ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT WD 10(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8050/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79013 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHANESH BAFNAARPIT AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SURINDER JIT SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37; 14A

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - I BENCH MUMBAI . . , / ! ! ! ! , '# '# '# '# BEFORE S/SH. H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.7842/MUM/2011, $ $ $ $ % % % % ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ACIT 10(1), 455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, M.K.MARG, MUMBAI-400020 VS. M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 601/602, WINDSOR, OFF CST ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI-400098 PAN: AAACI4057N /. ITA NO.8050/MUM/2011, $ $ $ $ % % % % ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 601/602, WINDSOR, OFF CST ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI-400098 VS. ACIT 10(1), 455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, M.K.MARG, MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACI4057N ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) &' * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURINDERJIT SING H ()&' + * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHANESH BAFNA/ARPIT AGRAWAL $ $ $ $ + ++ + ,- ,- ,- ,- / DATE OF HEARING : 08-05-2014 ./% + ,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28- 05- 2014 $ $ $ $ , 1961 + ++ + 254 )1( ,0, ,0, ,0, ,0, '1 '1 '1 '1 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,A.M. '# '# '# '#, ,, , ! $ ! $ ! $ ! $ : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.23.08.2011 OF THE CIT(A)-2 1,MUMBAI,ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED CROSS APPEALS. AO HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10, 17,315/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 2.ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF GROUP ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES OF RS.3,48,939/- 3.ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF MUTUAL FUND EXPENSES OF RS.3,72,75,643/- 4.ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIG N TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS.19,39,693/- 5.ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,1 3,51,364/- BEING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES EXPENSES. 6.THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON T HE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE 2 ITA NOS.7842 & 8050/M/2011 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 7.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,READ AS UND ER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS LEGALLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING RE-IMBURSEMENT OF OFFICE LICENSE FEES A MOUNTING TO RS. 1,484,572 (RS. 2,663,899 LESS AMOUNT ON WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OF RS.1,179,327/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) TO ITS GROUP COMPANY OPTIMIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.. THE A PPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF RE-IMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES AND DELETE THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREINABOVE AT OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. VIDE ITS APPLICATION,DATED 06.05.2014,MADE UNDER RU LE 29 OF THE ITAT, RULES,1963 ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES.IN THE APPL ICATION, IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED IN TO COST SHARING AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT,ON 0 9.03.2006,WITH OPTIMIX TECHNO -LOGY PVT.LTD.(OTPL)PURSUANT TO WHICH IT WAS AGREED THAT OTPL AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD SHARE EXPENDITURE ON COST SHARING BASIS FOR THE PREMISES TO BE HIRED,THAT OTPL HAD MADE PAYMENT RS. 1,29,44,540/-TOWARDS OFFICE LICENSE FEES OF THE PRE MISES TO THE VENDOR DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN TURN, THE ASSESSEE REIMBURSED OFFICE LICENSE FEES AMOUNTING TO RS.26,63, 899/- WITH RESPECT TO THE PART OF PREMISES OCCUPIED BY IT,THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO OTPL WAS IN NATURE OF PURE REIMBURSEMENT AND HENCE, NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE SAID PAYMENT,THAT THE AO DISALLOWED THE REIMBURSEMENT OF LICENSE FEES TO OTPL U/S.40(A)(I) ON THE GROUND THAT TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 194 OF THE ACT,THAT THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA)DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY WHE THER TAX WAS DEDUCTED AND UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF 14,84,572/-,THAT TO STRENGTHEN THE CLAIM,IT WANTED TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF T.D.S.CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY OTPL TO THE VENDOR WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENT MADE FOR OFFICE LICENSE FEES,THAT THE T.D.S. CERTIFICATE CLEARLY SHOWED THAT OTPL HAD DEDUCTED TAX U/S. 194-I OF THE ACT,WHILE MAKING PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,29,44,540/- TO THE VENDOR AND WHICH INCLUDES OFFICE LICENSE FEES REIMBURSED BY THE ASSE SSEE TO OTPL,THAT EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND SUPPORTED THE CLA IM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US,DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE(AR) OF THE ASSESSEE, REITERATED THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE APPLICATION.WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COPY OF TDS CERTIFICATE ONLY IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT TAX W AS DEDUCTED BY OPTL AND THE ASSESSEE HAD REIMBURSED ITS SHARE.IN OUR OPINION,IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AS FRESH EVIDENCE,AS IT IS VITAL TO DECIDE ONE OF THE ISSUES BEFORE US.HENCE,WE ADMIT THE NEW EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE,UNDER RULE 29 OF THE TRIBU NAL RULES. ITA NO.7842/MUM/2011- AY. 2008-09: 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ASSET M ANAGEMENT,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2008,DECLARING LOSS OF RS.35,35,12,947/-.AO F INALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 30.11.2010,DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.(-)29.89 CRORES. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADD ITION IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,17, 3 ITA NOS.7842 & 8050/M/2011 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 315/-MADE BY THE AO,U/S.14A OF THE ACT.DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED DIVIDEND OF RS.2,225/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT.HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME.HE WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A,AS PE R FORMULA PROVIDED IN RULE 8D AS UNDER: (I)DIRECT EXPENSES RS. NIL (II)INDIRECT EXPENSES RS. NIL (III)ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGERIAL EXPENSES BEING 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS AT RS.20,35,83,000/- RS. 10,17,315 RS. 10,17,315 IN THE ABOVE WORKING OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS THE AO CONSIDERED OPENING BALANCE OF INVESTMENTS AT RS.7.65 CRORES AND CLOSING BALANCE AT RS.33.06 C RORES.HE TOOK AVERAGE OF RS.20.35 CRORES FOR CALCULATING DISALLOWANCE AND APPLYING THE RATE OF 0.5% OF THE SAME,MADE AN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,17,315/-. 2.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME/RETURN OF INCOME IT HAD ALREADY DISALLOWED DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A AT RS.235/- ONLY B EING 0.5% OF THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAD OR WOULD YIELD EXEMPT INCOME,THAT THE AO IN THE WORKIN G U/S. 14A HAD CONSIDERED INVESTMENTS IN SCHEMES,THAT INCOME FROM SUCH SCHEMES WAS FULLY TAX ABLE,THAT ONLY INVESTMENTS YIELDING EXEMPT INCOME WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED TO COMPUTE THE AVERAGE INVESTMENTS.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R HE HELD THAT THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE ON INVESTMENTS WHICH HAD OR WOULD YIEL D TAXABLE INCOME,THAT THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS WERE APPEARING IN SCHEDULE 6 OF THE BAL ANCE SHEET.FAA,IN A CHART,GAVE DETAILS OF THOSE INVESTMENTS THAT WERE YIELDING EXEMPT AS WELL AS TAXABLE INCOME.TABLE READ AS UNDER: SN. PARTICULARS OPENING BAL.IN 000 CLOSING BAL.IN 000 1 ING VSYSA INCOME FUND -REGULAR YEARLY DIVIDEND OPTION 2 2 2 ING VSYSA INCOME FUND INSTITUTIONAL OPTION YEARLY DIVID END OPTION 2 2 3 ING VSYSA MIP PLAN A - YEARLY DIVIDEND OPTION 20 20 4 ING VSYSA MIP PLAN B - YEARLY DIVIDEND OPTION 20 20 5 ING VSYSA NIFTY PLUS - DIVIDEND OPTION 3 3 6 ING VSYSA INCOME FUND - SHORT TERM PLAN - GROWTH OPTION 66,819 3,127 7 ING VSYSA INCOME FUND INSTITUTIONAL PLAN - GROWTH OPTION 308 308 8 ING VSYSA INCOME FUND - INSTITUTIONAL - BONUS OPTION 2 2 9 ING VSYSA LIQUID FUND - GROWTH OPTION 5,307 41,998 10 ING VSYSA LIQUID FUND SUPER-INSTITUTIONAL PLAN - GROWTH OPTION 4,033 45,240 11 ING VSYSA LIQUID FUND - INSTITUTIONAL PLAN - GROWTH OPTION - 2,38,000 12 ING VSYSA LIQUID FUND SUPER-INSTITUTIONAL PLAN - GROWTH OPTION - 687 13 ING LIQUID PLUS SCHEME INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH OPTION - 1,256 TOTAL 76,516 3,30,655 AS PER THE FAA,IN THE ABOVE TABLE ONLY THE INVESTME NTS APPEARING AT SN.1 TO5 HAD YIELDED OR WOULD YIELD EXEMPT INCOME,THAT THE OTHER INVESTMENT S(APPEARING AT SN.6-13)WOULD YIELD TAXABLE INCOME,THAT THE SAID INVESTMENTS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR WORKING THE DISALLOWAN - CE U/S.14A OF THE ACT,THAT THE OPENING AND CLOSING BALANCES OF INVESTMENTS YIELDING EXEMPT 4 ITA NOS.7842 & 8050/M/2011 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. INCOME WORKED OUT AT RS.47,000/- ONLY,THAT 0.5% OF SAME WORKED OUT AT RS.235/- AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN RETURN/COMPUTATION OF INCOME .FINALLY,HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRECTLY WORKED OUT AND OFFERED DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IN RET URN OF INCOME,THAT SAME WAS STRICTLY AS PER FORMULA PROVIDED IN RULE 8D.HE DELETED THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY AO. 2.2. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ARGUED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.1 4A OF THE ACT R.W.RULE 8D WERE NOT APPLI - CABLE TO THE TAXABLE INCOME,THAT INCOME ARISING OUT OF VARIOUS SCHEMES WAS TAXABLE AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,THAT AO HAD APPLIED TH E RULE 8D WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE PROPERLY. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT R.W.RULE 8 D(2)(III).BUT,HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE MOST OF THE INVESTMENTS WERE OF THE CATEGORY THAT WOULD RESULT IN EARNING INCOME WHERE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO PAY TAXES.FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FACT THAT INCOME ARISING FROM THE INVEST MENTS APPEARING AT SERIAL NO.6 TO 13 WAS TAXABLE OR WOULD BE TAXABLE.IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IF AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS EXPENDITURE WITH REGARD TO EX EMPT INCOME.IF ANY ASSESSEE PAYS TAXES ON PARTICULAR ITEM OF INCOME AND CLAIMS CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE,SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED.IN LIGHT OF THE FINDING OF FACT GIVEN BY THE FAA,WE UP HOLD HIS ORDER AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1,FILED BY THE AO. 3. NEXT GROUND DEALS WITH DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .3,48,939/-UNDER THE HEAD DISALLOWANCE OF GROUP ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPEN SES OF RS.3.48 LAKHS IN THE P &L ACCOUNT. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,IT EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED ON BEHALF OF GROUP COMPANIES,THAT IT WAS EARNING INCOM E FROM THE GROUP COMPANIES,BUT,THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND HELD THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIM.HE MADE A DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.3,48,939/-. 3.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO,ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD INCU RRED EXPENSES TOWARDS SPONSORING PRASANNA RAO IN VARIOUS CHAMPIONSHIP,THAT SAID EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR PUBLICISING THE NAME OF ING AND BOOSTING COLLECTIONS UNDER VARIOUS SCHEMES OF ING MUTUAL FUND AND CONSEQUENTLY INCREASING THE MANAGEMENT FEE OF THE APPELLANT,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INFORMED THE AO, VIDE ITS LETTER DTD.16.11.2010 THAT IT HAD DEDUCTED TDS @ 1. 133% ON SUCH EXPENSES,THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS.AFTER CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INFORMED TO THE AO THAT IT HAD INCURRED EXPENSES TOWARDS SPONSORSHIP OF PRASANNA RAO IN VAR IOUS CHAMPIONSHIP AND IT HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON SUCH EXPENSES,THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALLOWED BY HIM IN THE APPEAL,FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,FOR AY.2006-07,THAT HE HAD HELD IN THAT APPEAL THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SPONSOR -SHIP WAS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE SINCE THERE WAS N O ELEMENT OF INCOME INCLUDED IN THE SAID EXPENSES. 3.2. BEFORE US,DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AR ARGUE D THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES,THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE PAYMENT MADE. 5 ITA NOS.7842 & 8050/M/2011 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07,FAA HAD DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT AGITATED THE MATTER BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL.THUS,THE ISSUE HAS ATTAINED FINALITY AS THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE FAA.TILL NE W AND DISTINGUISHING FACTS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD,ORDER OF THE FAA HAS TO BE TREATED AS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.UPHOLDING HIS ORDER, WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE AO. 4. NEXT GROUND DEALS WITH ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN R ESPECT OF MUTUAL FUND EXPENSES OF RS.3, 72,75,643/-.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED CERTAIN EXPENSES FOR MANAGING MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES IN ITS BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS,THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED EXPENSES,THAT WERE IN EXCESS OF 6% CEILING PROVIDED BY THE SEBI REGULATIONS,IN THE P & L ACCOUNT.AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF 6% CEILING WERE NOT APPELLANT COMPANYS LIABILITY,THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE UNDER THAT HEAD WAS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS AND HENCE NOT ALLOWABL E. 4.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO,ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE,VIDE LETTER DTD.16.11.2010,HA D EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT THE INITIAL ISSUE EXPENSES EXCEEDING 6% LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY SEBI WERE REQUIRED TO BE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEES ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY,AS PER SECTION 52(5)OF THE SEBI ACT.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R HE HELD THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.S. 2006-07 & 2007-08,THAT DECIDIN G THE APPEALS FOR THOSE YEARS HE HAD ALLOWED THE MUTUAL FUND SCHEME EXPENSES WHICH WERE IN EXCES S OF 6% LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY SEBI,THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BUSINESS E XPENSES AND WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 4.2. BEFORE US,DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AR ARGUE D THAT TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON THE APPEALS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT IN THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2006-07(ITA/2843/MUM/2011),WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO, TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 4.1.GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCO UNT OF MUTUAL FUNDS SCHEME EXPENSES OF RS.2,20,17,000/- U/S 37 OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF MANAGING OF VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS SCHEME S AND EACH OF THE MUTUAL FUND MAINTAINS A BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SEPARATELY IN COMPLIANCE OF WITH T HE PROVISIONS OF SEBI (MUTUAL FUND REGULATIONS 1996). THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN EXCESS OF 6% CEILING PROVIDED IN THE SAID ACT ARE DEBITED TO THE ASSESSEE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 52 OF THE SAID ACT. IN THIS R EGARD LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACTS RELATING TO THE QU ANTIFICATION AND PERCENTAGES. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE ON THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE BEFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ONLY LIMITED ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF 6 % CAN BE BOOKED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (5) OF SECTION 52 OF THE ACT AND OTHER DECISIONS IN FORCE. 4.2.BEFORE US LD. CIT-DR DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO CERT AIN ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF THE LD. CTT(A) THAT REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 52 OF THE SEBI REGULATIONS WE FIND THAT THE SAME READS AS UND ER: 6 ITA NOS.7842 & 8050/M/2011 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (5) ANY EXPENSE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN SUB- REGULATIONS (2) AND (4) SHALL BE BORNE BY THE ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY (OR TRUSTEE OR SPONSORS) LIKE THE ONE ABOVE, THERE ARE OTHER RESIDUAL PROVIS IONS IN THE SAID SECTION 52 OF THE SAID ACT THAT PROVIDES AND ENABLES THE AMC LIKE THE PRESENT ASSES SEE TO BEAR THE EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF THE SAID 6% LIMITATION. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ENABLING PROVISION FOR DEBITING THE EXPENSES ABOVE 6% LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER SEBI RULES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE; IN ADDITION AND IN SUBSTANCE, THE DECISIONS WHICH WERE CITED BY LD. COUNSEL, HELPS THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH,W E DECIDE GROUND NO.3 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE AO. 5. GROUND NO.4 IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AT RS.19,39,698/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE NOT INCURRED IN RELATION TO BUSI NESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN ASSET MANAGEMENT BUSINESS IN INDIA A ND THEREFORE,FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES WERE NOT REQUIRED.IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,AFTER CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,FAA HELD THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEALS FOR THE AY.S. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 AND 2006-07,2007-0 8. 5.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,IT WAS BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE EARL IER YEARS WHEREIN ISSUE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSE WERE AGITATED.WE FIND THAT IN THE APPEAL FO R THE YEAR 2006-07,FILED BY THE AO,TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 5.GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.1, 05,900/-AND ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT THE ADJUDICATION OF SIMILAR ISSUE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AX 2003-04 IN ITA NO 1571/MUM/08. IN THIS REGARD HE BROUGHT TO ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID, ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 29 TO 30 O F THE PAPER BOOK.IN PARTICULAR, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL READ OUT THE CONTENTS OF PARA 6.3, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6.3.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ME, AS ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 9,21,795/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAV ELING EXPENSES AND EXPENSES INCIDENTAL TO FOREIGN TRAVEL ARE DELETED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE WHERE NO SPECIFIC ADVERSE MATERIAL IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE AO. ON HEARING THE PARTIES AND AFTER PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING, THIS GROUND 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. AS THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE EARLIE R YEARS,SO,RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATING BENCH WE DECIDE GROUND NO.4 AGAINST TH E AO. 6. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL DEALS WITH DELETING THE ADDIT ION IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,13, 51,364/-UNDER THE HEAD INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES EXP ENSES.AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBIT - ED A SUM OF RS.1,84,56,364/- ON ACCOUNT OF INFORMAT ION TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS,THAT IT INCLUDED IT INFRASTRUCTURE FEES,AM OUNTING TO RS.71,05,000/-,ALSO.THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF SAID INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE,WHO SUBMITTED DETAILS VIDE LETTER DTD.16.1 1.2010.FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY IT,THE AO FOUND THAT EXPENSES COMPRISED OF ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS,INFORMATION SERVICE EXPENSES, INTERNET AND DATA COMMUNICATION CHARGES,INTERNET CH ARGES,ETC.VIDE LETTER DTD.16.11.2010 THE 7 ITA NOS.7842 & 8050/M/2011 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ASSESSEE FURTHER INFORMED TO THE AO THAT IN TODAYS TIME THE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES RAPIDLY AND THAT NO BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE COULD BE ACQUIRED ON PURCHASE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE OR RIGHT TO USE THE SAME,THAT THE SOFTWARE EXPENSES INCURRED BY IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ALTERNATIVELY,IT WAS PLEADED THAT DEPRECIATION @ 60 % ON THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.AO HELD THAT THE EXPENSES INCLUDED COMPUTER AND SOFTWA RE RELATED EXPENSES,COMPUTER MAINTENANCE AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT,INFORMATION SERVICE EXPENSE S AND INTERNET/DATA COMMUNICATION CHARGES, THAT THE EXACT NATURE OF THE EXPENSES WAS NOT EXPLA INED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE EXPENSES WAS ON PURCHASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENTS HENCE SAME WAS IN T HE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 6.1. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINE D THAT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT WERE ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING : INFORMATION SERVICE EXPENSES (1,06,28,214/-), COMPUTER MAINTENANCE AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT (71,05 ,000/-), INFORMATION SERVICE-MUTUAL FUND (4,23,000/-) AND INTERNET & DATA COMMUNICATION CHARGES (3,00,150/-). THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS,THE DETAILED BREAK-UP OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF EXPENS ES WAS PROVIDED TO THE AO,THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL REGARDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES EXPENSES WAS COVERED BY APPEAL ORDER OF A.Y. 2006-07 WHEREIN THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE WAS DELETED B Y FAA,THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO CONSISTED OF AMC CHARGES AT RS.32,15,865/- AND BALA NCE EXPENSES CONSISTED OF INTERNET CHARGES,TERMINAL-CHARGES,WEBSITE-MAINTENANCE-CHARGE S,SUPPORT-CHARGES,THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE REVENUE IN NATURE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIO N U/S. 37 OF THE ACT,THAT NO BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE CAN BE ACQUIRED ON PURCHASE OF UP-G RADATION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND EVER CHANGING TECHNOLOGY,THAT THE ISS UE WAS ALSO COVERED BY ORDER PASSED BY MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE OF A.Y.2004- 05 AND 2005-06 WHEREIN THE AO HAD DISALLOWED SOFTWARE LICENSE EXPENSES AND SOFTWARE D EVELOPMENT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE.THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PREJUDICE ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT ALTERNATIVELY DEPRECIATION @ 60% SHOULD BE ALLOWED FOR COMPUTER AND COMPUTER SOFTWAR E ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES INCURRED BY APPELLANT.FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR THE A Y.2007-08,FAA ALLOWED THE APPEAL WITH REGARD TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES EXPENSES. 6.2. BEFORE US,IT WAS ARGUED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DELI BERATED UPON IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO.WE FIND THAT TR IBUNAL,IN THE ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07,HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 6.GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO DISALL OWANCE OF NONTECHNICAL EXPENSES (IT EXPENSES) OF RS.1,53,92,923/-. IN THIS REGARD LD.C OUNSEL MENTIONED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004-05 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29/1/2011 WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. REFERRING THE SB DECISION IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISE, 111 ITD 1 12 (DEL)(SB), LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE REQU IRES REMANDING FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. FOR SUPPORTING THE ABOVE, LD. COUNSEL BROUGHT TO OU R ATTENTION PARA 14 TO 17 AND READ OUT THE FOLLOWING LINES: RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE S PECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES ON THIS ACCOUNT AND SEND BACK THE MATTER TO FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH O SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN 8 ITA NOS.7842 & 8050/M/2011 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) , AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6.1.FROM THE ABOVE CONTENTS OF THE PARA 17 IT IS EV IDENT THAT THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISE, 111 LTD 112 (DEL)(SB). TO THE EXTENT SUCH EXPENDITURE I S CLAIMED IN THIS YEAR ALSO, ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE SET ASIDE WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS. A .REFERRING TO THE CONTENTS OF PARA 6.3 OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER THE LD. COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE OTHER EXPENDITURE SUCH AS IT INFRAST RUCTURE SUPPORT EXPENSES AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CONSI DERING THE DECISION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. HE MENTIONED THAT , DESPITE THE SIMILARITY OF THE EXPENDITURE, THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLO WANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT AND FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AO DATED 30/11/2010. IN OUR OPI NION THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT DESERVES DELETION OF SUCH EXPENSES IN THIS YEAR ALS O CONSIDERING THE HOMOLOGY OF THE FACTS. B .REGARDING OTHER EXPENSES APPEARING IN THE TABLE AT PARA 6.3, BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO A ND AFTER EXAMINING THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES AND THE BUSINESS CONNECTIVITY.ON PERUSAL O F THE ORDERS WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DISCUSSION APPEARING IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS SPE AKING ORDER ON EACH OF SUCH GROUNDS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENESS AND BUSINESS NEXUS AND ALSO IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. C .IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER,WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLO W THE INSTRUCTION THAT WERE GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2006- 07.WE ALLOW GROUND NO.5 FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.8050/MUM/2011- AY. 2008-09: 7. ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT THE EXP ENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S.OPTIMIX TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.(OTPL)IN RESPECT OF OFFICE LICENSE FEES OF RS.26, 63, 899/-.SINCE NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED THEREON,THE AO ASKE D THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD BE NOT DISALLOWED.VIDE ITS LETTER DTD. 16.11.2010, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT OTPL WAS OCCUPYING PART OF THE PREMISES ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS,THAT IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND OTPL TO SHARE THE OFFICE LICENSE COST ON THE BA SIS OF FLOOR AREA,THAT OTPL PAID THE TOTAL AMOUNT TO THE VENDOR,THAT OTPL RECOVERED SHARE OF T HE ASSESSEE WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.26,63,899/-,THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO OTPL WAS IN THE NATURE OF PURE REIMBURSEMENT AND HENCE NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE SAID AM OUNT.THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE.HE HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF THE WORKING THAT IT WAS ME RELY REIMBURSEMENT AND THAT IT HAD PAID ONLY THE COST INCURRED BY THE HOLDING COMPANY,THAT THE P AYMENT MADE TO OTPL WAS IN THE NATURE OF EXPENSES COVERED BY SEC. 194C/ 194J OF THE ACT, THA T THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX ON SUM PAID TO OTPL TOWARDS THE LICENSE FEE.FINALLY,A SUM OF RS.26,63,899/- WAS DISALLOWED BY AO U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 9 ITA NOS.7842 & 8050/M/2011 M/S.ING INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 7.1. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REITERATING THE ARGUM - ENTS THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO OTPL WAS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR OCCUPYING PART OF THE PREMISES ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS,THAT NO TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,FAA HELD THAT IN THE AP PEAL FOR THE A.Y.2007-08,HE HAD UPHELD THE AOSACTION,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH REIMBURSEMENT OF OFFICE LICENSE FEES PAID TO OTPL.WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE FINDIN G,THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT IT HAD DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYME NT MADE TO OTPL AMOUNTING TO RS.11,79, 327/-.IF APPELLANTS CLAIM IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT,D ISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.11, 79,327/- SHOULD BE TREATED AS DELETED.IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE AND SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BY AO,HE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.2. BEFORE US,RELYING UPON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE,AR STATED THAT PAYMENTS MADE TO OTPL WAS PURE REIMBURSEMENT,THAT N O TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE FOR SUCH PAYMENT, THAT ASSESSEE HAD INADVERTENTLY DEDUCTED TAX ON RS. 14,84,572/-,THAT OPTL HAD DEDUCTED TAX ON RS.1.29 CRORES WHILE MAKING PAYMENT TO THE LAND LOR D OF THE PREMISES.WE HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE.I N OUR OPINION,TDS CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS FRESH ADJUDICATION.THEREFORE,IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,WE RESTORE BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO. HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING IN TO CONSIDERATIO N THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE US. SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. AS A RESULT,APPEALS FILED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. 3,4 $5, - 6 $5, + 7 8 + , 9:. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 28 TH MAY,2014. '1 + ./% 7 <'$ 28 , 2014 / + 0 = SD/- SD/- ( . . / H.L.KARWA ) ( ! / RAJENDRA ) / PRESIDENT '# '# '# '# /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, <'$ /DATE: 28 . 05.2014 SK '1 '1 '1 '1 + ++ + (,> (,> (,> (,> ?>%, ?>%, ?>%, ?>%, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / &' 2. RESPONDENT / ()&' 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / @ A , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / @ A 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / >B0 (,$ , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 0 3 )>, )>, )>, )>, (, (,(, (, //TRUE COPY// '1$ / BY ORDER, C / 9 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI