TITAN PHARMA (I) PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 7(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 810/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 81019914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHUTOSH RAJHANS
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH P SHAH
• Section: 28; 80HHC

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - H BENCH. . . , ! ! ! ! , '# '# '# '# BEFORE S/SH. H.L.KARWA, PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.810 & 811 /MUM/2011, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04 , 2004-05 TITAN PHARMA (I) PVT. LTD. 102, 1 ST FLOOR, TITAN HOUSE, MANUBHAI T. VAIDYA MARG, OFF 60FT ROAD, GHATKOPAR(E) MUMBAI-400077 VS. ITA 7(3)(3) R.NO. 617, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI- 400020 PAN: AABCT4146J ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) $ $$ $*+ *+ *+ *+ , , , , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HITESH P. SHAH # - , / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHUTOSH RAJHANS $ $ $ $ - -- - +. +. +. +. / DATE OF HEARING : 31-07-2013 /0% - +. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-08-2013 $ $ $ $ , 1961 - -- - 254(1) +1+ +1+ +1+ +1+ '2 '2 '2 '2 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM ALMOST IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS.)2003-04 AND 2004-05.THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL FOR THE AY.2003-04 READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING PROPER, REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE VARIOUS WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN DENYING TH E BONAFIDE DEDUCTION OF RS. 4,31,933/- U/S. 80HHC. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN DISREGARDI NG WELL SETTLED AND ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF RECOGNITION OF INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS , MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND PRINCIPLE OF MATCHING INCOME TO THE YEAR OF EXP ORTS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. A.O WERE NOT JUSTIFIED I N DISALLOWING CLAIM U/S. 80HHC IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS INCENTIVE IN THE FORM OF DEPB EN TITLEMENTS ACCOUNTED ON THE BASIS OF PROPER AND REGULARLY FOLLOWED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. A.O FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INCOME IN THE FORM OF DEPB BENEFITS ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT ON REALISATI ON OF EXPORTS PROCEEDS. 2 ITA NO. 810/MUM/2011 TITAN PHARMA (I) PVT. LTD. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. A.O ALSO FAILED TO APPRE CIATE THAT SALE/TRANSFER OF DEPB LICENSE WAS ONLY AN CONSEQUENT EVENT. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE LD. A.O. ABOUT RECALCULATION OF EXPORT PROFIT BASED ON DEPB LICENSE INCOME CONSIDERED BY THEM ON SALE/TRANSFER BASIS. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN ASSESSING THE BONAFIDE BUSINESS COMMISSION OF RS. 1,79,165/- UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO JUDICIOUSLY CONSIDER THE A DDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED FOR THE AY 2004-05 T HE DISPUTED AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS COMMISSIONIS RS.1.17 LACS, OTHERWISE ALL THE GROUN DS ARE SAME AS THAT OF LAST AY.AS THE ISSUES ARE COMMON,SO,FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE ARE PASSIN G A COMMON ORDER. DETAILS OF DATES OF FILING OF RETURNS,INCOMES RETUR NED,DATES OF ASSESSMENT,ASSESSED INCOMES, DATES OF ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)CAN BE SUMMARISED AS UNDER : DT.OF FILING OF RETURN RETURNED INCOME (RS.) DATE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSED INCOME (RS.) DT. OF ORDERS OF CIT(A) AY2003-04 28.11.2003 NIL 28.02.2006 2,05,927 03.09.2010 AY2004-05 01.11.2004 2,22,971 31.08.2007 4,63,168 03.09.2010 ITA/ 810/MUM/2011 -AY 2003-04 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPO RTS AND TRADING OF PHARMACEUTICALS.FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DENIAL OF DEDUC TION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,ASSESSING OFF ICER (AO) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT AT RS. 2.40 LACS.WH ILE GOING THROUGH THE FORM NO.10CCAC, AO FOUND THAT EXCESS CLAIM U/S. 80HHC WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE.A NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 10.07.2006 FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT, AS THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT.IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT WAS RE-WORKED. AO HELD THAT EXPORT PROFIT OF BU SINESS (TRADED GOODS) WAS A NEGATIVE FIGURE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED A LOSS OF RS. 2,47,8 97/- ON EXPORT OF TRADED GOODS, THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC HAD BEEN CLAIMED ONLY ON EXPORTS INCENTIVES.R EFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 (IIID) OF THE ACT,HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITL ED TO SET OFF OF THE ELIGIBLE LOSSES AGAINST THE AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN THE SAID SECTION. ACCORDINGLY ,HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT. 3. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R,HE HELD THAT ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KA LPATARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS (APPEAL NO. 2887 OF 2009).HE DIRECTED THE AO TO RECALCULATE THE DEDU CTION U/S. 80HHC WITH REGARD TO DEPB. 4. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFITS OF DEDUCTION OF RS.4.31 LACS U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT,THAT THE FAA HAD DISREGARD -ED THE PRINCIPLES OF RECOGNITION OF INCOME ON ACCR UAL BASIS,THAT DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S. 80HHC IN RESPECT OF EXPORT INCENTIVE IN FORM OF DEPB ENTI TLEMENT WAS NOT PROPER,THAT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DEPB BENEFITS HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON REA LISATION OF EXPORT RECEIPTS, THAT SALE/TRANSFER OF LICENCES WAS ONLY AND CONSEQUENT EVENT. HE RELIED U PON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF TOPMANN EXPORTS (78DTR 185 ).DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) 3 ITA NO. 810/MUM/2011 TITAN PHARMA (I) PVT. LTD. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE FAA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT HONBLE APEX COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF SALE OF DEPB EN TITLEMENTS AS UNDER: IT WILL BE CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS OF S. 28 THAT UNDER CL.(IIIB) CASH ASSISTANCE (BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED) RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY ANY PERSON A GAINST EXPORTS UNDER ANY SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA IS BY ITSELF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION DEPB IS A KIND OF ASSISTANCE GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO AN EXPORTER TO PAY CUSTOMS DUTY ON ITS IMPORTS AND IT/S RECEIVABLE ONCE EXPORTS ARE MADE AND AN APPLICATION IS MADE BY THE EXPORTER FOR DEPB. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT DEPB IS CASH ASSISTANCE RECEIVABLE BY A PERSON AGAINST EXPORTS UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND FALLS UNDER C L. (IIIB) OF S. 28 AND IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS OR PROFESSION EVEN BEFORE IT IS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE.UNDER CL.(IIID) OF S. 2 8,ANY PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AN D GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AS AN ITEM SEPARATE FROM CASH ASSISTANCE UNDER CL.(III B).THE WORD PROFIT MEANS THE GROSS PROCEEDS OF A BUSINESS TRANSACTION LESS THE COSTS O F THE TRANSACTION PROFITS THEREFORE, IMPLY A COMPARISON OF THE VALUE OF AN ASSET WHEN THE ASSET IS ACQUIRED WITH THE VALUE OF THE ASSET WHEN THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED AND THE DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN THE TWO VALUES IS THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT OR GAIN MADE BY A PERSON: AS DEPB HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE COST OF IMPORTS FOR MANUFACTURING AN EXPORT PRODUCT, ANY AMOUNT REALIZE D BY THE ASSESSEES OVER AND ABOVE THE DEPB ON TRANSFER OF THE DEPB WOULD REPRESENT PROFIT ON THE TRANSFER OF DEPB. THUS, WHILE THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB WILL FALL UNDER CL. (III B) OF S. 28, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE VALUE AND THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB WILL FALL UNDE R CL. (IIID) OF S. 28 AND THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT RIGHT IN TAKING THE VIEW IN THE IMPUGNED JU DGMENT THAT THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE DEPB REALIZED ON TRANSFER OF THE DEPB AND NOT J UST THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE VALUE AND THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB REPRESENT PROF IT ON TRANSFER OF THE DEPB. IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE IMPORT LICENSE IS SOLD THE E NTIRE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS PROFITS OF BUSINESS, THE HIGH COURT HAS VISUALIZED A SITUATION WHERE THE COST OF ACQUIRING THE IMPORT LICENSE IS NIL. THE COST OF ACQUIRING DEPB, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS NOT NIL BECAUSE THE PERSON ACQUIRES IT BY PAYING CUSTOMS DUTY ON THE IMPORT CO NTENT OF THE EXPORT PRODUCT AND THE DEPB WHICH ACCRUES TO A PERSON AGAINST EXPORTS HAS A COST ELEMENT IN IT. ACCORDINGLY, WHEN DEPB IS SOLD BY A PERSON, HIS PROFIT ON TRANSF ER OF DEPB WOULD BE THE SALE VALUE OF THE DEPB LESS THE FACE VALUE OF DEPB WHICH REPRESEN TS THE COST OF THE DEPB. THE HIGH COURT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DEPB REPRESENTS PART OF THE COST INCURRED BY A PERSON FOR MANUFACTURE OF THE EXPORT PRODUCT AND HENCE EVE N WHERE THE DEPB IS NOT UTILIZED BY THE EXPORTER BUT IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PERSON, THE DEPB CONTINUES TO REMAIN AS A COST TO THE EXPORTER. WHEN, - THEREFORE, DEPB IS TRANSFERRED BY A PERSON, THE ENTIRE SYM RECEIVED BY HIM ON SUCH TRANSFER DOES NOT BECOME HIS PROFITS. I T IS ONLY THE AMOUNT THAT HE RECEIVES IN EXCESS OF THE DEPB WHICH REPRESENTS HIS PROFITS ON TRANSFER OF THE DEPB. THE HIGH COURT HAS SOUGHT TO MEET THE ARGUMENT OF D OUBLE TAXATION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES BY HOLDING THAT WHERE THE FACE VALUE OF THE DEPB WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CREDIT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS BUSI NESS PROFITS, THEN ANY FURTHER PROFIT ARISING ON TRANSFER OF DEPB WOULD BE TAXED AS PROFI TS OF BUSINESS UNDER S. 28(IIID) IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER OF DEPB TOOK PLACE. THIS VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT IS CONTRARY TO THE LANGUAGE OF S. 28 UNDER WHICH CASH ASSISTANCE RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY ANY PERSON AGAINST EXPORTS SUCH AS THE DEPB AND PROFIT ON TRA NSFER OF THE DEPB ARE TREATED AS TWO SEPARATE ITEMS OF INCOME UNDER CLS. (IIIB) AND (III D) OF S. 28. IF ACCRUAL OF DEPB AND- PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB ARE TREATED AS TWO SEPARATE ITE MS OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER CLS. (IIIB)AND (IIID) OF S.28, THEN DEPB WILL BE CH ARGEABLE AS INCOME UNDER CL.(IIIB) OF S. 28 IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PERSON APPLIES FOR DEPB CR EDIT AGAINST THE EXPORTS AND THE PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF THE DEPB BY THAT PERSON WILL BE CHAR GEABLE AS INCOME UNDER CL.(IIID) OF S. 28 IN HIS HANDS IN THE YEAR IN WHICH HE MAKES THE TRAN SFER. ACCORDINGLY, IF IN THE SAME PREVIOUS 4 ITA NO. 810/MUM/2011 TITAN PHARMA (I) PVT. LTD. YEAR THE DEPB ACCRUES TO A PERSON AND HE ALSO EARNS PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF THE DEPB, THE DEPB WILL BE BUSINESS PROFITS UNDER CL. (IIIB) AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE VALUE AND THE DEPB (FACE VALUE), WOULD BE THE PROFITS ON THE TRANSFER OF DEPB UNDER CL.(IIID) FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR. WHERE, HOWEVER, THE DEPB ACCR UES TO A PERSON IN ONE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE TRANSFER OF DEPB TAKES PLACE IN A SUBSEQUEN T PREVIOUS YEAR, THEN THE DEPB WILL BE CHARGEABLE AS INCOME OF THE PERSON FOR THE FIRST AS SESSMENT YEAR CHARGEABLE UNDER CL. (IIIB) OF S. 28 AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEPB CREDIT AND THE SALE VALUE OF THE DEPB CREDIT WOULD, BE INCOME IN HIS HANDS FOR THE SUBSEQUENT AS SESSMENT YEAR CHARGEABLE UNDER CL. (IIID) OF S. 28.THE INTERPRETATION SUGGESTED ABOVE, THEREFORE, DOES NOT LEAD TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME, WHICH THE LEGISLATURE MUST BE PRESUMED TO HAVE AVOIDED. . FOLLOWING THE SAME,CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER IN THIS REGARD,IN THE CASE OF JACOB EXPORTS(137ITD117). FOLLOWING THE ABOVE,WE DIRECT THE AO TO RE-COMPUTE 80HHC BENEFITS IN RESPECT OF DEPB ENTITLEMENTS,AS T HE AO OR THE FAA DID NOT HAVE BENEFIT OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AT THE TIME WHEN TH EY HAD PASSED THE ORDERS.THEREFORE,IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,MATTER IS BEING RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION KEEPING IN MIND ABOVE REFERRED CASES I.E.TOPMANN EXPORTS AN D JACOB EXPORTS(SUPRA).HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD REASON -ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE BEFORE RE-COMPUTING ENTITLEMENTS. GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IN PART. 6. SECOND EFFECTIVE GROUND IS ABOUT BUSINESS COMMISSIO N OF RS. 1.79 LACS.WE FIND THAT WHILE PASSING ORDER FOR THE AY. UNDER CONSIDERATION THE A O HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING ABOUT THE SAID ITEM AND HAS ADDED RS.1,79,165/- TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES.WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,FAA HAS ALSO NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS.HE HAS JUST DISCUSSED THE GENERAL PRINCIP LES REGARDING CONCEPTS OF BUSINESS.IN OUR OPINION HE SHOULD HAVE PASSED A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL.IN THE CASE OF MANEKLAL D SHAH,(267ITR340)HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT HAS EMPHASISED THE IMPORTANCE OF A REASONED ORDER AS UNDER: GIVING REASONS IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ADMINIST RATION OF JUSTICE. A RIGHT TO REASON IS, THEREFORE, AN INDISPENSABLE PART OF SOUND SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW. REASONED DECISION IS NOT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE CITIZE N IS RECEIVING JUSTICE, BUT ALSO A VALID DISCIPLINE FOR THE AUTHORITY ITSELF. THEREFORE, STA TING OF REASONS IS ONE OF THE ESSENTIALS OF JUSTICE. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS ENJOINED AND IN CUMBENT UPON IT TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE: CONSIDER THE REASONING OF THE PRIMARY AUT HORITY AND ASSIGN ITS OWN REASONS AS TO WHY IT DISAGREES WITH THE REASONS AND FINDINGS OF T HE PRIMARY AUTHORITY. UNLESS ADEQUATE REASONS ARE GIVEN, MERELY BECAUSE IT IS AN APPELLAT E AUTHORITY, IT CANNOT BRUSH ASIDE THE REASONING OR FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE PRIMARY AUTHO RITY. THE ORDER SHOULD BE SELF- EXPLANATORY AND SHOULD NOT KEEP HIGHER COURT GUESSI NG FOR REASONS. THE REASONS PROVIDE LIVE LINK BETWEEN THE CONCLUSION AND EVIDENCE. THAT VITAL LINK IS THE SAFEGUARD AGAINST ARBITRARINESS. IT GIVES OPPORTUNITY TO THE HIGHER C OURT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT, THE SUBORDINATE COURT OF AUTHORITY OR THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL. 7. AS STATED EARLIER,THE FAA HAS NOT DEALT THE ISSUE O N MERITS,THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MATTER HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED IN PART IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A Y.2003-04 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA/ 811/MUM/2011 -AY 2004-05 8. BOTH THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE AY UN DER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND 5 ITA NO. 810/MUM/2011 TITAN PHARMA (I) PVT. LTD. OF APPEAL OF PREVIOUS AY.-EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION.WE HAVE RESTORED BOTH THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF AO.AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH AYS.ARE ALMOST SAME,SO,FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR THE AY.2003-04 WE RESTORE BOTH THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.2004-05 IS ALSO ALLOWED IN PART. AS A RESULT,APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.2003 -04 AND 2004-05 STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. * #3 $*+ - $ . . 2003-04 +& 2004-05 - 4 2 3 5 - + 67 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH AUGUST,2013 . '2 - /0% 4 8'$ 7 1#+ 0 - 1 9 SD/- SD/- ( . . - H.L.KARWA) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) / PRESIDENT '# '# '# '# /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8'$ /DATE: 7 TH AUGUST,2013 SK '2 '2 '2 '2 - -- - (+: (+: (+: (+: ;:%+ ;:%+ ;:%+ ;:%+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / &' 2. RESPONDENT / ()&' 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / < = , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / < = 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / :>1 (+$ , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 1 ? ):+ ):+ ):+ ):+ (+ (+(+ (+ //TRUE COPY// '2$ / BY ORDER, @ / 6 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI