MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED, MUMBAI V. ACIT, CIR -2(2)(1), MUMBAI

MA 344/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6280 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM M A N o . 3 44/ M u m/ 20 2 3 (A ri s i n g ou t o f IT A N o. 16 76 / M u m/ 20 1 5) ( A s s e ss me nt Y ea r: 20 1 0- 11 ) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Corporation Taxation, Mahindra Tower, P. K. Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 V s. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1) Mumbai-400 020 P A N / G I R N o. AA A CM 302 5 E (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri H. P. Mahajani Ms. Babita Singh Respondent by : Ms. Mahita Nair D a te o f H e a r i n g : 21.07.2023 D ate of P ro n ou n ce me n t : 20.10.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee/applicant for rectification of mistakes apparent in the order of the tribunal dated 04.10.2022, relevant to Assessment Year (A.Y. for short) 2010-11. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee and the Revenue had filed the cross appeals relevant to A.Y.2010-11 on various grounds, challenging the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act pursuant to the direction of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('ld. DRP' for short). The Tribunal vide order dated 04.10.2022 had disposed off the said appeals. 2 MA No. 3 4 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 ) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. ACIT 3. The assessee/applicant has filed this miscellaneous applications for the purpose of rectification of certain errors pointed out by the applicant/assessee which pertains to the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal pertaining to the allowability of expenditure debited to profit and loss account aggregating to Rs.7,89,91,917 enlisting the various expenditures. The assessee contends that the expenditure incurred on product development/upgradation of existing products is part of the existing business carried out by the assessee which was not covered by the decision of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2013-14 and prayed that the same may be adjudicated separately from the other expenditures claimed by the assessee in its profit and loss account. 4. On hearing the rival submission and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is observed that the assessee has relied on A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 8597/Mum/2010 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Karantaka High Court in the case of Tejas Networks India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 52 taxmann.com 513 (Kar). This issues of expenditure towards product development/upgradation of existing products was not before the Tribunal for A.Y. 2013-14 but has been decided by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2006- 07 in assessee’s case in ITA No. 8597/Mum/2010. We, therefore, direct the ld. A.O. to decide this issue in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 8597/Mum/2010. 5. The second issue raised by the assessee in the miscellaneous application pertains to ground no. 3 where the assessee applicant states that ITA No. has been inadvertently mentioned as ITA No. 8597/Mum/2020 (for A.Y. 2008-09) which has to be “ITA No. 8597/Mum/2010 (For A.Y. 2006-07)”. 3 MA No. 3 4 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 ) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. ACIT 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that at para 22 pg. no. 15 of the Tribunal’s order there has been an inadvertent error in specifying the assessment year pertaining to ITA No. 8597/Mum/2010 which is mentioned as “ITA No. 8597/Mum/2020 for A.Y. 2008-09” which has to be read as “ITA No. 8597/Mum/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07”. We, therefore, allow this ground raised by the applicant/assessee in this present miscellaneous application. 7. The next contention relates to ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal. The Tribunal in its order at para 24 pg. no. 15 has decided the ground as below: 24. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we are in agreement with the ld. AR of the assessee that the issue is squarely covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and even the ld. DRP has accepted the claim of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09.Therefore, consistent with the precedents, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. This ground of appeal is allowed. 8. It is observed that there has been a mistake apparent from the record in mentioning the assessment year to be A.Y. 2008-09 instead of A.Y. 2011-12. On perusal of the records, it is found that the same pertains to “A.Y. 2011-12” and not A.Y. 2008-09. We, therefore, rectify the said error at para 24 which has to be read as below: ‘24. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, we are in agreement with the ld. AR of the assessee that the issue is squarely covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and even the ld. DRP has accepted the claim of the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12.Therefore, consistent with the precedents, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. This ground of appeal is allowed.’ 9. We, therefore, allow this contention raised by the applicant/assessee. 4 MA No. 3 4 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 ) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. ACIT 10. The applicant/assessee has raised clarification pertaining to ground no. 12 of the assessee’s appeal as to the claim for deduction of gain on difference in exchange of Rs.138.72 crores. 11. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) contended that the Tribunal has not specified at para 60 of its order as to which year the Tribunal has followed, i.e., whether A.Y. 2009-10 or A.Y. 2013-14 for deciding the said ground. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the Tribunal at para 59 has reproduced the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2013-14 and had extracted the relevant portion of the said order. It is clear that ground no. 12 raised by the assessee has been allowed based on the finding of the Tribunal in A.Y. 2013-14. We, therefore, observe that the said ground be allowed based on the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2013-14. Hence, this ground raised by the applicant/assessee in the present miscellaneous application is allowed. 13. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the applicant/assessee is disposed off accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 20.10.2023 Roshani , Sr. PS 5 MA No. 3 4 4 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 ) Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs. ACIT Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai