ADIT (IT) - 3(1), MUMBAI V. M/s. HARVARD MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL. INC., USA, MUMBAI

ITA 827/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1118 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L1
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHITAL BAND
• Keywords: Business income; Permanent establishment; Advance ruling; Wrong claim

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH L-1 MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYAR AGHAVAN (JM) ITA NOS.826 & 827/MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS-2000-01 & 2001-02 THE ADIT(IT)3(1), SCINDIA HOUSE, 1 ST FLOOR, N.M. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 038 VS. M/S. HARVARD MEDICAL INTL. INC., USA C/O RSM & CO., AMBIT RSM HOUSE, 449, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 013 PAN-AABCH 2171F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.S. SRIVASTAVA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI DHANESH BAFNA SHRI KANCHUN KAUSHAL & MS. SHITAL BANDEKAR O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) XXXIII DT. 30.11.2007 IN T HE MATTER OF PENALTIES U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 & 2 001-02. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN THESE APPEALS, THESE WERE HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO. 826/M/2008- A.Y. 2000-01 2. THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y., THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN O F INCOME ON 31.10.2001 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME AT NIL. THE AS SESSEE I.E. M/S. HARVARD MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL (HMI) HAS CLAIMED THA T IT IS A NON- ITA NOS. 826 & 827M/08 2 PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ENTITY SET UP IN THE UNITED STAT ES OF AMERICA (USA) EXCLUSIVELY TO PERFORM INTERNATIONALLY CERTAIN EDUC ATIONAL AND CHARITABLE FUNCTIONS. DURING THE YEAR HMI HAD RECE IVED US $ 3,25,000 FROM MAX INDIA LTD. FOR RENDERING SUCH SER VICES, FACILITIES ETC. AS PER THE AGREEMENT. THIS RECEIPT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPT U/S. 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT BEIN G NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ENTITY SET UP IN USDA AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION WITH DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E XEMPTION) SEEKING THE NECESSARY APPROVAL IN THIS MATTER. IT IS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE THE INCOME OF US $ 3,25,000 IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX F OR THE REASON MENTIONED ABOVE AND THEREFORE, NOT INCLUDED IN TAXA BLE INCOME. IN ADDITION TO THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED US $ 94,875 WHICH REPRESENTS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE AND, THEREF ORE, STATED TO BE NOT TAXABLE. 3. THE JDIT WHILE PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S. 27 1(1)(C) HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN FACT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITIONS ON TWO COUNTS. (I) TREATED THE FEES RECEIVED FROM MAX INDIA AS ROYALTY AND (II ) TREATED THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES RECEIVED AS ROYALTY. WIT H REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FIRST GROUND, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF AO AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SECOND GROUND , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE DEPART MENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) AND FILED APPEA L BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. FURTHER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, TH E AO MADE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSES SEE VIS--VIS THE AGREEMENTS AND PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME AND THEREBY CONCEALED THE INCOME. FURTHER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT MERE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES TO THE RETURN CANNOT MITIGA TE THE ASSESSEES ATTEMPT TO PUT UP A WRONG CLAIM OF NON-TAXABILITY. IN A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSURE IN PAR T-III OF THE RETURN OF INCOME (I.E. PART CONTAINING DETAILS OF I NCOME CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT), THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VIDYAGAURI NATVARLAL (238 ITR 91) HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBTERFUGE FOR DECLARING CONCEALED INCOME BY G IVING SOME INNOCUOUS DESCRIPTION, SO AS TO MISLEAD THE AO, WHI LE AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO AVOID PENALTY, IF FOUND TAXABLE. WH AT IS REALLY CONCEALED INCOME OR WHAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN TAXABLE BUT DISGUISED AS NOT TAXABLE WOULD NOT BE LEGITIMATELY CONSIDERED AS DISCLOSURE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS MENTIONED IN PART I II OF THE RETURN. ITA NOS. 826 & 827M/08 3 4. THE JDIT HELD THAT EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 271(1)( C) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IN THIS CASE THE RETURN WAS FILED SHOWING NIL INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBST ANTIATE THE RETURN FILED SHOWING NIL INCOME AND ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,81,92,537/- AND JDIT THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CONSCIOUS ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME AND HENCE L EVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 27,28,88 1/-. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI BAFNA SUBM ITTED A COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 4659/M/0 5 FOR A.Y. 2000-01 WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS DISCUSSED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION ON THE FIRST GROUND W.R. TO THE AO TREATING THE FEES RECEIVED FR OM MAX INDIA AS ROYALTY WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ADVANCE RULING PETITIO N NO. P-6 OF (1995) 234 ITR 371 WAS A CASE WHERE ADMITTEDLY THER E WAS A SITUATION WHERE TECHNOLOGY WAS MADE AVAILABLE. SO ALSO IN THE CASE OF ADVANCE RULING P.NO. 13 OF 1995 228 ITR 487. