Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75333 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
22-01-2014
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
29-12-2011
Judgement Text
B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI. SHRI AMIT SHU KA, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 8847 & 8842/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 2008-09) SHRI NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI, 21A NIRMAL, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 / VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 44, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020 ./ PAN : AAFPF0543P ( # / APPELLANT ) .. ( $%# / RESPONDENT ) # & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAHUL K.HAKANI $%# & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS & + / DATE OF HEARING : 13-1-2014 & + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-01-2014. / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . .. , THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) 38, MUMBAI BOTH DATED 16-09-2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2 008-09 AND SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED THEREIN, THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E FOR A.Y.- 2007-08 BEING ITA NO. 8847/MUM/2011. 2 ITA NO.8847 & 8842 /MUM/2011 NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE OF TH IS APPEAL ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1962 (THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER PERSONS BELONGING TO THE SAME FAMILY/GROUP. P URSUANT TO THE SAID ACTION, NOTICE U/S.153-C WAS ISSUED BY THE AO IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.-2007-08 WAS FIL ED BY ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID RETURN, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN A COMPANY NAMELY M/S . KAMALA MANSION PVT. LTD. WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EN TIRE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE SAID COMPANY WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS OTHER PERSONS BELONGING TO THE SAME FAMILY/GROUP AN D THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED/SOLD TO REKHA GUNWANT ASHOK SHAH AN D M/S. SURAJ LTD. BY THE AGREEMENT DATED 14.11.2006 AT THE RATE OF RS.1,470/- PER SHARE. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID AGREEM ENT AS WELL AS RELEVANT BALANCE-SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF M/S. KAMALA MANSION PVT. LTD., THE AO FOUND THAT SAID COMPANY W AS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY SORT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND IT WAS MERELY DERIVING INCOME IN THE FORM OF RENT FROM TWO FLATS NOS. 1901 B AND 2001B IN THE BUILDING OF OM VIKAS APARTMENTS AT WALKESHWAR R OAD, MUMBAI OWNED BY IT TOGETHER WITH GARAGE NUMBERS 28 & 29. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GARB OF SHARE TRANSFER AGREEMENT THUS WAS DE FACTO THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BEING FLAT NUMBE RS 1901B AND 2001B IN OM VIKAS APARTMENTS AND THE REAL INTENT TO TRANSFER THE ENTIRE SHARES IN M/S. KAMALA MANSION PVT. LTD. WAS TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF THE TWO FLATS OWNED BY THE SAID COMPAN Y TO THE PURCHASERS OF THE SHARES. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT IT WAS A CASE OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 50C WERE APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 50C, HE ADOPTED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF RS.4,12 ,16,500/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N AS AGAINST 3 ITA NO.8847 & 8842 /MUM/2011 NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI. THE AGREEMENT VALUE OF RS.3,46,71,609/- SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR TRANSFER OF SHARES. THE AO, ALSO FOUND THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF SHARES, THE PURCHASERS/TRANSFEREES WERE TO PAY SEPARATELY A SUM OF RS.55,28,500/- WHICH WAS INTROD UCED IN THE COMPANY M/S. KAMALA MANSION PVT. LTD. AND UTILIZED TO REPAY THE LOANS ADVANCED BY THE ERSTWHILE DIRECTORS/SHAREHOLD ERS. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE SAID AMOUNT THUS REPRESENT ED ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY EFFECTED IN THE GARB OF THE SHARE TRANSFER AGREEMENT AND ACCORDINGLY TOTAL CONS IDERATION OF RS.4,67,45,000/- WAS TAKEN BY HIM FOR THE PURPOSE O F WORKING OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFE R OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS ALLEGEDLY EFFECTED IN THE GARB O F SHARE TRANSFER AGREEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS WORKED OUT BY HIM BY TAKING THE SAID AMOUNT AS SALE CONSIDERAT ION WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE AS WELL AS THE OTHER PERSONS BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP/FAMIL Y IN THE RATIO OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARE HOLDING IN M/S. KAMALA MA NSION PVT. LTD. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E AO ON THIS ISSUE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE AS SESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HEREINAFTER CALLED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING INVO CATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 EVEN THOUGH THE DOCUMENT FOR SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. KAMALA MANSION PVT. LTD. WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE REG ISTERED WITH STAMP AUTHORITIES AND IN DETERMINING THE SALE VALUE AT RS.4,12,16,500/- AGAINST AGREEMENT VALUE OF RS.3,46,71,609/- WHILE WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. KAMALA MANSION PVT. LTD. THE PURCHASER OF THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY ARE NOT RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS/SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMP ANY NOR 4 ITA NO.8847 & 8842 /MUM/2011 NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI. THEY HAVE ANY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIRECTORS/SHAREHOLDERS OR ANY ASSOCIATES THEREOF. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.55,28,500/- TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION BEING SEPA RATE PAYMENT TO THE COMPANY FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE COMPANY FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CON SIDERING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTITUTE INDEXED C OST OF THE VALUE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHILE COMPUTING CAP ITAL GAINS ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND AL SO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY ENHANCING THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDE RATION IN THE CASES OF OTHER ASSESSEES BELONGING TO THE SAME FAMI LY/GROUP VIZ. SHRI IRFAN ABDUL KADER FAZLANI, SHRI IQBAL ABDUL KA DER FAZLANI AND SHRI IMRAN YUNUS FAZLANI, WHO HAD ALSO SOLD THE SHARES HELD BY THEM IN M/S. KAMALA MANSION PVT. LTD., WERE DISPUTED IN THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL TAKING IDENTICAL GROUNDS AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER D ATED 2 ND JANUARY 2013 PASSED IN ITA NOS.8831, 8835, AND 8851/MUM/2011 HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITIONS VIDE P ARAGRAPH NO. 11 & 12 OF THE SAID ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE US. THERE IS NO D ISPUTE ON THE FACTS AND THEREFORE, THE DISPUTE RELATES TO THE APP LICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. FOR EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID PROVISIONS, WE PROCEE D TO EXAMINE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 0C OF THE ACT READ AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITA L ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE AD OPTED OR ASSESSED [OR ASSESSABLE] BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STAT E GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAM P VALUATION 5 ITA NO.8847 & 8842 /MUM/2011 NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI. AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUT Y IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [OR ASSESSABLE] SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. PRIMA FACIE, THE ABOVE SECTION REFERS TO THE EXPRE SSIONS IE CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, ASSESSED (ASSESSABLE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE AY IN QUESTION), CAPITAL ASSET, B EING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION ETC. THE ABOVE SUB-SECTION PROVIDES FOR MEANING OF THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION (FVC) AND IT IS A DEEMED DEFINITION. ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE TRANSFER S A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, FOR A CONSIDERATION LESSER THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED, ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL BE DEEMED TO THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS U/S 48 OF THE ACT. THE EXPRESSION ASSESSABLE HAS INSERTE D INTO THE STATUTE FOR PERSPECTIVE APPLICATION W.E.F 1.10.2009 WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE CAPITAL ASSETS THAT ARE COVERED UNDER THE PROVI SIONS ARE LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. EXPRESSION TRANSFER SHALL HA VE TO BE A DIRECT TRANSFER AS DEFINED U/S 2(47) OF THE ACT WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE THE TAX PLANNING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED ISSUE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE DEEMED PROVISIONS AND , THEREFORE, THE SAME HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVISIONS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WE NEED T O EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHA T TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THE SHARES IN THE COMPANY AND NOT THE LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE FULL OWNER SHIP ON THE FLATS WHICH ARE OWNED BY THE COMPANY. THE TRANSFER OF SHARES WAS NEVER A PART OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE STAMP DUTY AU THORITIES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE COMPANY WAS DERIVING INCO ME, TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. THE EXPRESSION ASSESSABLE IS INSERTED IN SECTION 50C (1) OF THE ACT IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEA RS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AOS DECISION TO INVOKE THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 50C TO THE TAX PLANNING ADOPTED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT PROPER AND IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SANCTION OF THE PRO VISIONS OF IT ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE DEEMED PROVI SIONS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE STRICTLY INTERPRETED, IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE EXPRESSIONS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS REQUIRED TO BE REVERSE D WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCOR DINGLY, GROUND NO.1RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 6. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THE 6 ITA NO.8847 & 8842 /MUM/2011 NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI. CASES OF SHRI IRFAN ABDUL KADER FAZLANI, SHRI IQBAL ABDUL KADER FAZLANI AND SHRI IMRAN YUNUS FAZLANI DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2 ND JANUARY 2013(SUPRA) AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY ENHANCING THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION. GROU ND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVE D THEREIN RELATING TO ASSESSEES ALTERNATIVE CLAIM HAS BECOME INFRUCTU OUS AS A RESULT OF OUR DECISION RENDERED ABOVE ON GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D AS INFRUCTUOUS. 8. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HEREIN AFTER CALLED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING INVOCATION OF T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 EVEN THOU GH THE DOCUMENT FOR SALE OF SHARES OF BLUE DIAMOND REALATO RS P. LTD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED WITH STAMP AU THORITIES AND IN DETERMINING THE SALE VALUE AT RS. 3,02,68,78 4/- AGAINST AGREEMENT VALUE OF RS.1,47,00,000/- WHILE WORKING O UT THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES OF BLUE DIAMOND REAL ATORS P.LTD. THE PURCHASERS OF THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY ARE NOT RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS/SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY NOR TH EY HAVE ANY BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIRECTORS / SHAR EHOLDERS OR ANY ASSOCIATES THEREOF. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 94,08,637/- TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION BEING SEPARATE PAYMENT TO THE COMPANY FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE COMPANY FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. 7 ITA NO.8847 & 8842 /MUM/2011 NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN COMPUTING SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES OF BLUE DIAMOND REALATORS P. LTD AGA INST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY THE APPELLANT AND ASSESS ED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT DEPREC IATION IS BEING CLAIMED ON THE BUILDING AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF BLUE DIAMOND REALATORS P LTD WHICH ALSO IS AN ERROR THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEPRECIATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CON SIDERING THE GROUND OF THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTITUTE INDEXED COST OF THE VALUE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL G AINS ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 9. AS IS EVIDENT FROM GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE SIMILAR TO THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WHICH WE HAVE AL READY DECIDED IN THE FORGOING PORTIONS OF THIS ORDER. SINCE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THESE ISSUES AS INVOLVED IN A.Y. 2008-0 9 ARE SIMILAR TO A.Y. 2007-08, WE FOLLOW OUR CONCLUSION DRAWN ON THE SE ISSUES IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY ENHANCING THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.- 2008-09 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED . 10. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE RAI SED THEREIN IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS WHEN THE CAP ITAL GAIN IS HELD TO BE ARISING IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FRO M SALE OF SHARES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT FROM SALE OF PRO PERTY, THE BASIS TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO TREAT THE SAME AS SHORT TERM 8 ITA NO.8847 & 8842 /MUM/2011 NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI. CAPITAL GAIN NO MORE SURVIVES AND THE SAID CAPITAL GAIN THUS IS CHARGEABLE OF TAX IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE AS LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN AS SHOWN IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVE D THEREIN RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATIVE CLAIM HAS BECOME INFR UCTUOUS AS A RESULT OF OUR DECISION RENDERED ON THE MAIN ISSUE I NVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSES APPEAL. THE SAM E IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-01-2014. & 0 1 2240142014 & SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (P.M. JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 1 DATED 22-01-2014 ../ R.K. SR. PS 9 ITA NO.8847 & 8842 /MUM/2011 NADEEM YUNUS ABDUL GAFFAR FAZLANI. ' #%& '& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. # / THE APPELLANT 2. $%# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. () / THE CIT (A) - 38 , MUMBAI 4. /CIT CENTRAL IV, MUMBAI 5. ; $= , + = , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI B BENCH 6. @ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, %; $ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI
