ACIT 8(3) (OSD), MUMBAI V. ISMART PANACHE (I) SOLUTIONS P, LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 8425/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84449 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACCHIDANAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JM ./ I.T.A. NO.8425/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) DY. CIT-8(2), ROOM NO. 216A OR 209, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, NR. CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. ISMART PANACHE (I) SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. UNIT NO. 101/102, BUILDING NO.5, SECTOR-III, MILLENNIUM BUSINESS PARK, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI-400 709 ! ./' ./PAN/GIR NO. AABCL 3879 P ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) !# & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SACCHIDANAND DUBEY $%!# & ' / RESPONDENT BY : NONE ( ) & * + / DATE OF HEARING : 03.12.2014 , -. & * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.12.2014 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 19.08.2010, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 08.12.2009. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION STANDS REC EIVED. THIS IS DESPITE DUE AND ADEQUATE NOTICE, WHICH IN THE LAST INSTANCE WAS ON 15.10.2014. THE SAME WAS PER NOTICE BOARD OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS WELL AS THROUGH ITS WEBSI TE, CARRYING THE DETAILS OF ALL POSTINGS, 2 ITA NO. 8425/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) DY. CIT VS. ISMART PANACHE (I) SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. WHICH SERVES AS A CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION BY THE R EGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE LITIGANTS. IN FACT, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO APPEARANCE THROUGHOUT BY THE ASSESSEE EVER SINCE THE FILING OF THIS APPEAL ON 03 .12.2010. THE NOTICE FOR 07.08.2012 SENT THROUGH RPAD BY THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL AT THE ADDRESS SPECIFIED IN FORM 36 (WHICH IS THE SAME AS THAT SPECIFIED IN FORM 35, I.E., THE APPEAL MEMO BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY), HAD COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARK LEFT ADDRESS. SEVERAL ATTEMPTS THEREAFTER (FOR HEARING ON 18.10.2012, 19. 08.2013, 28.10.2013, 07.04.2014 AND 21.05.2014) TO SERVE THE NOTICES THROUGH THE DEPART MENT HAVE ALSO FAILED. THE REVENUE HAS IN FACT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 07.04.2014 COMMUN ICATED ITS INABILITY TO, IN VIEW OF THE NOTICES AT BOTH THE ASSESSEES ADDRESSES ON ITS RE CORDS BEING UN-RESPONDED TO; HAVING RETURNED BACK UN-SERVED, CAUSE SERVICE. NO CHANGED ADDRESS HAS ALSO BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND NEITHER HAS ANY LETTER OF AUTHORITY ( LA) IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL BEEN FILED BY IT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS ONLY CONSIDE RED PROPER THAT THE MATTER BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTY BEFORE US. THE PU RVIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT MAY BE APPRECIATED, IS TO DECIDE AN APPEAL BEFORE IT ON ME RITS, I.E., IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW (REFER, INTER ALIA, AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (BOM)(FB); BPCL LTD. VS. ITAT [2013] 359 ITR 371 (BOM)). 3. THE SOLE ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL, AG ITATED PER ITS TWO GROUNDS BY THE REVENUE, IS A DIRECTION BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR COMPU TING THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT WITHOUT SETTING OFF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECATION FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR RETURNED PROFITS ON ITS TWO UNITS, NAM ELY, THE GURGAON AND MUMBAI UNIT, CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.10A QUA BOTH. THE MUMBAI UNIT, THOUGH OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TH ERE- FOR, WAS DENIED DEDUCTION U/S.10A AS PRODUCTION HAD NOT LEGALLY COMMENCED IN THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK, SO THAT IT IS FOR THE CUR RENT YEAR NOT AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING, I.E., U/S.10A, AND ITS INCOME THEREFORE NOT ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION THERE-UNDER - WHICH FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. FOR THE GURGAON UNIT, THE DEDUC TION WAS ALLOWED BY ADJUSTING ITS BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES, I.E., FOR A.Y. 2006-07, FOL LOWING THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. S. THIAGARAJAN [1981] 129 ITR 115 (MAD) AND MEHBOOB PRODUCTIONS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 758 (BOM). 3 ITA NO. 8425/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) DY. CIT VS. ISMART PANACHE (I) SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE, AMONG OTHERS, RAISED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A THUS, I.E., AFTER ADJUSTING THE BROUGHT FOR WARD LOSSES OF THE GURGAON UNIT AGAINST ITS PROFITS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR PRIOR TO ALLOWING DEDUCTION THERE-UNDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SEVERAL DECISIONS, AS IN SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INDIA TECHNOLOGY (P.) LTD. VS. ASST. CIT [2010] 2 ITR (TRIB) 66 (CHENNAI)(SB)[129 TTJ 273]; CHANGEPOND TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT [2008] 119 TTJ 13 (CHEN); AND HINDUSTAN UNILIVER LTD. VS. DY. CIT [2010] 325 ITR 102 (BOM) [191 TAXMAN 119]. CONSIDER ING THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) NOT TO FACTOR THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS (I.E., OF THE GURGAON UNIT, BROUG HT FORWARD FROM A.Y. 2006-07), IN COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A. AGGRIEVED, THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTY BEFORE US, AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE SUMMARIZED AT PARA 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH , ALONG WITH HIS DECISION AT PARA 5.3 THEREOF, IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5.2 THE AR. SUBMITTED THAT ITAT CHENNAI C SPECI AL BENCH IN SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INDIA TECHNOLOGY PARK (P) LTD. V S. ACIT HAS INTER ALIA HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH SECTION 10A UNDER CHAPTER III , IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SECTION ITSELF THAT WHAT IS TO BE GIVEN IS O NLY A DEDUCTION AND NOT EXEMPTION. A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS ELIGIB LE U/S.10A IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AT THE STAGE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND NOT FROM THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. SECTION 80AB APPLIES TO DEDUCTION MENTIONED IN CHAP TER VIA, SECTION 10A DOES NOT FALL IN CHAPTER VIA, AND HENCE SECTION 80A B CANNOT BE APPLIED TO SECTION 10A. IT CAN BE NOTICED FROM THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 10A(1) THAT A DEDUCTION OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS THAT ARE DERIVE D BY 'AN' UNDERTAKING, QUALIFY U/S.10A FOR DEDUCTION FROM THE TOTAL INCOME . IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MORE THAN ONE UNDERTAKING, ONE HAS TO CONSIDER THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THAT PARTICULAR UNDERTAKING WHICH QUALIFIES FOR DE DUCTION U/S.10A. AGAIN SECTION 10A(4) USES THE WORDS 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING' AND NOT TOTAL PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 'UNDERTAKING' AND THE 'ASSE SSEE' IS WELL-KNOWN AND HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR F.NO.15 /563 DATED 13.12.1963. THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A ATTACHES TO THE U NDERTAKING AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE LOSSES OF UNIT WHICH IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE UNIT W HICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.10A THE LOSS OF THE NON-ELIGIBLE UNIT CAN BE SET-OFF AGAINST 4 ITA NO. 8425/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) DY. CIT VS. ISMART PANACHE (I) SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. OTHER INCOMES OR MAY BE CARRIED FORWARD. THE DECISI ONS IN CHANGEPOND TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT [119 TTJ] AND THE DE CISION IN HINDUSTAN UNILIVER LTD. VS. DCIT 1 (1) [191 TAXMAN 119] (BOM) WHICH HELD THAT LOSS SUSTAINED BY AN EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT CAN BE SET-OFF AGAINST NORMAL BUSINESS INCOME WAS RELIED UPON. 5.3 THE SUBMISSION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. IT HAS BEE N HELD IN FORD BUSINESS SERVICE CENTRE (P) LTD. VS. ACIT [114 TTJ 881] (MAD), CHANGEPOND TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD. VS. ACIT [22 SOT 220 ] (CHENNAI), IIC TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. VS. DCIT TIOL 299 ITAT (HYD), MAX HEALTHSCRIBE LTD. VS. ITO TIOL 534 (BANG), KPIT CUMMINS INFO SYS TEMS (BANGLORE) P. LTD. VS. ACIT [26 SOT 529], DCIT VS. VIRAT INDUSTRI ES ITA NO.3598/AHD/2008 DT.02.01.2009 THAT UNABSORBED DEPR ECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS SHOULD NOT BE FACTORED 'IN THE COMPUT ATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A. RELYING ON THE SAME THE A.O. IS DIRECTED T O RE-COMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S.10A WITHOUT SET-OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF A.Y.2005-07. WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), RELYING ON THE DECISION BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INDIA TECHNOLOGY PARK (P.) LTD . (SUPRA). AFTER A REVIEW OF CASE LAW, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL PER THE SAID DECISION BY ITS LARGER BENCH, THAT THOUGH ORIGINALLY ENACTED AS AN EXEMPTION PROVISION, IN TH AT THE PROFITS AND GAINS DID NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AT ALL, THE SUBSEQUENT AME NDMENTS, AS BY WAY OF SUBSTITUTION BY FINANCE ACT 2000, HAVE ALTERED ALL ITS CHARACTER T O A DEDUCTION PROVISION, EVEN AS IT CONTINUES TO FALL UNDER CHAPTER III OF THE ACT. THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT A DEDUCTION UNDER THE SECTION IS TO BE GIVEN, WHICH SHALL BE AT THE S TAGE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE INCOME OF AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING, I.E., TO THE EXTENT IT IS NOT FULLY DEDUCTIBLE, WOU LD NOT GO TO FORM THE PART OF THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER VIA. THERE WOULD ACCORDINGLY B E NO AGGREGATION OF INCOME U/C. VI OF THE ACT, AND ITS INCOME, TO THE EXTENT TAXABL E, WOULD BE SO ON A STAND-ALONE BASIS. THE SAME, THUS, SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AN D NOT THAT OF THE ASSESSEE . DEDUCTION U/S.10A IS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE PROFITS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING ELIGIBLE UNDER THE SAID SECTION AND, THEREFORE, IS TO BE COMPUTED ON A STAN D-ALONE BASIS. SECTION 10A, AS ALSO THE OTHER SECTIONS FALLING UNDER CHAPTER III OF THE ACT , AS SECTION 10B, ETC. FORMS A COMPLETE CODE IN ITSELF. SECTION 10A(6), RELIED UPON BY THE A.O., IS A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE, WHICH 5 ITA NO. 8425/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) DY. CIT VS. ISMART PANACHE (I) SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. PROVIDES, AMONG OTHERS, DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE AND LOSS, IN-SO-FAR AS IT RELATES TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR ENDING BEFORE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2 001, AS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FOR THE SAME YEAR ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID ALL OWANCE/LOSS WOULD NOT BE CARRY FORWARD AND, CONSEQUENTLY , THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE SECTION QUA AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING FOR ANY YEAR ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS FOR THAT YEA R ONLY. FURTHER, AS APPARENT, THE LIMITATION TO THE SAID LEGAL FICTION IS IN RESPECT OF SUCH CLAIMS RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR ENDING BEFORE 01.04.2001, I.E., UP TO A.Y. 200 0-01. THE UNABSORBED LOSS AND DEPRECIATION FOR THE ELIGIBLE (GURGAON) UNIT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS ADMITTEDLY FOR A.Y. 2006-07. IT IS ACCORDINGLY NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY AND HOW THE SAME WOULD NOT STAND TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PROFITS DERIVED BY THE SAID UNIT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IN ARRIVING AT THE DEDUCTION THERE-UNDER. THE MATTER C AN ACCORDINGLY BE SAID TO BE COVERED BY THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. AR HIMSELF, VIZ. SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA INDIA TECHNOLOGY PARK (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) - WHICH BEING BY A LARGER BENCH WOULD ALSO SUPERSEDE ANY CONTRARY VIEW BY A DIVISION BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS WELL A S BY THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HIMETASINGIKE SEIDE LTD . [2006] 286 ITR 255 (KAR). AS EXPLAINED PER THE SAID DECISIONS, THE INC OME OF AN ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING, BEING A CHAPTER III INCOME, WOULD NOT ENTER THE COMPUTATION PROCESS, SO THAT IT WOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. AS SUCH, TO THE EXT ENT IT IS TAXABLE, AS WHERE A PART OF THE TURNOVER IS DOMESTIC TURNOVER, WITH THE SECTION LIM ITING THE DEDUCTION TO THE PROPORTION OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER (IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER) AND, FU RTHER, TO 90% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS, IT WOULD STAND TO BE TAXED DIRECTLY. THE CLAIM OF BROU GHT FORWARD LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF SUCH UNIT WOULD ACCORDINGLY NOT STA ND TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME FORMING PART OF THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE SAME OR ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE A .O. AS FURTHER EXPLAINED IN HIMATASINGIKE SEIDE LTD. (SUPRA), SINCE APPROVED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT (IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1501 OF 2008 AND OTHERS DATED 19.09.2013 /COPY ON RECORD), THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISION WOULD STAND TO BE CONFINED ONLY TO THE PR OFITS AND GAINS OF THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING, AND IT COULD NOT BE INTERPRETED IN A M ANNER SO AS TO EXTEND THE SAME TO THAT OF A TAXABLE UNIT, BRINGING DOWN THE ASSESSEES TAX LIABILITY, I.E., ON ITS REGULAR INCOME, 6 ITA NO. 8425/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) DY. CIT VS. ISMART PANACHE (I) SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. THEREBY DEFEATING THE CLEAR INTENT OF THE LEGISLATU RE, WHICH IS PARAMOUNT. THE HONBLE COURT ALSO RELIED, AMONG OTHERS, ON THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN INDIAN RAYON CORPN. LTD. VS. CIT [2003] 261 ITR 98 (BOM). WE MAY FINALLY ALSO MEET THE ASSESSEES RELIANCE O N THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILIVER LTD . (SUPRA). THE SAME, AS INDEED THE A.O.S RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS IN S.S. THIAGARAJAN (SUPRA) AND MEHBOOB PRODUCTIONS (P.) LTD . (SUPRA), IS IN OUR VIEW MISPLACED. IT IS ONLY THE RATIO DECENDI OF A DECISION THAT IS BINDING. THE WHOLE PREMISE O F THE REVENUE IN HINDUSTAN UNILIVER LTD . (SUPRA), AS PATENT FROM A PERUSAL OF THE SAID DECISION, WAS THAT S.10B IS AN EXEMPTION PROVISION, WHICH THE HONBLE COURT FOUND AS NOT. THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY THE REVENUE BEING MA DE ON THAT BASIS, WAS ACCORDINGLY STRUCK DOWN. THE HONBLE COURT DID NOT EXAMINE THE SAID PROVISION, AN ANALOGOUS PROVISION TO S. 10A, IN ANY DETAIL, AND ITS LIMITE D EXAMINATION THEREOF WAS CONFINED TO DETERMINING THE CHARACTER OF THE PROVISION, WHICH I T FOUND TO BE A DEDUCTION PROVISION, I.E., AS OPPOSED TO AN EXEMPTION PROVISION, AS BEIN G CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE, AND ON WHICH BASIS, AS FURTHER FOUND BY IT, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN CAUSED BY IT. A DECISION, IT IS TRITE LAW, IS AN AUTHORITY FOR WHAT IT ACTUALLY DECIDES [REFER: CIT V. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P.) LTD . (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC); LACHMAN DASS BHATIA HINGWALA (P.) LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 243 (DEL.) (FB); BLUE STAR LTD. V. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 514 (BOM.)]. AND NOT EVEN FOR WHAT MAY REMOTELY OR EVEN LOGICALLY FLOW FROM IT ( GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. V. STATE OF HARYANA [1991] 188 ITR 402 (SC)). WE HAVE ALREADY CLARIFIED THAT THE DECISION IN HIMATASINGIKE SEIDE LTD. (SUPRA), ENDORSING THE VIEW FOLLOWED BY THE REVENUE, STANDS SINCE APPROVED BY T HE APEX COURT. AS EXPLAINED BY IT IN CIT VS. BABY MARINE EXPORTS (2009) 290 ITR 323 (SC) (PAGE 334), THE LEGISLATIV E INTENT IS TO BE THE FOUNDATION OF ALL INTERPRETATIONAL EXE RCISE. THE SAID CITED DECISION WOULD, ACCORDINGLY, BE OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE; I T BEING THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION THAT IS RELEVANT, AND NOT THE VIEW THAT THE PARTIES MAY TAK E OF THEIR RIGHTS IN THE MATTER [REFER: CIT V. C. PARAKH & CO. (INDIA) LTD . (1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC); KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC)]. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 7 ITA NO. 8425/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) DY. CIT VS. ISMART PANACHE (I) SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 0 .*1 & 2 * & * 34 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 17, 2014 SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( 5 MUMBAI; 6) DATED : 17.12.2014 .)../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( 7* ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ( 7* / CIT - CONCERNED 5. :; $*)<= , + <= . , ( 5 / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;> ? / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( 5 / ITAT, MUMBAI