S. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P.TLD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 79/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9142 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UODOL RAJ SINGH SRDR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; International transaction; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Speculation loss; Notional interest; Rule 8D
• Section: 92B; 14A; 37(1); 43(5); 254(2); 13; 22; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 ) S. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS, PVT LTD., OFF NO. BW 3010, BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400051 / VS. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAICS514N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.J. PARDIWALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SH. MADHUR AGGARWAL ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI UODOL RAJ SINGH, SR-DR / DATE OF HEARING 30/07/2020 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/08 /2020 / O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH- JM: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 [LD. CIT(A)], MUMB AI, DATED 10.10.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 200 9- 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL: ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 2 - ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 3 - 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING, SELLING AND MARKETING OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2009- 10 ON 29.09.2009, DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 7,86,19,210/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE AC T. ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE FURNI SHED A REPORT IN FORM3CEB AND REPORTED FOLLOWING ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 4 - INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AE). SR. NO DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD USED 1 PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS 76,83,74,820 TNMM 2 PURCHASE OF POLISHED DIAMONDS 34,05,32,235 TNMM 3 SALE OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS 484,15,19,543 TNMM 3. CONSEQUENT UPON REPORTING OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT ION OF MORE THAN RS. 15 CRORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A O) MADE REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO ) FOR COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. 4. DURING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT PROCEEDING T HE TPO FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE IS DELAY IN REALIZATIO N OF SALES RECEIVABLE FROM AES AND AS WELL AS NONE AES. THE TPO VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15.11.2012 ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NOTIONAL INTEREST WORKING ON AL L EXPORT RECEIVABLE FROM AES, WHERE, WHICH WERE BEYON D THE NOTIONAL CREDIT PERIOD OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSE E FILED ITS REPLY DATED 09.11.2012 AND 12.11.2012 AND CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO STANDARD PRACTICE IN THE DIAMOND INDUSTRY, AND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CHARGE INTEREST TO THE CUSTOMER BE IT AE OR NONE AE FOR TH E PAYMENT BEYOND THE NORMAL CREDIT PERIOD. NO INTERE ST IS ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 5 - RECOVERED FROM DELAY IN NONE AES CUSTOMERS AS WELL. THE PRACTICE OF NOT RECOVERING INTEREST FROM AES CUSTOM ER FOR DELAY PAYMENT IS AN ALP. 5. IN WITHOUT PREJUDICES CONTENTIONS THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED NOTIONAL INTEREST WORKING ADOPTING INTERE ST COST @ 6.60%. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE WORK ING OF NOTIONAL INTEREST OF ALL EXPORT RECEIVABLE FROM AES BEYOND THE NORMAL CREDIT PERIOD OF THE BUSINESS, CONSIDERING THE NEGATIVE INTEREST ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CASES IN WHICH AES HAVE MADE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESS EE LONG BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF PAYMENT AND HENCE AS PE R THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NEGATIVE NOTIONAL INTEREST CREDITED.. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCE PTED BY TPO, THE TPO SUGGESTED AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1.51 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON EXPORT RECEIVABLE I N ITS REPORT DATED 29.11.2012. ON RECEIPT OF REPORT OF T PO THE AO INCLUDED ADJUSTMENT SUGGESTED BY TPO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.86 CRORE AS LOSS ON FORWARD CONTRACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS AND SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE SA ID LOSSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE AO TOOK HIS V IEW THAT LOSSES ARE NOTIONAL LOSSES AND ARE SETTLED AFT ER CLOSE TO THE FINANCIAL YEARS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ITS REPLY ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 6 - DATED 29.01.2013. IN THE REPLY THE ASSESSEE CONTEND ED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED IN TO FOREIGN CURRENCY FO RWARD CONTRACT WITH RESPECT TO RECEIVABLE/ PAYABLE FROM I TS EXPORT / IMPORT ORDERS IN ORDER TO HEDGE AGAINST TH E RISK OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATION. THE AO AFTER CONSI DERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED THE SAID LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF FORWARD CONTRACT BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN SETTLED AFTER CLOSE OF FINANCIA L YEAR. THE AO ALSO FOLLOWED THE ORDER FOR EARLIER YEAR (A Y 2008-09) WHEREIN SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. 7. THE AO, FURTHER, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 1.62 LAKHS AS DIVIDEND INCOM E. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH EXEMPT INCOME . THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY AND CONTENDED THAT NO EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR EARNING SUCH EXEMPT INCOM E AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT DURING THIS RELEVA NT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY NEW INVESTMENT. THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE PAST WERE OUT OF THE ASSESSEES OWN FUND. FURTHER, THERE ARE NO INDIREC T EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE YEAR NOR THERE IS ANY USE OF FUND BORROW ED DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS WITHOUT PREJ UDICES CONTENTIONS FURNISHED MAKING OF DISALLOWANCES U/S 1 4A ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 7 - OF THE ACT @ 0.5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF EXEMPT INVEST MENT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF RS. 2.49 LAKHS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO, THE AO DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 30,13,853/- AND INDIRECT EXPENSES @ 5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT (THAT BY ASSESSEE IN ITS WITHOUT PREJUDICES CONTENTION). THEREBY, THE AO DISALLOWED TOTAL OF RS. 32,62,934/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT WHILE PASSING THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ON 10.05.2013. COPY OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE. 8. THE ASSESSEE EXERCISE ITS OPTION TO FILE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE UPHELD THE ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE ADJUSTMENT SUGGESTED BY TPO I N THE ORDER 10.10.2014. THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SH. P.J. PARDIWALA (LD. AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 5 RELATES TO T RANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT / ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONA L INTEREST ON EXPORT RECEIVABLES. THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE SUBMITS THAT OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES ARE NOT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION FOR A.Y 2009-10, WHICH IS THE ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 8 - ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE OUTSTANDIN G RECEIVABLE IS MERELY INCIDENTAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF GOODS AND NOT PER-SE SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. THE AMENDMENT IN SEC. 92(B) BY WAY OF INSERTION OF EXPLANATION WAS BROUGHT IN THE STATUE BOOK BY FINAN CE ACT, 2012, WHICH HAS NO RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT CHARGED / RECOVERED INTEREST IN DELAYED RECEIVA BLE FROM BOTH THE AES AS WELL AS NONE AES CUSTOMERS. T HE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RECOVER ANY INTEREST FROM NONE AE CUSTOMERS ALSO, THE PRACTICE OF NOT RECOVERING INTE REST FROM AES CUSTOMERS IS AN ALP APPLYING THE INTERNAL CUP METHOD AND NO TP ADJUSTMENT ON THIS ACCOUNT IS WARRANTED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. CIT VS. INDO AMERICAL JEWELLERY LTD., [2014] 44 TAX MANN.COM 310 (BOM), CIT VS. LIVINGSTONES [ITA NO. 887 OF 2014] (BOM), LIVINGSTONES VS. DCIT 16(3) [2014] 41TAXMANN.COM 4 99 MUMBAI - TRIB), ITO VS. FROST & SULLIVAN (IND) PVT LTD., AND FROST & SULLIVAN (IND) PVT LTD., VS. ACIT [ITA 6721/ MUM/2010 & IT (TP)A. NO. 2290/MUM/2017] 10. IN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT O NCE THE SALES TRANSACTION HAS BEEN BENCH MARK ON TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AND FOUND TO ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 9 - BE IN ORDER AND THUS NO ADJUSTMENT IS WARRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN RECEIVABLE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF RUSHABH DIAMONDS VS ACIT, [2016] 68 TAXMANN.COM 141 (MUMBAI-TRIB). 11. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AES HAVE ALSO MADE PRE PAYMENT AGAINST THEIR RECEIVABLES EVEN IF THE ALP T O BE COMPUTED THEN SAME HAD TO BE COMPUTED BY AGGREGATIN G THE IMPACT OF DELAY IN SAME CASES PRE PAYMENT IN OT HER CASES RELIANCE IS MADE ON THE FOLLOWING CASES: BARCLYS BANK PLC VS. ADIT, [2018] 100TAXMANN.COM476 (MUMBAI - TRIB), DCIT VS. INDO AMERICAN JEWELLARY LTD., [2012] 50 SO T 528 (MUMBAI), JEWELLMARK INDIA P. LTD VS. ITO (ITA NO. 432/M/2014). 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THE ORDER OF TPO/CIT(A). THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SU BMITS THAT AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN SEC. 92B OF THE ACT ANY BENEFIT ARISING OUT OF CAPITAL FINANCE IS AN INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTION. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES DELIBERATED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT TPO WHILE MAKING BENCH MARK ACCEPTED THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION O N ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 10 - SALE OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS WITH ITS AES. HOWEVER, THE TPO WAS OF THE VIEW THE DELAY IN REALI SATION OF EXPORT RECEIVABLE FROM THESE INTERNATIONAL TRANS ACTION AS A SEPARATE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION COMPUTED TH E NOTIONAL INTEREST @ 6.00 PER ANNUM ON DELAYED REALIZATION OF RECEIVABLE. THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PRE PAYMENTS WERE ALSO NOT ACCEPTED BY HIM. TPO WORKED OUT THE ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 1.51 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH NOTIONAL INTEREST ON DELAY IN EXPORT RECEIVABLE. THE LD. DRP UPHELD THE ACTIO N OF AO /TPO BY APPLYING THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 92B OF THE ACT. 14. WE HAVE NOTED THAT EXPLANATION TO SEC. 92B OF THE A CT HAS BEEN INSERTED VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2012 AND HELD A S PROSPECTIVE BY COORDINATE BENCH IN ACIT VS. GITANJA LI EXPORTS CORPORATION LTD., 81 TAXMANN.COM 452 (MUM). FURTHER, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE IS AVERAGE DELAY IN RECEIVABLE FROM AE OF 39 DAYS AND IN CASE OF NONE A ES 44 DAYS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CHARGING INTEREST FROM NONE AE ON SUCH EXPORT RECEIVABLE. COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN GITANJ ALI EXPORTS CORPORATION LTD.(SUPRA) ALSO HELD THAT W HERE NO INTEREST IS CHARGED FROM NON-AES, I.E. INDEPENDENT TRANSACTIONS, AS WELL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY OCCASION TO MAKE AN ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 11 - ALP ADJUSTMENT, FOR NOTIONAL INTEREST, ON DELAY IN REALISATION OF TRADE DEBTS FROM AES. 15. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE LAW AS REFERRED ABOVE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ADOPTING THE UNIFORM POLICY FOR NONE CHARGING INTEREST ON EXPORT RECEIVABLE FROM AE AND NONE AE AND MOREOVER THE TRANSACTION WITH REGARD TO SALE OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TPO AT ALP, NO NOTIONAL INTEREST WAS WARRANTED. IN THE RESULT GROU NDS NO. 1 TO 5 OF THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 16. A GROUND NO. 6 AND 7 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF MAR K TO MARKET LOS OF RS. 2.86 CRORE. THE LD. AR OF THE AS SESSEE WHILE EXPLAINING FACT SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE BEING A N IMPORTER AND EXPORTER OF DIAMOND IS EXPOSE TO THE R ISK OF FOREIGN EXPORT FLUCTUATION IN THE PRICE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES. TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST AGAINST SUCH LOSSES DUE TO FLUCTUATION IN CURRENCY RATES, BEING A PRUDE NT BUSINESS MAN THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO FOREIGN CURR ENCY FORWARD CONTRACT IN RESPECT OF RECEIVABLE / PAYABLE FROM ITS EXPORTS / IMPORT ORDERS IN ORDER TO HEDGE AGAIN ST THE RISK OF FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATION. THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM ACCOUNTING AND AS-11, WOULD REVALUE THE OUTSTANDING FOREIGN CURRENCY MONI TORY ITEMS AND THE CLOSING RATE AT THE RATE AS ON 31 ST MARCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEBTORS AND CREDITORS, BORROWING A ND ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 12 - UNCERTAIN FORWARD CONTRACTS WERE RESTATED AT THE YE AREND APPLYING THE CLOSING RATE OF THE FOREIGN CURRENCY A ND GAIN / LOSS ON SUCH CONVERSATIONS WERE CHARGED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD THE ASSES SEE SUFFERED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS OF RS. 6 .69 CRORE. THE DETAILS OF WHICH WAS FURNISHED BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THIS INCLUDED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS OF RS. 2.86 CRORE ON YEAREND CONVE RSION OF ITS OUTSTAND FORWARD CONTRACTS, DETAILS OF EXPOR T INVOICES RELATED TO THESE CONTRACTS AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2009 WERE FURNISHED TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. COPIES OF THE SAME ARE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 299 TO 302 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AO DISALLOWED RS. 2.86 CRORE TO YEAREND CONVERSION OF FOREIGN FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACT TRE ATING IT TO BE A NOTIONAL LOSS AND BY TAKING VIEW THAT CO NTRACTS WERE OUTSTANDING AND SETTLED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE TREATM ENT OF REVALUATION OF FOREIGN CURRENCY TRANSACTION AND HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO IN ALL PREVIOUS AND SUBSEQUENT YE ARS EXCEPT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO BY FOLLOWING T HE ORDER OF ITS PREDECESSOR IN AY 2008-09 WHICH WAS UP HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. 17. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT IN AY 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE INCURRED LOSS OF RS. 4.02 CRORE ON YEAREND CONVERSI ON OF ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 13 - ITS OUTSTANDING FORWARD CONTRACT. THE AO DISALLOWE D MARK TO MARKET LOSS RELYING ON INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2010 DATED 23.03.2010 BY CBDT ON THE GROUND THAT THE LOS S IS A NOTIONAL LOSS WHICH HAS NOT CRYSTALLIZED DURING T HE YEAR AS CONTRACTS ARE YET TO MATURE AS ON 31.03.2008. I N SO FOR AS THE LOSS INCURRED ACTUAL CANCELLATION OF FOR EIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CONTRACT DURING THE YEAR AO SPECIFICALLY RECORDED THAT SUCH LOSSES WERE ALLOWAB LE AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 THOUGH REFERRED THE PROVISION OF SEC. 43(5) RELATIN G TO SPECULATION LOSS, CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH AT LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A NOTIONAL LOSS. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT LOSS ON VALUATION ON UN-MATURED FORWAR D CONTRACT AS AT THE YEAREND AS SPECULATION LOSS U/S 43(5), WHICH WAS NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. 18. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUN AL IN DOING SO TOOK A CONTRARY VIEW TO THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BADRIDAS GAURI DU P LTD., (261 ITR 256) (BOM). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBM ITS THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY ON LOSS OF REVALUATI ON OF UN- MATURED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CONTRACT IS COVERE D BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA (P) LTD., 312 ITR 254 (SC), ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 14 - WHEREIN, THE HONBLE COURT HAD HELD THAT SUCH LOSSE S ARE NOT NOTIONAL AND ARE ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE U/S 3 7(1). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR OTHER THAN 2008-09 AND 2009-10 THEN IT IS NOT OPEN FOR AO TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND IN THO SE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT A SHORT ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS WHETHER THE LOSS ON REVALUATION UN-MATURED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CONTRACT IS A NOTIONAL LOSS OR NOT. THE AO HAS NOT INVOKED SEC. 43(5) OF THE ACT TO DISALLOW THE LOSS, SEC. 43(5) IS NOT INVOKED IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE FACT TH AT LOSS ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CONTRACT MATURE DURING THE YEAR HAS BEEN ALLOWED. 19. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. D CHETAN & CO. 390 ITR 36 (BOM), WHILE CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF BADRIDAS GAURIDU P LTD., (SUPRA) AND ORDER IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09, HELD THAT THE ORDER OF BAD RIDAS GAURIDU P LTD., (SUPRA) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTI CE OF TRIBUNAL WHEN TRIBUNAL RENDERED ITS DECISION IN S. VINOD KUMAR (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT FOR WARD CONTRACT IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE WHEN INCIDENTAL TO CAR RYING OF BUSINESS OF EXPORTER AND THEN TO COVER UP OF LOS SES ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE VALUATION WOULD ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 15 - NOT BE SPECULATIVE ACTIVITY BUT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY . ACCORDINGLY, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DE CISION IN EARLIER I.E AY 2008-09 SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 20. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL IN ACIT VS. SHREE BALKRISHNAN EXPORTS, ITA NO. 4185/M/2014, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EARLIER YEAR DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE IN VIE W OF THE LATER DECISION OF HIGH COURT IN CASE OF D. CHETAN & CO.(SUPRA). 21. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STRON GLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERATELY ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA (P ) LTD., (SUPRA) HELD THAT LOSSES ON REVALUATION OF UN - MATURE FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CONTRACT AND SUCH A RE NOT NOTIONAL LOSSES AND ARE ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITUR E U/S 37 OF THE ACT. 23. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN D. CHETAN AND CO (SUPRA) WHILE REFERRING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN BADRIDAS GAURIDU P LTD., (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF TRIBUNA L IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (AY 2008-09) HELD THAT FORWARD ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 16 - CONTRACTS FOR PURPOSE OF HEDGING IN COURSE OF NORMA L BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF IMPORT AND EXPORT DONE TO COVER UP LO SSES ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE VALUATIO NS WOULD NOT BE SPECULATIVE ACTIVITY, BUT BUSINESS ACTIVITY. TH E RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION IS EXTRACTED BELOW : 7. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS, WHILE UPHO LDING THE FINDING OF THE CIT (APPEALS), INDEPENDENTLY COME TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF SPECULATIVE ACTIVITIES. FURTHER THE HEDGING TRANSAC TIONS WERE ENTERED INTO SO AS TO COVER VARIATION IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE WHIC H WOULD IMPACT ITS BUSINESS OF IMPORT AND EXPORT OF DIAMONDS. THESE CO NCURRENT FINDING OF FACTS ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE PERVERSE IN ANY MANNER. I N FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT FIND THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE WAS SPECULA TIVE IN NATURE. IT FURTHER HOLDS THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME DID REVENUE CHALLENGE THE ASSERTION OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE THAT THE ACTIVITY OF ENT ERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACT WAS IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ONLY TO SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO SUBMISSION RECO RDED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CALL ED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF ITS TRANSACTIONS. THUS, THE SUBMISSION NO W BEING MADE IS WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION AS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE ON FACT S WAS NEVER DISPUTED. SO FAR AS THE RELIANCE ON ACCOUNTING STANDARD-11 IS CO NCERNED, IT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACTIVITY WAS A PART OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE'S REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTION OR IT WAS A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. ON PRESENT FACTS, IT WAS NEVER THE REVENUE'S CONTEN TION THAT THE TRANSACTION ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 17 - WAS SPECULATIVE BUT ONLY DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND T HAT IT WAS NOTIONAL. LASTLY, THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION IN S. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ) IN THE REVENUE'S FAVOUR WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GOVER N THE ISSUES ARISING HEREIN. THIS IS SO AS EVERY DECISION IS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS WHICH ARISE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY FOR A DJUDICATION. MERE CONCLUSION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IN ANOTHER CASE BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ENTITLE A PARTY TO HAVE AN IDENTICAL RELIEF IN THIS CASE. IN FACT, IF THE REVENUE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS IN S. VINODKUMAR ( SUPRA ) ARE IDENTICAL/SIMILAR TO THE PRESENT FACTS, THEN RELIAN CE WOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED BY THE REVENUE UPON IT AT THE HEARING BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT INDICATE ANY SUCH RELIANCE. IT APPEA RS THAT IN S. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ), THE TRIBUNAL HELD THE FORWARD CONTRACT ON FACTS BEFORE IT TO BE SPECULATIVE IN NATURE IN VIEW OF SE CTION 43(5) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. BADRIDAS GAURIDU (P.) LTD. [2003] 261 ITR 256/[2004] 134 TAXMAN 376 (MUM.) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEN IT RENDERED ITS DECISION IN S. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ). IN THE ABOVE CASE, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT FORWARD CONTRACT IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE WHEN INCIDENTAL TO CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF COTTON EXPORTER AND DONE TO COVER UP LOSSES ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE VALUATIO NS, WOULD NOT BE SPECULATIVE ACTIVITY BUT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 8. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, THE QUESTION OF LAW, AS FORMULA TED BY THE REVENUE, DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL OF LAW. THUS, NOT ENTERTAINED. 24. FURTHER, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ACIT V S. SHREE BALKRISHNA EXPORTS (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN D. ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 18 - CHETAN & CO. (SUPRA) HELD EARLIER YEAR DECISION OF TRIBUNAL (REFERRING THE ASSESSEES CASE ORDER FOR A Y 2008- 09) IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE. 25. NOW TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION THAT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CONTRACT TO SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE LOSSES DUE TO FLUCTUATION IN FOREIGN CURRENCY. FURTHER, THE ASSE SSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND WOULD REVALUE THE OUTSTANDING FOREIGN CURRENCY MONITORY I TEM AT THE CLOSING RATE I.E RATE AS ON 31 ST OF MARCH. THESE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE A O DISALLOWED RS. 2.86 CRORE PERTAINING TO THE YEAREND CONVERSION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTRACT TREAT IT TO BE NOTIONAL BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE OUTSTANDING AND WERE SETTLED IN THIS SUBSEQUENT YEA R, WHILE DOING SO HE RELIED UPON CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 2 OF 2010 (SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(A) AFFIRMED THE ACTION O F AO BY FALLOWING THE ORDER OF ITS PREDECESSOR. BEFORE US, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT IN EARLI ER YEAR THE DISALLOWANCE WAS UPHELD BY TRIBUNAL, THOUGH, WH ILE DOING SO THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT TRANSACTIONS ENTERE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. THE ASS ESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) BUT THE S AME WAS DISMISSED. AGAINST THE ORDER ON APPLICATION UN DER ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 19 - SECTION 254(2) THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BUT NO SUCCESS. 26. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN D. CHETAN & CO. (SUPRA) WHIL E REFERRING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN BADRIDAS GAURIDU P LTD., (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ORDER IN BADRIDAS GAURIDU P L TD., WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF TRIBUNAL WHEN IT RENDERED THE DECISION IN VINOD KUMAR DIAMONDS (ASSESSEES) CASE. IT WAS REITERATED BY HONBLE HI GH COURT THAT FORWARD CONTRACTS FOR PURPOSE OF HEDGING WHEN INCIDENTAL TO CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF EXPORTER AND THEN COVER UP LOSSES ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE VALUATION, WOULD NOT BE SPECULATIVE ACTIVI TY BUT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 27. CONSIDERING AFORESAID FACTUAL AND LEGAL DISCUSSION AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD., (SUPRA) THAT LOSSE S ON REVALUATION OF UNMATURED FOREIGN EXCHANGE FORWARD CONTRACT AND SUCH LOSSES ARE NOT NOTIONAL LOSSES AN D ARE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN CASE OF D CHETAN & CO., WHEREIN, THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT REITERATED ITS EARLIER DECISION IN BADRI DAS GAURIDU P LTD, THAT FORWARD CONTRACT IN FOREIGN EXC HANGE WHEN INCIDENTAL FOR CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF EXPORT AND ARE DONE TO COVER UP LOSSES ON ACCOUNT DIFFERENCE I N ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 20 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE VALUATION WOULD NOT BE SPECULATIVE ACTIVITY BUT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, WE DI RECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. IN THE RESULT, GROUN D NO. 6 & 7OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 28. GROUND NO. 8 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE RS. 32,62,934/ - U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(II) & 8D(III). THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS. 1.62 LAKHS ONLY AND ON ITS INVESTMENT, THERE WAS NO EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EARNED EXEMPT INCOME FROM ITS PAST INVESTMENTS. THE AO WITHOUT ESTABLISHING NEXUS BETW EEN THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED, DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(II) O F RS. 30,13,853/- AND DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(III) OF RS. 2,49,081/-. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS TH AT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN DIAMOND INDIA LTD., ON 30.06.2006 AND ON 21.01.2007 OF RS. 50 LAKHS EACH, THUS, TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 1 CRORE. FURTHER, 50 LAKHS WERE INVESTED ON 31.01.2008 IN DIAMOND LTD., AND RS . 3.47 CRORE IN RELIANCE POWER LTD. ALL INVESTMENTS ARE OLD INVESTMENTS. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT S THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED OUT OF THE BORROWED FUND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUND AVAI LABLE WITH IT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 9.8 2 CRORE ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 21 - AND RESERVE AND SURPLUS OF RS. 93.24 CRORE AS ON 31.03.2007. FURTHER, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 200 7-08 THE ASSESSEE EARNED A PROFIT OF RS. 18.25 CRORE. T HUS, THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS ARE IN FAR EXCESS THAN THE INVESTMENT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THA T WHEN INTEREST FREE FUNDS ARE IN FAR EXCESS AND NO DISALLOWANCE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN RELIANCE UTILITY AND POWER LTD,, 313 ITR 3 40 (BOM) AND CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD., 366 ITR 505(BOM). ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT NO INTEREST DISALLOWANCE AS PROVIDED U /S RULE 8(D)(II) IS WARRANTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. EV EN NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) IS WARRANTED. 29. IN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION (IN WRITTEN SYNOPSIS) THE LD. AR FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A OF THE ACT CANNOT EXCEED TO THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPT INCOM E. THE EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY RS.1.62 LAKHS AND DISALLOWANCE MAY BE RESTRICTED TO THAT EXTENT ONLY, IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LD. A R RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: PCIT VS. HSBC INVEST DIRECT (INDIA) LTD., ITA NO. 1672/MUM/2015, DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICAL PVT LTD, ITA NO 5592/MUM2012 AND, FUTURE CORPORATE RESOURCES LTD.,85 TAXMANN.COM 190. ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 22 - 30. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND DELIBERATED VARIOUS CASE LAW RELIED UPO N BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS. 1.62 LAKHS ONLY. THE AO DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENSES UNDER RULE 8D(II) OF RS. 30,13,853/-. WE HAVE PERUSED THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES RESERV ES AND SURPLUSES AS ON 31.03.2007 IS RS. 93.24 CRORE A ND SHARE CAPITAL OF RS. 9.8 CRORE. THE TOTAL INVESTME NT AS PER SCHEDULE 6 OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IS ONLY R S. 4.98 CRORE. MOREOVER, MOST OF THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN PAST. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN HDFC BANK (SUPRA) AND RELIANCE UTILITY (SU PRA) NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8(D)(JI) IS WARRANTED IN CASE THE RESERVE AND SURPLUS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IN FAR EXCESS TO THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERIN G THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SURPLUS RESERVE AVAILABLE WITH IT AT THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR, WHEN THE INVESTMENTS WERE MA DE FOREIGN EXEMPT INCOME AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8(D)(II) IS WARRANTED. ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 23 - 32. THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. V. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 694/233 TAXMAN 117/59 TAXMANN.COM 295 HELD THAT THE WINDOW FOR DISALLOWANCE IS INDICATED IN SECTION 14A AND IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO TAX EXEMPT INCOME. THIS PROPORTION OR PORTION OF THE TAX EXEMP T INCOME SURELY CANNOT SWALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS HAS HAPP ENED IN THIS CASE. 33. FURTHER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PCIT VS. HSBC INVEST DIRECT (INDIA) LTD (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AT RS. 1.62 LAKHS ONLY. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED. 34. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03 RD AUGUST 2020. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) ( PAWAN SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 03 /08/2020 KRK, PS ITA NO. 79/MUM/2015. V. VINODKUMAR DIAMONDS P. LTD.. - 24 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ) ( ) / CONCERNED CIT 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// / ( ASST. REGISTRAR) !' #, / ITAT, MUMBAI