STP WHICH IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER RATIO. I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE CONTAINED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 27 TO 31 APPEAR S TO BE APPROPRIATE . AS PER DETAILS CONTAINED IN PAGES 27 TO 31, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS O NLY ALLOCATED EXPENSES OF SUPPORT SERVICE DIVISION BET WEEN 10A AND NON 10A ACTIVITIES IN THE RATIO OF TURNOVE R HAS BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HIS LET TER DATED 20.01.2000 APPEARING AT PAGE 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, DIRECT EXPENSES RELATING TO 10A AND NON 10A ACTIVITY HAS BEEN DIRECTLY CHARGED AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THESE ACTIVITIES AND DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY, PRIOR TO INCORPORATION OF AS SESSEE COMPANY, SSL WAS CARRYING ON TWO UNITS INDEPENDENTL Y I.E. UNIT EXEMPTED U/S.10A AND THE UNIT NOT EXEMPTED. DIRECT EXPENSES INCURRED WERE SEPARATELY BOOKED TO RESPECTIVE UNITS . ONLY THE SUPPORT SERVICES EXPENSES WERE ALLOCATED ON THE BAS IS OF TURNOVER. SUCH ALLOCATION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE PROP ER AND REASONABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THA T NON- EXEMPTED UNIT WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y AND SUPPORT SERVICES WERE CONTINUED TO BE RENDERED BY S SL. FROM THE INCEPTION, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN T HAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER AS IS APPARENT FROM PARA 4.3.3(II) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT EXPENSES WERE ALLOCATED IN DEBIT NOTES AS THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. EVEN THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ADMITTED THIS FACTUAL POSITION AT PAGE 23 OF HIS OR DER WHERE HE MENTIONED THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF RESPECTIVE TURNOVER IS GI VEN ALONG WITH DEBIT NOTES, COPIES OF WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE ME, AS ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FACED WITH THE SAME, THE LEARNED D.R. HAD NOTHING TO ADD EXCEPT TO RELY ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES REQUIRES VERIFICATION AND THEREFORE THE MA TTER MAY BE REFERRED TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY VERIFIC ATION. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS REQUEST SINCE THERE IS NO DIS PUTE TO THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT ALLOCATION OF SERVICE EXPENSE S WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD B E SERVED IN RESTORING THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE FIND ING OF THE ITA NO.745/M/10 A.Y:06-07 8 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SSL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY HIM. THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 02- 03, 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. 8. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT IN THE CASE OF SSL THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF CORRESPONDING SERVICE CHARGES AS GENU INE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03 AND 2003-04, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND S TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.11.2010. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19.11.2010. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NO.745/M/10 A.Y:06-07 9