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CESC LTD. (SUPRA) ACTUA LLY SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) INDEED ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE MONIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM MAX INDIA LD. CONSTITUTE FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES W ITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12(4) OF THE INDIA-US TREATY, AN D ARE ACCORDINGLY LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN INDIA. SINCE, TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA, THE INCOME SO ARISING TO THEM IN INDIA CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER ARTICLE 7 AS BUSINESS PROFITS EITHER. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. 6. WITH RESPECT TO SECOND ADDITION THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS AS FO LLOWS: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) THOUGH AGREEING IN PRINCIPLE THAT REIMBURSEM ENT OF EXPENSES RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES R ENDERED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME HOWEVER ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ITA NOS. 826 & 827M/08 4 ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE REIMBURSE MENT OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE OF US$ 94,875 ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SAME , WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTI ATE ITS CLAIM 7. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AT PARA 2 0 AS FOLLOWS: BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT INVOICE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WOCKHARDT LT D. WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 96-97 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK A ND THE INVOICE RAISED ON MAX INDIA LTD AT PAGE 98 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. PERUSAL OF THESE INVOICES SHOWS THAT T HE PAYMENT OF US$ 75,000 BY WOCKHARDT LTD. IS RELATED TO TRAVE L AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECT EXPENSES AND LEGAL EXPENSES. AS FAR AS PAYMENT OF MAX IS CONCERNED, IT HAS DESCRIPTION OF TRAVEL COST BILL AS PER THE AGREEMENT. IN OUR VIEW, AFORESAID DOCUMENTS PRIMA FACILE SHOWS THAT THEY WERE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. WE ARE HOWEVER OF THE VIEW THAT THESE DO CUMENTS WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH CASE OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE WERE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE ACTUALLY TO BE INCURRED BY WOCKHARDT LD. AND MAX RESPECTIVELY. IT HAS TO BE F URTHER ESTABLISHED THAT THESE RECEIPTS ARE NOT ADJUSTED AG AINST ANY PAYMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO RECEIVE UNDER AGR EEMENT TO PROVIDE SERVICES. SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSEE ESTAB LISHING THAT THESE RECEIPTS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RECEIPTS FOR RENDERING VARIOUS SERVICES UNDER THE AGREEMENT WITH WOCKHARDT LTD. & MAX AND SUBJECT TO FURTHER PROOF THAT THESE EXPENSE S WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE; BUT WERE TO BE INCURRED B Y WOCKHARDT & MAX, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO C LAIM DEDUCTION. WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE TO RESTO RE THIS ISSUE TO THE AO WITH LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO LET IN AP PROPRIATE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD BEFORE THE AO. FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. WE FIND THAT THE FIRST ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL AND WITH RESPECT TO THE SECO ND ADDITION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E AO. THEREFORE THIS APPEAL IMPOSING PENALTY HAS NO LEGS TO STAND AN D THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 271 (1) BEFORE US IS ITA NOS. 826 & 827M/08 5 ALLOWED. THEREFORE WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S . 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND ADDITION, THE ISSUE H AS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO, THEREFORE PENALTY LEVIED ON THI S ADDITION ALSO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 827/M/2008- A.Y. 2001-02 11. THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y., THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN O F INCOME ON 31.10.2001 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME AT NIL. THE AS SESSEE I.E. M/S. HARVARD MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL (HMI) HAS CLAIMED THA T IT IS A NON- PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ENTITY SET UP IN THE UNITED STAT ES OF AMERICA (USA) EXCLUSIVELY TO PERFORM INTERNATIONALLY CERTAIN EDUC ATIONAL AND CHARITABLE FUNCTIONS. DURING THE YEAR HMI HAD RECE IVED US $ 11,75,000 FROM MAX INDIA LTD. FOR RENDERING SUCH SE RVICES, FACILITIES ETC. AS PER THE AGREEMENT. THIS RECEIPT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPT U/S. 10(23C)(VI) OF THE ACT BEIN G NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ENTITY SET UP IN USDA AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION WITH DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E XEMPTION) SEEKING THE NECESSARY APPROVAL IN THIS MATTER. IT IS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE THE INCOME OF US $ 11,75,000 IS NOT SUBJECT TO TAX FOR THE REASON MENTIONED ABOVE AND THEREFORE, NOT INCLUDED IN TAXA BLE INCOME. IN ADDITION TO THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED US $ 12,057 WHICH REPRESENTS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE AND, THEREF ORE, STATED TO BE NOT TAXABLE. 12. THE JDIT WHILE PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S. 2 71(1)(C) HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN FACT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITIONS ON TWO COUNTS. (I) TREATED THE FEES RECEIVED FROM MAX INDIA AS ROYALTY AND (II ) TREATED THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES RECEIVED AS ROYALTY. WIT H REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF FIRST GROUND, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ITA NOS. 826 & 827M/08 6 DECISION OF AO AND DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SECOND GROUND , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE DEPART MENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) AND FILED APPEA L BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. FURTHER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, TH E AO MADE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSES SEE VIS--VIS THE AGREEMENTS AND PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME AND THEREBY CONCEALED THE INCOME. FURTHER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT MERE DISCLOSURE IN THE NOTES TO THE RETURN CANNOT MITIGA TE THE ASSESSEES ATTEMPT TO PUT UP A WRONG CLAIM OF NON-TAXABILITY. IN A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSURE IN PAR T-III OF THE RETURN OF INCOME (I.E. PART CONTAINING DETAILS OF I NCOME CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT), THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VIDYAGAURI NATVARLAL (238 ITR 91) HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBTERFUGE FOR DECLARING CONCEALED INCOME BY G IVING SOME INNOCUOUS DESCRIPTION, SO AS TO MISLEAD THE AO, WHI LE AT THE SAME TIME TRYING TO AVOID PENALTY, IF FOUND TAXABLE. WH AT IS REALLY CONCEALED INCOME OR WHAT WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN TAXABLE BUT DISGUISED AS NOT TAXABLE WOULD NOT BE LEGITIMATELY CONSIDERED AS DISCLOSURE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS MENTIONED IN PART I II OF THE RETURN. 13. THE JDIT HELD THAT EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 271(1) (C) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IN THIS CASE THE RETURN WAS FILED SHOWING NIL INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBST ANTIATE THE RETURN FILED SHOWING NIL INCOME AND ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,57,79,801/- AND JDIT THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CONSCIOUS ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME AND HENCE L EVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 83,66,97 0/-. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI BAFNA SUB MITTED A COPY OF THE ORDER IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 4660/M/0 5 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 WHEREIN THE ITAT HAS DISCUSSED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION ON THE FIRST GROUND W.R. TO THE AO TREATING THE FEES RECEIVED FR OM MAX INDIA AS ROYALTY WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN TH E APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO TAXABILITY OF RECEIP T BY THE ITA NOS. 826 & 827M/08 7 ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR FROM MAX INDIA LT D. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2000-0 1, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MAX IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF FIS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN INDIA. FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, WE HOLD THA T RECEIPT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MAX C ANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN INDIA. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 15. WITH RESPECT TO SECOND ADDITION THE GROUND RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS AS FOL LOWS: IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IN DIRECTING TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. 16. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AT PARA 31 AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. CLAUSE (9)(V II) & (VII) OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 1.3.1999 BETWEEN THE ASS ESSEE AND MAX INDIA LTD. CLEARLY CONTEMPLATES THAT THE FEES P AYABLE BY MAX INDIA LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INCLUSIVE OF DIRECT COST OF DISBURSEMENT WITH REGARD TO TRAVEL, BOARDING AND LO DGING COST OF ASSESSEES PERSONNEL. THUS, IT IS CLEAR FROM TH E AGREEMENT THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNE CTION WITH ITS PERSONNEL FOR RENDING SERVICES TO MAX INDIA LTD . LIKE TRAVEL, BOARDING AND LODGING COST SHALL NOT FORM PART OF TH E CONSIDERATION PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RENDERING SERVICES. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE AFORES AID REIMBURSEMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. EVEN OTHER WISE THESE PAYMENTS EVEN IF CONSIDERED AS CONSIDERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR INCLUDED SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE PE IN INDIA; AND THEREFORE T HE AFORESAID SUM CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIS MISS GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 17. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE ADDITIONS IN QUANTUM APPE AL HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN QUANTUM BY THE TRIBUNAL, THIS APPEAL HA S NO LEGS TO STAND ITA NOS. 826 & 827M/08 8 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) BEFORE US IS ALLOWED. THEREFORE WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 16 TH JULY, 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR L-1 BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NOS. 826 & 827M/08 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 7.7.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 8.7 .2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/ PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______