ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI V. LOREAL INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 823/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8338 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 25-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJEET KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Wholly owned subsidiary; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.823 OF 2010 LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD MUMBAI PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'K' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.823/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) ACIT 6(3), ROOM NO.522, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 VS. LOREAL INDIA P. LTD, PENINSULA TOWERS, 2 ND FLOOR, PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK, GANPATRAO KADAM MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400013 PAN: AAACL 0738 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI AJEET KUMAR JAIN, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NEERAJ SHETH DATE OF HEARING: 25/10/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/10/2012 O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS IS A REVENUE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-15, MUMBAI, DATED 23.11.2009. 2. THE GROUND NO.1 IS AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING T HE EXPENDITURE OF ` .2,02,86,576/- INCURRED ON ADVERTISEMENT UNDER THE HEAD MEDIA-TECHNICAL IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAID EXP ENDITURE RESUTLED IN CREATING A BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE A ND THUS IS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN COSMETIC P RODUCTS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HA S INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF ` 2,02,86,576/- IN RESPECT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ITA NO.823 OF 2010 LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD MUMBAI PAGE 2 OF 8 UNDER THE HEAD MEDIA-TECHNICAL. AO DISALLOWED THE A MOUNT ON THE CONTENTION THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE (PRODUCTION CO ST OF FILM ETC) RESULTED IN CREATING A BENEFIT OF AN ENDURING NATUR E AND THOSE ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. BEFORE THE CIT (A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING A ND TRADING IN COSMETICS AND IN VIEW OF THE CUT THROAT COMPETITION ASSESSEE HAS TO COME OUT WITH NEW AND BETTER ADVERTISEMENT FILMS ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS AND THE EXPENDITURE IS IN THE NATURE REVENUE. ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS CASE LAW PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF M/S GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO. LTD, 180 TAXMAN 87 AND OTHER CASES TO SUBMIT THAT IT IS REVENUE IN NATURE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO. LTD (SUPRA) AND ALSO ITAT DECISION IN DCIT VS. METRO SHOES (P) LTD, 258 ITR 106 (AT) HELD THAT THE EXPEN DITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE. HE ALSO HELD THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN AY 2003-04 ALSO. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEV ED. 3. AT THE OUTSET BOTH COUNSELS AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN AY 2003-04 IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGA INST THE REVENUE BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.5423/MUM/2009 VIDE PARA 6 WHICH IS AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND ORDERS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW. WE OBSERVE THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY ID D.R. O N THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ALEMB IC CHEMICAL WORKS CO. LTD (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE , THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE STATED THAT THERE IS NO SINGLE DEFINITIVE CRITERION WHICH, BY ITSELF, IS DETERMINATIVE AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR OUTLAY IS CAPITAL OR REVENUE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE QUESTION OF EACH CASE AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IS CAPITAL OR REVENUE IN NATURE WOULD DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE. IT WAS HELD ITA NO.823 OF 2010 LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD MUMBAI PAGE 3 OF 8 THAT EVEN THE IDEA OF 'ONCE FOR ALL' PAYMENT AND 'E NDURING BENEFIT' ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS SOMETHING AKIN TO STATUTORY CONDITIONS; NOR ARE THE NOTIONS OF 'CAPITAL' OR 'RE VENUE' A JUDICIAL FETISH. IT WAS HELD THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE OUTLAY AND ITS INTENDED OBJECT AND EFFECT AN D TO CONSIDER IN A COMMONSENSE WAY HAVING REGARD TO BUSI NESS REALITIES. IN A GIVEN CASE, THE TEST OF 'ENDURING B ENEFIT' MIGHT BREAK DOWN. HOWEVER, THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CON SIDERED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO. LTD.(SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ID CIT(A). IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXP ENDITURE ON FILM PRODUCTION BY WAY OF ADVERTISEMENT IN THE MARK ETING PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY IT. THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PROMOTION FILMS, SLIDES, ADVERTISEMENT FILMS AND TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT TH E FILMS WERE IN THE FORM OF ADVERTISEMENT WHOSE LIFE TERM COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED AND, THEREFORE, THEY COULD NOT BE HELD AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE HI GH COURT IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RESPE CT OF PROMOTING ONGOING PRODUCTS OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFOR E, THE EXPENDITURE IS FOR PROMOTION OF THE PRODUCTS OF ASS ESSEE WHICH IS REVENUE IN NATURE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO TH E EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY ASSESSEE FOR PRODU CTION OF AD-FILMS, ADVERTISEMENT IN ELECTRONIC AND PRINT M EDIA, IN RESPECT OF PROMOTION OF ITS ON-GOING PRODUCTS. HE NCE, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN TREATED AS REVENUE IN NATURE BY CIT (A), WHICH WAS INCURRED BY ASSESSE E WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. WE , THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND REJECT THE GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, SINCE THE FACTS AR E SIMILAR AND AS CIT (A) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER IN THE ABOVE ASSESSM ENT YEAR, WE HOLD THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE REVENUE GROUND. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISM ISSED. 4. GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER: 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT THE RESALE PRICE METHOD (RPM) WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR DETERMINGING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICES OF ASSESSEE S ITA NO.823 OF 2010 LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD MUMBAI PAGE 4 OF 8 INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS OF FINISHED GOODS. 5. BRIEFLY STATED ASSESSEE IS A PART OF LOREAL GROUP WHICH IS ONE OF THE LEADING COSMETIC COMPANY IN THE WORLD AN D IS A 100% SUBSIDIARY COMPANY OF LOREAL SA FRANCE. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO NS WITH ITS ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISE: INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AMOUNT ( ` `` ` .) METHOD ADOPTED PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL 2,34,71,932 COST PLUS PURCHASE OF FINISHED GOODS 9,20,80,500 RESALE PRICE EXPORT OF FINISHED GOODS 4,04,510 COST PLUS EXPORT OF RAW MATERIAL 29,638 COST PLUS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES (PAYMENT) 67,09,968 CUP REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES (RECEIPT) 5,92,274 CUP PAYMENT OF MARKETING SERVICE COST 1,42,27,638 CUP PAYMENT OF SEMINAR & TRAINING CHARGES 3,03,933 TNMM PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS 88,196 CUP PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE 21,89,525 CUP 6. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) ON 21.12.2006 APPLYING TRANSA CTION NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATING TO PURCHASE OF FINISHED GOODS (BY REJECTIN G THE RESALE PRICE METHOD USED FOR DETERMINING ALP) AND RECOMPUTED THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF FINISHED GO ODS FOR DISTRIBUTION. HOWEVER, COST PLUS METHOD WAS ACCEPTED FOR PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIAL IN MANUFACTURING SEGMENT AND NO ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE ITA NO.823 OF 2010 LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD MUMBAI PAGE 5 OF 8 BECAUSE THE GROSS MARGINS OF ASSESSEE IN THE SAID S EGMENT WERE COMMENSURATE WITH THE GROSS MARGINS OF THE COMPARAB LE COMPANIES. THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED BY ASS ESSEE WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING DETERGENTS , SOAPS, COSMETICS ETC AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. NO A DJUSTMENTS WERE MADE ON OTHER TRANSACTIONS. THE TPO HAS MADE A N ADDITION OF ` 4,55,34,000 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. ASSESS EE HAS ON ITS DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT APPLIED RESALE PRICE METHOD WH EREIN IT EARNED A GROSS MARGIN OF 48.69% ON SALES AS AGAINST 24.27% ON SALES EARNED BY COMPARABLE COMPANIES. TPO HOWEVER, REJECT ED THE RPM AND APPLIED TNMM ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: A) ASSESSEE IS CONSISTENTLY INCURRING LOSSES IN IND IA AND HENCE THE PRICING POLICY IS NOT AT ARMS LENGTH B) GROSS MARGIN IN CASE OF COMPARABLE CASES CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BECAUSE OF PRODUCT DIFFERENCES OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. C) THE DEGREE OF SIMILARITY IN THE FUNCTIONS PERFOR MED, ASSETS EMPLOYED AND RISKS ASSUMED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES IDENTIFIED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE APPLICATION OF RESALE PRICE METHOD BUT IS S UFFICIENT FOR APPLICATION OF TNMM. D) ADJUSTMENT OF THE MARGIN/PROFITS OF ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 10B. BASED ON THE ABOVE REASONS THE RPM WAS NOT CONSIDER ED AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND THE TRANSACTION NET MAR GIN METHOD WAS APPLIED ON THE COMPANIES SELECTED BY ASSESSEE F OR THE YEAR PREVIOUS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. ACCORDINGLY THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE OPERATING MAR GIN OF ASSESSEE UNDER DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT WAS -12.78%, WH ICH WAS LESS ITA NO.823 OF 2010 LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD MUMBAI PAGE 6 OF 8 THAN THE AVERAGE PROFIT MARGIN OF COMPARABLE COMPAN IES OF 0.79% ON SALES. HENCE THE PROFIT MARGIN OF 0.79% ON SALES WAS APPLIED IN RESPECT OF DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT. THE TPO COMPUTED T HE ALP FOR THE PURCHASE OF FINISHED GOODS AT ` .4,65,47,000 AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL VALUE OF ` .9,20,81,000 AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF ` .4,55,34,000/-. 8. THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER ANALYZING THE ISSUE AND F OLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 UPHELD ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE RETAIL PRICE METHOD IS THE MOST APPROPRIAT E METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE TPO/AO FOR ` .45,53,34,000/-. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 9. AT THE OUTSET BOTH COUNSELS AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVEN UE BY THE ITAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 (SUPRA) (ITA NO.5423/MUM /2009) WHEREIN VIDE PARA 17, 18 & 19 THIS ISSUE WAS CONSID ERED AS UNDER: 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES, ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AS WELL AS TPO'S ORDER IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR T HE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, VIZ., A.Y. 2002-03 AS WE LL AS SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, REFERRED HEREINABOVE AND ALSO THE IT AT ORDER DATED 28.1.2011 (SUPRA). 18. THE ONLY QUESTION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS T O WHETHER TO DETERMINE ALP IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY RELAT ING TO DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AE IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY RPM OR TNMM. WE OBSERVE THAT TPO HAS APPLIED TNMM AND HAS SUGGESTED ADJUSTMENT OF ` 4,90,07 / OOO BY SHOWING DESIRED PROFITS MARGIN OF COMPARABLE COM PANIES AT 0.36% ON SALES AS THE OPERATING MARGIN OF THE AS SESSEE SHOWN IS (-) 19.84%. ACCORDINGLY, TPO COMPUTED THE ALP IN THE PURCHASE OF FINISHED GOODS AT ` 2,70,81,OOO AS AGAINST ACTUAL VALUE OF ` 7,60,88,729 SHOWN BY ASSESSEE. WE OBSERVE THAT TPO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED RPM F OR DETERMINING THE ALP FOR THE IMPORT OF FINISHED GOOD S. HE HAS ITA NO.823 OF 2010 LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD MUMBAI PAGE 7 OF 8 STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DETERMINED GROSS PROFIT MA RGIN BY TAKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COSTS OF PURCHASE OF VALU E OF SALES. ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN IN THE DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY WAS 40.80% VIS--VIS COMPARAB LE COMPANIES IDENTIFIED BY ASSESSEE, EARNED MARGIN OF 14.85%. HOWEVER, TPO SUGGESTED THAT AS PER RULE 10B(2) OF I NCOME TAX RULES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ALP, THE COMPARABLE TRANSACTION CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE MUST BE SIMI LAR TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN TERMS OF SIMILARITY IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRODUCT AND THE FUNCTIONS PE RFORMED, ASSETS EMPLOYED AND RISKS ASSUMED IN THE CONTROLLED TRANSACTION AND THE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION MUST A LSO BE SIMILAR. ACCORDINGLY, TPO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CO MPARABLE COMPANIES CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE ALSO STAT~ THAT RPM COULD BE AN APPROPRIATE METHOD ONLY WHEN THERE IS NO VALUE ADDITION UNDERTAKEN BY THE DISTRIBUTOR. THE T PO CONSIDERED THE SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES IN MARKETING AND STATED THAT THERE IS A VALUE ADDITION BY THE AS SESSEE AND THUS TNMM IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE TPO D ID NOT ACCEPT THE ADJUSTMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND, ACCORDINGLY, MADE THIS ADDITION . 19. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD D.R. ALSO SUPP ORTED THE METHOD CONSIDERED BY TPO AND REFERRED TO PARA 2.29 OF OECD PRICE GUIDELINES 2010 AS STATED HEREINABOVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, ID A.R. JUSTIFIED THE RPM METHOD ADOPTED BY I T AND ALSO REFERRED TO ORDER OF TPO IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T YEARS AS WELL AS SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT RPM IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO DETERMINE ALP. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ADJUSTMENT FOR MARKETING AND SELLING EXPENSES TO THE PROFITS TO MAKE IT COMPARABLE TO TH E COMPARABLE COMPANIES' PROFITS. WE AGREE WITH LEARNE D CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO ORDER OF PRIORITY OF METHODS TO DE TERMINE ALP. RPM IS ONE OF THE STANDARD METHOD AND OECD GUIDELIN ES ALSO STATES THAT IN CASE OF DISTRIBUTION AND MARKETING A CTIVITIES WHEN THE GOODS ARE PURCHASED FROM AES WHICH ARE SOL D TO UNRELATED PARTIES, RPM IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METH OD. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE BUYS PRODUCTS FROM ITS AES AND SELLS TO UN RELATED PARTIES WITHOUT ANY FURTHER PROCESSING. FURTHER, TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED CERTIFICATES FROM ITS AES THAT MA RGIN EARNED BY AES ON SUPPLIES TO ASSESSEE IS 2% TO 4% O R EVEN LESS. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE ABOVE CER TIFICATES. THEREFORE, THE TPOS CONTENTION THAT AES HAVE EARNE D HIGHER PROFIT IS NOT BASED ON FACTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE AGREE WITH ITA NO.823 OF 2010 LOREAL INDIA PVT. LTD MUMBAI PAGE 8 OF 8 THE LEARNED CIT (A) THAT THE MARGIN OF PROFIT EARNE D BY AES THEMSELVES IS ALSO REASONABLE AND THEREFORE, IT COU LD NOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS SHIFT OF PROFITS BY ASSESSEE TO ITS AES AT OVERSEAS. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALS O THE ORDER OF TPO THAT RPM METHOD HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE PRE CEDING AS WELL AS SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRM ITY WITH THE ORDER OF ID CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 4,90,07,OOO MADE BY THE AO. GROUND NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF ID CIT(A). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, SINCE THE FACTS AR E SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER YEARS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO DIFFER F ROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY THE REVENUE GROUND IS DISMISSE D. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED OCTOBER, 2012. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, K BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI