ITO 30(1)(1), MUMBAI V. AJAY AGARWAL HUF, MUMBAI

ITA 770/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6270 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVARAM
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 201; 64

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI G.S. PANNU (VP ) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 770 /MUM/20 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 THE ITO 30(1)(1), C - 13, 5 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 501, PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLE X, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400051 VS. M/S AJAY AGARWAL, HUF, 1503, QUIESCENT HEIGHT, MIND SPACE, CHINCHOLI, BUNDER, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI 64 PAN: AAEHA0303G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.P. MEENA ( CIT DR) ASSESSEE BY : DR. K. SH IVARAM (AR) DATE OF HEARING: 26 / 10/ 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 / 01 /201 9 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/12/2014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 41 , MUMBAI , FOR THE A S S ESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE A CT). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE (HUF) ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF MOBILE ACCESSORIES UNDER THE NAME OF M/S JANSI TRADING COMPANY AND ALSO BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF SOFTWARE IN THE NAME OF M/S E - MAC TECHNOLOGIES, FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 387/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10A AMOUNTING TO RS. 160,91,40,017/ - . IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES U/S 143 (2) AND 142 (1) OF THE ACT, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE 2 ITA NO. 770 /M UM/2015 ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FILED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR. IT WAS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 2,52,91,412/ - AND DECLARED NET LOSS OF RS. 74,02,928/ - IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS OF TRADING OF MOBILE ACCESSORIES IN TH E NAME OF M/S JANSI TRADING COMPANY. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO MOTO DISALLOWED THE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. IT WAS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE EXPENSES TOWARDS STAFF WELFARE , CONVEYANCE , TELEPHONE CHARGES, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, POSTA GE AND TELEGRAPH EXPENSES AND OFFICE EXPENSES. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE SE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS , THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF M/S E - MAC TECHNOLOGIES, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID EXPORT OF SOFTWARE WAS DEVELOPED AT DEHRADUN , THE AO AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED BACK THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF RS. 160,91,40,017/ - MADE U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUM BAI RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). 3 . THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND S : - 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW THE ITAT ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT, 1961 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTION OF PC ENGINE SOFTWARE FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAID UNIT IS NEITHER SEPARATE AND HAS A DISTINCT BUT WAS A MERE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT.? 3 ITA NO. 770 /M UM/2015 ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 2. WHETHER ON THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW THE ITAT ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT, 1961 AND HAS NOT GIVEN SIGNIFICANCE IMPORTANCE TO THE DEPOSITION MADE BY THE TEAM LEADER, SHRI SUHAS KATE, WHO HAS ADMITTED THAT THE BASIC ENGINE OF THE S OFTWARE WHICH FORMS CORE OF THE SOFTWARE WAS DEVELOPED AT MUMBAI AND IS BROUGHT TO DEHRADUN IN A HARD DISC FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT HALF PORTION OF THE SOFTWARE WAS DEVELOPED IN MUMBAI? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW THE ITAT FILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED HIS CLAIM WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE POINTS RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW THE ITAT FILED TO ADMIT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUPER ABNORMAL PROFIT, I.E., MORE THAN 99% WITH A MERGER EXPENSES OF INTERNET CHARGES OF RS. 55,410/ - SHOWN IN ITS P & L ACCOUNT INCURRED AT THE SOFTWARE TECHN OLOGY PARK OF INDIA (STPI) DEHRADUN.? 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR ) RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT , IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE TEAM LEADER SHRI SUHAS KATE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE BASIC ENGINE OF THE SOFTWARE WAS DEVELOPED IN MUMBAI AND WAS BROUGHT TO DEHRADUN IN A HARD DISC FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT . STATEMENT OF SHRI SUHAS KATE ESTABLISHES THAT HALF PO RTION OF THE SOFTWARE WAS DEVELOPED IN MUMBAI , HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY BASED HIS FINDING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 AS THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL IS NOT APPLICABLE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4 ITA NO. 770 /M UM/2015 ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECI DED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND SINCE THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO INTERFERE WITH. TH E LD. COUNS EL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DECLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL RECORDED IN ASSSESSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO GONE THROUGH TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER: - 7. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDER OF THE HONORABLE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 DATED 25.07.2014 WHEREIN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE SIMILAR AS THE CURRENT YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RELEVANT AND IMPORT FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL AS PER THEIR ORDER DATED 25.07.2014. 1. AS PER PARA NO. 41 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT 'WE FIND THAT THE ASSESEE HAD DEVELOP ED THE SPECIALIZED INTERFACE BETWEEN MOBILE - HANDSET TO PC/COMPUTER, AT THE STP. WHAT NEEDS TO BE SEEN IS, WHAT IS THE END PRODUCT, AS HELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ISBC CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD VS DCIT, REPORTED IN 88 1TD134 (MUM) (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE THE STANDARD SOFTWARE WAS BOUGHT BY ASSESSEE FROM ANOTHER COMPANY. THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD THAT THE BASIC AND STANDARD SOFTWARE ACTED AS A RAW MATERIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOFTWARE WHICH WAS EXPORTED: THE COORDINATE BENCH, ON THIS OBSERVATI ON, ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION I0A. APPLYING THE RATIO IN THE 5 ITA NO. 770 /M UM/2015 ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, WHO DEVELOPED THE BASIC ENGINE AND BASED ON THAT CREATED THE END PRODUCT, WHICH WAS AN EXPORTABLE SOFTWARE, I.E., PC SUIT S OFTWARE CHIP.' 2. AS PER PARA NO. 45 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT' NOW WE COME TO THE QUESTIONS WHETHER A UNIT AT STPI LOSES ITS CHARACTER OF STPI UNIT, IF SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT WORK IS DONE OUTSIDE STPI AND WHETHER EMP LOYMENT OF THIRD PARTY TOOLS BE CALLED AS INTERVENTION, LEADING TO DENIAL OF EXEMPTION. THE EXPLANATION ALSO INCLUDED THE OBJECTION OF USING THIRD PARTY TOOLS WHICH WAS EXPLAINED BY MR. KATE THAT THEY WERE AVAILABLE FOR FREE ON VARIOUS INTERNET SITES OR EV EN IF PURCHASED, WOULD BECOME PART OF THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT FOR A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THE USE OF SKIN CRAFTER, DIGITAL LIBRARIES AND UTILITIES WERE A NORMAL PROCEDURE, WHICH WAS EVEN VOUCHED BY THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY EXPERTS . WHEN WE EXAMINE THE POLICY AS SUCH, NOT EVERYBODY CAN SETUP THEIR UNIT IN STPI ZONE. PERMISSION HAS TO BE SOUGHT WITH DETAILED BACKGROUND, AS TO WHY AN ENTITY IS INTERESTED IN SETTING UP THE UNIT INSIDE THE STPI ZONE. EVEN OTHERWISE, AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE STPT UNDER THE EXIM POLICY, UNDERTAKING IN STPI IS FREE TO ACCEPT KNOWLEDGE AND OR THE SERVICES OR THE PRODUCT FROM ANY AREA INCLUDING DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLE OR THINGS AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THIS SHOWS THAT EVEN THE GOV ERNMENT RECOGNIZES THE FACT THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS DONE WITHIN ONES' OWN PREMISES TO DEVELOP THE SOFTWARE. IT IS IN THIS REGARD THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SET UP STPI/EPZ/FTZ, WHERE THERE ARE FREE ACCESSES T INTERNET, DL AND OTHER COMPUTER RELATED PERIPHERALS , WHICH CAN BE USED FREELY BY THE UNITS. AS OBSERVED HERE ABOVE, THE GOVERNMENT, IN ANY CASE ALLOWS KNOWLEDGE AND SERVICES FROM DOMESTIC TARIFF AREAS AS WELL. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE OBJECTION OF - THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WITH REGARD TO THIRD PARTY TOOLS A ND WORK DONE OUTSIDE THE STPI ZONE, DESERVES TO BE REJECTED.' 3 AS PER PARA NO. 49 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT; 'WITH THIS BACK GROUND AND CASE LAWS SUPPORTING THE MODUS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE PR: THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE EARNED HUGE PROFITS, SHOULD THEREFORE BE THROWN IN THE PIT OF MONEY LAUNDERS, THEREFORE AS OBSERVED EARLIER; IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO 6 ITA NO. 770 /M UM/2015 ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 BROUGHT IN THE BREAKTHROUGH IN THE MOBILE TECHNOLOGY WH ICH ENABLE THE HANDSET TO GET INTERFACE WITH THE PC AND START THE HOST OF APPLICATIONS LIKE SMSS,, MOVIES, AND OTHER INTERNET FACILITIES. GETTING THE LATEST AND BEST MOBILE SERVICES, WHICH HAD BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE OBSERVATI ON OF THE DI(INV), KANPUR, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING AT STPI, DEHRADUN AND THE MODUS OPERANDI, WAS ONLY AN EYE WASH AND AN IDEA TO REDUCE TAX INCIDENCE THROUGH COLOURABLE DEVISE AND USED IT AS A METHOD FOR MONEY LAUNDERING, CAN ONLY BE HELD T O BE A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ONCE AGAIN REFERRING TO THE CASE OF BAJAJ TEMPO LTD VS CIT, REPORTED IN 197 ITR 188, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, HAS OBSERVED, 'THE WORDS OF A STATUTE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY THE BEST GUIDE. BUT, IF THEIR MEANING GETS CLOUDED, THEN THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO CLEAR THE HAZE' ONCE WE; HAVE FOUND OUT THAT THE SOFTWARE MYSYNC WAS DEVELOPED AT STP, DEHRADUN THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN BAJAJ TEMPO (SUPRA), BECOMES RELEVANT A ND IMPORTANT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY TOOLS BECAUSE, SEIZED WITH THIS ISSUE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT IN THE TOOLS FROM ITS OLD ESTABLISHMENT, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DELVED THE OBSERVA TION THAT IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE COURTS TO CLEAR THE HAZE.' 4. AS PER PARA NO. 53 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT; 'IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE, WE HOLD THAT THE FINAL REPORT BY THE DIT INV) ON WHOSE DIRECTION THE ASSESSMENT O RDER HAS BEEN FRAMED, IS ILLEGAL BUT BY HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION REPORT BY DL (INV) ON WHOSE BASIS THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AS ILLEGAL, SHALL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSMENT TO BE ILLEGAL, BECAUSE THE FIRST TWO - REPORTS ARE LEGAL AND THE FINAL REPORT, DOES NOT SAY THAT IT IS IN CONTINUATION OF THE FIRST TWO REPORTS. THE REPORT BY DL (INV), DEHRADUN, BEING AN INDEPENDENT REPORT, WHEREIN THE DL HAS USED HIS AUTHORITY, BY NEGATING THE REPORTS BY THE OFFICERS, TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS ACTUALLY ISSUED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE DL (INV), LUCKNOW COMPLETELY IGNORED ALL EVIDENCES, STATEMENT AND AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE TECHNICAL PERSON, MR. KATE AND BASING THE GROUNDS FOR DISALLOWANCES TAKING UP FRIVOLOUS ISSUES.' 4. AS PER PARA NO. 55 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE HONORA BLE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT; 'THIS ALSO BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, BECAUSE, WE HAVE IN 7 ITA NO. 770 /M UM/2015 ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ANY CASE BASED OUR DECISION ON THE FACTS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND OTHER EVIDENCES, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) CITED CASE LAWS.' 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED ORDER, SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT DATED 02.12.2014 AND THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.07.2014., BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL, AS REGARDS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. I HAVE SUMMARISED MY OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AS UNDER: (I) NO MAJOR WORK HAS BEEN DONE AT THE STPI THIS CONTENTION OF THE AD IS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD ASSESSING HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE UPGRADE D VERSION OF SOFTWARE WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF SALE IN A Y 2010 - 2011 HAS BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE STPI AS WELL THAT WORK CARRIED OUT AT MUMBAI WAS A RAW MATERIAL FOR THE WORK DONE AT STPI AS HELD BY [TAT AT PARAGRAPH NO 41. OF THE ORDER ALSO REPRODUCED HERE. HON. ITAT HAS REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE AO THAT 'THE SAME ENGINE WAS USED WHICH IS A CORE PART OF DEVELOPMENT'. LD ASSESSING OFFICER'S VIEW THAT NO WORK HAS BEEN DONE AT STPI DOES NOT HOLD TRUE AS DECIDED BY HON TAT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y 2009 - 2010. (II) USE OF THIRD PARTY TOOLS AS HELD BY THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AT IT'S ORDER AT PARAGRAPH NO 45. AND ALSO A PLETHORA OF OTHER CASES, THE OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF THIRD PARTY TOOLS AND WORK DONE OUTSIDE THE STPI ZONE TO DISALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A, IS REJECTED. (III) SUPERNORMAL PROFITS & INHUMANLY POSSIBLE AS HELD BY THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE T HE ASSESSEE EARNED HUGE PROFITS, THEY SHOULD, THEREFORE BE THROWN IN THE PIT OF MONEY LAUNDERS, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THIS HAS BEEN WELL BROUGHT OUT BY THE HON ITAT AT PARAGRAPH NO.49 OF IT'S ORDER AND ALSO REPRODUCED IN THIS ORDER THAT IT WAS A BREAKTHROUGH BROUGHT IN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE MOBILE TECHNOLOGY WHICH ENABLED IT TO MAKE HUGE PROFITS FOR THE LIMITED PERIOD IN THE MANNER IN WHICH SOFTWARE 8 ITA NO. 770 /M UM/2015 ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 BUSINESS IS DONE THROUGH SALE OF NUMBER OF COPIES OF THE SAME SOFTWARE. 7. AS IS CLEAR FROM THE FINDINGS THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10. FURTHER, T HE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2015 FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 2009 - 10. SINCE, THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT (A) IS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). WE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JANUARY, 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 23 / 01/2019 ALINDRA, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 9 ITA NO. 770 /M UM/2015 ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI