MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI V. DDIT (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7453/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75704 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Business income; Double taxation relief; Permanent establishment
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 11

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . , ! BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND RAJENDRA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.7453/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL, C/O.M/S. G.M.KAPADIA & CO., 1001, RAHEJA CHAMBER, 213, NARIMANPOINT, MUMBAI 400 021. ' ' ' ' / VS. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)4(1), 1 ST FLOOR, SCINDIA HOUSE, BALLARD PIER, MUMBAI 400 038. $ ./ % ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCM 1026G ( $& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '($& / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NITE SH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR ' ) *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 13/03/2014 ,-# ) *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/03/2014 . / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 8/9/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT ). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL VIDE LETTER DATED 5/03/20 13, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1.INCOME FROM INVESTMENT BANKING TRANSACTIONS A. THE LEARNED DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (THE A SSESSING OFFICER) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A SUM OF US $ 40,52,719/- (RS.17,49,55,879/-) RECEIVED TOWARDS UNDERTAKING INVESTMENT BANKING TRANSACTIONS (IBK TRANSACTIONS ) AND TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT ./ I.T.A. NO.7453/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 2 OF EXPENSES ARE LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER SECTION 9( L)(VII) READ WITH SECTION 115A(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) AND UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEME NT BETWEEN INDIA & UK @20.91% (INCLUSIVE OF SURCHARGE @2.5% AND EDUCATION CESS @ 2%). B. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF DTAA ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONCEPT OF MAKE AVAILA BLE IS NOT DEFINED WITHIN THE DTAA AND HENCE THE GENERAL INTERPRETATION WOULD MEA N THAT PERSON PROVIDING THE SERVICES MERE/V ENABLES THE ACQUIRER TO USE THE KNO WLEDGE AND THE PROVIDER DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ACT OF DOING THE JOB HIMSELF WHILE IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY RENDERED SUCH SERVICES. C. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE NATURE OF SERVICE S RENDERED DO NOT MAKE AVAILABLE ANY TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, SKI LL, KNOW-HOW ETC TO THE INDIAN ENTITIES AND ACCORDINGLY THE SERVICES CANNOT BE REG ARDED AS FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF THE DTAA 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLA NT THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM THE IBK TRANSACTIONS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ARE NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED THE TAX RAT E OF 15% UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF THE DTAA AS AGAINST THE RATE OF 20.91% AS PER SECTION 1 1 5A OF THE ACT. 3. INTEREST INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVYING INCOME TAX O N INTEREST INCOME OF RS.3,42,737/- 41.82% (INCLUDING SURCHARGE OF 2.5% A ND EDUCATION CESS OF 2% ON INCOME-TAX AND SURCHARGE) AS AGAINST THE RATE OF 15 % AS PER THE ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAA. 4. INTEREST U/S. 234B THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UND ER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,10,06,046/-. 5. INTEREST U/S 234D THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UN DER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,34,723/-. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING AN ADD ITION TO THE TAX DEMAND OF RS.L,09,93,841/- ON THE GROUND THAT REFUND ORDER WA S ALREADY ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 25TH MARCH, 2009. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT WHILE IT RECEIVED A NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT DETERMINING A TAX REFUND OF RS. 1,09,93,841/-, IT DID NOT RECEIVE THE ACTUAL REFUND ORDER. 7. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED: (A) TO TREAT THE RECEIPTS FROM IBK TRANSACTIONS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FROM INDIAN COMPANIES AMOUNTING TO US$ 40,52,719/- AS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.17,49,55,879/-. ./ I.T.A. NO.7453/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 3 (B) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO WHAT IS STATED ABOVE TO AP PLY THE TAX RATE OF 15% AS PER ARTICLE 13 OF THE DTAA; (C) THE TAX RATE ON INTEREST INCOME OF RS.3,42,737 /- @ 15% AS PER ARTICLE 12 OF THE DTAA; (D) TO DELETE INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SECTION 2343 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,10,06,046/-; (E) TO DELETE THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF T HE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,94,723/- AND; (F) TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE TO THE TAX DEMAND O F RS.1,09,93,841/- BEING AN ALLEGED REFUND ORDER THAT WAS NOT ISSUED TO / RECEI VED BY THE APPELLANT. 8. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPEND ENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD, TO ALTER AN D/OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN GIVEN 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS POINTED OUT BY LD. AR THAT GROUND NO.1 IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNA L PASSED IN EARLIER YEARS. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ORDERS., COPY O F WHICH ARE FILED ON OUR RECORD. (1) ITA NO.2759/MUM/2009, A.Y.2005-06, ORDER DATE D 30/08/2011 (2) ITA NO.940/MUM/2012, A.Y. 2008-09, ORDER DATE D 8/8/2013 (3) ITA NO.4988/MUM/2012, A.Y. 2009-10, ORDER DAT ED 12/02/2014 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INITIALLY THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUE ARE SAME. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO TH E FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FROM THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- XXXII, MUMBAI, PASSED ON 25/02/2009 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CITA) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NEITHER THE UNDER WRITING COMMISSION NOR THE SELLING COMMISSION, RECEIVED FROM THE INDIA N COMPANIES WOULD AMOUNT TO FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND U.K. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A), MUMBAI ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RES TORED. ./ I.T.A. NO.7453/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 4 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN AND UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED KI NGDOM AND IS REGISTERED AS A FOREIGN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR (FIIL) WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (SEBI). THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED NE CESSARY PERMISSION TO CARRY OUT INVESTMENT ACTIVITY IN SHARES AND SECURIT IES OF INDIA COMPANIES. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY UNDER APPEA L, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME RETURNING TOTAL INCOME RS. NIL AND SHORT TERM LOSS OF RS. 23,218,968/- TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUEN T YEAR. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED BY WAY OF A NOTE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME T HAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. US $ 9,536,282/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS FEES FROM INVESTME NT BANKING TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE INDIA AND TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND THE SAME IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. HOWEVER, THE AC WAS NOT CON VINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE OF RS. USS 9,536,282/- BY HOLDING THAT THE FEE RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTMENT BANKING SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE ISS UE OF ADRS/GDRS ARE EVENTUALLY UTILIZED IN INDIA SINCE THE BENEFIT OF T HE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ULTIMATELY RECEIVED BY ISSUING INDIAN C OMPANIES. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A). 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE INCOME RECEIVE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS INVESTMENT BANKING TRANSACTIONS I S IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE DTAA DEALIN G WITH BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS PROFITS OF A RESIDENT OF THE UK ARE LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA ONLY IF SUCH PROFITS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PERMANENT ESTABLISHME NT OF THE UK RESIDENT SITUATED IN INDIA AS DEFINED IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE DT AA. THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM INVESTMENT BANKING TRANSACTIONS IS NOT ATTRIBU TABLE TO A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ASSESSEE SITUATED IN INDIA AND , ACCORDINGLY THE AFORESAID INCOME IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS BEFORE THE CIT(A) INCLUDING THE D ECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND LTD. V. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 1 20 (MUM.). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CI T(A) HELD AS UNDER: 5.12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SUB MISSION AND I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAD OPTED TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DTAA AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF T HE DTAA OUGHT TO APPLY TO THE APPELLANT. SECTION 90(2) OF THE IT ACT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT S UNDER THE IT ACT OR TREATY WHICHEVER IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE APPELLAN T. THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF THE AFORESAID FEES IN INDIA AS PER TH E INDIA-UK DTAA IS SQUARELY COVERED BY RAYMOND LTDS CASE (SUPRA). RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL T RIBUNAL, MORE SO AS THE SERVICE PROVIDER IN THE SAID CASE WAS THE APPEL LANT ITSELF, I HOLD THAT THE SAID FEE AMOUNT IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN ND IA AS THE SAME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER TH E INDIA-DTAA READ WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FORMING PART O F THE INDIA-USA DTAA AS THE TECHNICAL SERVICES WERE NOT MADE AVAILA BLE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE INDIAN COMPANIES. ./ I.T.A. NO.7453/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 5 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND LTD. VS. DCIT[2003] 80 TTJ 120 (MUM.). THE LEARNED DR HAS CONCEDED THE SUB MISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND LTD. V. DCIT (SUPRA) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NEITHER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION, NOR UNDERWRITI NG COMMISSION NOR EVEN SELLING COMMISSION/CONCESSION WOULD AMOUNT TO FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES WITHIN MEANING OF DTA WITH UK AND, CONSEQU ENTLY, THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION ON PART OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO DEDUCT TA X UNDER SECTION 195. THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION HELD THAT TH E FEE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AS THE SAME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER THE INDIA-UK DTAA READ WIT H THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FORMING PART OF THE INDIA- USA DTAA A S THE TECHNICAL SERVICES WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INDI AN COMPANIES. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 2.1 AS AGAINST SUCH SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR, LD. CI T-DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY A.O. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THE SAME. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE BAS IC FACTS LEADING TO THE ISSUE HAVE ALREADY BEEN NARRATED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THI S ORDER WHILE REPRODUCING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN FIGURES THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE POINTED OUT. 2.2 IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BO TH THE PARTIES WE HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES UNDER INDIA - UK TREATY READ WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FORMING PART OF THE INDIA US DTAA AS TECHNICAL SERVICES HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INDIAN COMPANIES. ACCORDING LY, GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ./ I.T.A. NO.7453/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 6 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT GROUND NO.2 IS A LTERNATIVE CLAIM AND IN VIEW OF GROUND NO.1 DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE, GROUND NO.2 DOES NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IS DISMISSED. 4. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF T HE LD. AR THAT TAX RATE OF 41.82% HAVE BEEN LEVIED ON INTEREST INCOME ON THE B ASIS THAT ASSESSEE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE DOMESTIC PROVISIONS. HE SUBM ITTED THAT IN GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA, THEREFORE, INTEREST INCOME WILL BE TAXABLE ONLY AS PER PROVISIONS OF DT AA. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT RATE OF TAX LEVIABLE UPON INTEREST SHOULD BE D IRECTED TO BE TAKEN AS THE RATE DESCRIBED IN THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA. HOWEVER, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER CAREFU LLY CONSIDERING THEIR SUBMISSIONS, AS GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE WE HOLD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA, THEREFORE, INTEREST INCOME SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX AT THE RATE DESCRIBED IN DTAA. WE DIRECT THE AO TO LEVY RATE OF TAX ON INTEREST INCOM E AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS ALSO ALLOWED. 5. IN GROUNDS NO.4 & 5, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESS EE IS REGARDING LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234D. IT WAS SUB MITTED BY LD. AR THAT THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND AO MAY BE DIRECTED TO LEV Y THESE INTERESTS AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, LD . DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 5.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DIRECT THE A O TO RE-COMPUTE THESE INTERESTS AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AFTER GIVING EFF ECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THESE GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERE D TO BE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ./ I.T.A. NO.7453/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 7 6. APROPOS GROUND NO.6, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR NECESSARY VERIF ICATION AS IN THE SAID GROUND IT IS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ACTUALLY NO REF UND ORDER WAS ISSUED. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE RES TORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO PRO VIDE APPROPRIATE RELIEF PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND IS AL SO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN GROUND NO.7, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PRAYERS WI TH RESPECT TO THE GROUNDS CONSIDERED ABOVE. APPROPRIATE ORDER HAS AL READY BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE GROUND, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND DOES NOT SURVIVE FOR SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 8. GROUND NO.8 & 9 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE ON WHICH NO ARGUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSE D. 9. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED TO BE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFOR ESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/03/2014 . . ) ,-# / 0'1 13/03/2014 - ) 2 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) . . (I.P.BANSAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 0' DATED 13/03/2014 . ' . .VM , SR. PS ./ I.T.A. NO.7453/MUM/2010 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 8 . . . . ) )) ) '*3 '*3 '*3 '*3 43#* 43#* 43#* 43#* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. '($& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 5 / CIT 5. 362 '*' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 27 8 / GUARD FILE. .' .' .' .' / BY ORDER, (3* '* //TRUE COPY// 9 99 9 / : : : : (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI