DCIT 4(1), V. ICICI SECURITIES LTD,

MA 368/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2623 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER; N ASHOK BABU
• Keywords: Fair market value; Scheme of amalgamation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RA O, JM ./MA NOS. 367 & 368/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 6559 & 6560/MUM/2006) ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04) DY. CIT 4(1), ROOM NO. 640, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. ICICI SECURITIES LTD. (FORMER M/S. ICICI BROKERGAE SERVICES LTD. & M/S. ICICI WEB TRADE LTD.) ICICI CENTRE, H. T. PAREKH MARG, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./# ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACI 6284 P ( APPLICANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SMT. PARMINDER & SHRI N. ASHOK BABU RESPONDENT BY : SMT. AARTI VISSANJI $ % & ' / DATE OF HEARING : 12.09.2014 ( )* % & ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.12.2014 + / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THESE ARE A SET OF TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS U /S.254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) BY THE REVENUE AR ISING OUT OF THE DISPOSAL OF THE CAPTIONED APPEALS BY IT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.YS.) 2002-03 AND 2003-04. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPLICATIONS BEI NG THE SAME, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER, AND ARE ACCORDINGLY BEING DISPOSED OF VID E A COMMON ORDER. THE REFERENCE TO THE FIGURES, MADE FOR PROVIDING CONTEXT, ARE FOR TH AT PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2002-03. 2 MA NOS. 367 & 368/MUM/2013 (A.YS.2002-03 & 2003-04) DY. CIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES LTD. 2.1 IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO RECOUNT THE BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKERING , CLAIMED EXPENDITURE IN THE SUM OF RS.497.52 LACS AS MARKETING AGENT FEES. THE SAME IN VOLVED PAYMENT TO M/S.ICICI CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. AT RS.500/- FOR EVERY NEW CLIENT ACCO UNT OPENED. THIS WAS TOWARDS INTRODUCTION OF THE CLIENT AS WELL AS COMPLETION OF ALL THE FORMALITIES IN RELATION TO THE OPENING OF THE NEW ACCOUNT. THE PAYEE, I.E., ICICI CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., BEING UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE PAYMEN T IN THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) WAS COVERED U/S. 40A(2)(B), SO THAT THE PAYMENT IN ORDER TO BE ALLOWED WOULD HAVE TO SATISFY THE TEST OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) . AS THE SERVICES OF ONLY TWO EMPLOYEES WAS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE PAYEE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE, WHICH WOULD IN HIS VIEW HAVE COSTED THE PAYEE RS.3 LACS EACH, HE CONSIDERED THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE AT RS.10 LACS, I.E., INCLUDING ALLOWANCE FOR OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES TOWARD INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE BALANC E RS.4,87,15,760/- WAS DISALLOWED. IN APPEAL, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BEING THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) ALLOWED FURTHER RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, I.E., FOR 25% OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED, RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE THUS T O RS.373.14 LACS. THE FACTS FOR A.Y. 2003-04, THE SECOND CONSECUTIVE YEAR, ARE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED, BEING AT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.369.29 LACS BY THE A. O. AND ITS RESTRICTION TO RS.184.65 LACS BY THE LD. CIT(A), I.E., AT 50% OF THE CLAIM AMOUNT . 2.2 THE REVENUE HAS NOW MOVED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TIONS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS, STATING THAT OF THE ISSUED CAPITAL, REPRESENTED BY 300 LAC EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10/- EACH IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, 299.993 LAC SHARES ARE HELD B Y ICICI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. (AS TRUSTEE OF ICICI EQUITY FUND) AND 700 SHARES ARE HE LD BY NOMINEES OF ICICI BANK LTD. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT M/S. ICICI EQUITY FUND IS THE MA IN INVESTOR IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, HOLDING 99.67% SHARES. FURTHER, ICICI EQUITY FUND I S A TRUST SET UP UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1892 IN MARCH, 2000, AND ICICI BANK LTD. IS THE ONLY INVESTOR IN THE SAID FUND SINCE INCEPTION (PB PG. 12). FURTHER, ICICI LI MITED, ICICI CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. AND ICICI PERSONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES STAND MERGED WITH ICICI BANK LIMITED IN 3 MA NOS. 367 & 368/MUM/2013 (A.YS.2002-03 & 2003-04) DY. CIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES LTD. PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 21 OF 2002 CONNECTED WITH COMPANY APPL ICATION NO. 360 OF 2001 W.E.F. 30 MARCH, 2002 (PB PGS. 13-17). ON THESE GROUNDS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RELATED TO THE PA YEE COMPANY IN TERMS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) IS INCORRECT, SO THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER/ S BE RECALLED FOR REMOVING THE SAID MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND THE DISALLOWA NCE OF THE PAYMENT OF MARKETING AGENCY FEE, AS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, CANCELLED . 3.1 BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) WOULD REITERATE THE REVENUES CASE WITH REFERENCE TO THE VARIOUS DOCUME NTS ON RECORD, VIZ., THE ASSESSEES BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2002 AND 31.03.2003 (PB P GS. 3, 4); THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.09.2013 BY ICICI EQUITY FUND AND THE ORDER BY TH E HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT APPROVING THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 07.03.2002 (IN COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2002 AND 360 OF 2001), SO THA T THE AVERMENTS MADE BY THE REVENUE PER ITS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION REPRESENT THE CORREC T FACTS AND, FURTHER, WERE BORNE OUT BY THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3.2 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) WOULD, T AKING US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER (PARA 15), STATE THAT EVEN TH OUGH ADMITTEDLY THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 40A(2)(A) WAS NOT ATTRACTED IN VI EW OF THE NON-SUBSTANTIATION OF THE CLAIM AS TO THE SATISFACTION OF SECTION 40A(2)(B), IT DID NOT REST THE MATTER THERE, BUT PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE ON MERITS AS WELL, I .E., ASSUMING THAT S. 40A(2)(B) STOOD ATTRACTED. IT HAS GIVEN A DEFINITE FINDING IN THE M ATTER, STATING THAT THERE WAS NO WHISPER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE CHARGE FOR THE RELEV ANT SERVICES BEING EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES. THE REVENUE HAS NOT IMPUGNED THE SAID FINDING/S PER ITS INSTANT APPLICA TIONS. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A MISTAKE BY THE TRI BUNAL IN HOLDING AS TO THE NON- APPLICATION OF SECTION 40A(2)(B), THE SAME WOULD BE OF NO MOMENT IN-AS-MUCH AS S.40A(2)(A) WOULD IN ANY CASE NOT APPLY IN VIEW OF THE SAID NON CHALLENGE TO THE FINDING OF FACT QUA THE SAID PROVISION BY THE TRIBUNAL, MADE ASSUMING THE APPLICATION OF THE SAID 4 MA NOS. 367 & 368/MUM/2013 (A.YS.2002-03 & 2003-04) DY. CIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES LTD. PROVISION, I.E., NON-SATISFACTION OF S. 40A(2)(B) ( IN ITS VIEW) NOTWITHSTANDING. FURTHER, THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2003-04 STANDS SINCE CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, TO WHICH THE MATTER WAS CARRIED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE (IN ITA NO. 1800 OF 2011 DATED 2.04.2014), PLACING A COPY OF THE ORDER BY IT ON RECORD. THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL HAVING MERGED WITH THAT B Y THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, NO CASE FOR ADMITTING THE REVENUES APPLICAT ION OR DISTURBING THE FINDINGS BY THE TRIBUNAL WOULD ARISE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CONFRONTS US IS WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN ANY MISTAKE EITHER OF FACT OR OF LAW (OR OF BOTH) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I.E., AS CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE PER ITS INSTANT APPLICATIONS. THE REVENUE, VIDE ITS INSTANT APPLICATIONS, HAS IMPUGNED THE TRIBUNALS FINDING WITH REGARD TO THE NON-APPLICABI LITY OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I.E., FOR A.Y. 2002-03 READS AS UNDER: 14. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT SECTION 40A IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN CATEGOR Y (B) OF SECTION OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 40A OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR REFERRED PAGE 14 OF THE PAPEAR BOOK READS AS UNDER: A SHARE CAPITAL AUTHORISED 40,000,000 EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10/- EACH 400,000, 000 400,000,000 ISSUED, SUBSCRIBED AND PAID UP 30,000,000 EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10/- EACH 300,000,0 00 300,000,000 2,99,99,300 SHARES ARE HELD BY ICICI TRUSTEESHIP SE RVICES LIMITED AT THE TRUSTEE OF ICICI EQUITY FUND AND 700 SHARES ARE HEL D BY NOMINEES OF ICICI LIMITED. 15. THE LEARNED AR WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE FACTS AN D FROM EXPLANATION (B) OF SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 40A HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING 20% SHAREHOLDING ; THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT FALL IN THE PERSONS REFERR ED IN SUB- SECTION (B) OF SECTION 40A OF THE ACT THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO IS NOT CORRECT IN APPLYING SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT. ON MERITS, WE FIND.. [ EMPHASIS, OURS] 5 MA NOS. 367 & 368/MUM/2013 (A.YS.2002-03 & 2003-04) DY. CIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES LTD. THE BASIS OF THE SAID FINDING BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS A PPARENT, IS THE SHAREHOLDING IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HOWEVER, THE FINDING ISSUED BY IT IS WITH REGARD TO THE SHAREHOLDING BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE TWO ARE DISPARATE AND INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. SECTION 40A(2)(B) ENLISTS ENTITIES WHICH ARE TO BE REGARDED AS SPECIFIED PERSONS ON THE BASIS OF, INTER ALIA , THEIR SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS OR PRO FESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVIS ION, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY, IS TO BE RECKONED ON THE BASIS OF THE BENEFICIAL OWNER SHIP OF SHARES CARRYING NOT LESS THAN 20% OF THEIR VOTING POWER AT ANY TIME DURING THE YE AR. FIRSTLY, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT THE SHAREHOLDING AS AT THE YEAR-END THAT ALONE IS RELEV ANT, BUT THAT OBTAINING DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR. TWO, NO FINDING QUA THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) COULD BE REN DERED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE SHAREHOL DING OF ICICI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD., HOLDING ALMOST THE ENTIRE CAPITAL AND, THUS, THE VOTING POWER IN THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. WE HAVE RATHER FOUND THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE ISSUED A FINDING AS TO THE NON- APPLICABILITY (OF SECTION 40A(2)(B)) ON THE BASIS O F SHAREHOLDING BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHICH IS NOT A VALID BASIS IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIO N. FURTHER, THERE IS NO BASIS TO PRESUME THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AND WHAT WAS IMPLIED WHEN IT SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING 20% SHAREHOLD ING WAS QUA 20% SHAREHOLDING IN IT, I.E., THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IN FACT, EVEN ASSUMING SO WOULD BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE IN- AS-MUCH AS THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW T HE SHAREHOLDING OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ICICI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. (ICICI EQUI TY FUND). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE, THE P AYEE, ICICI CAP. SERVICES LTD., AND ICICI BANK LTD. ARE RELATED CONCERNS, TO WHICH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE. THE SAID FINDING COULD ONLY BE DISTURBED OR REVERSED ON SOME FACTUAL BASIS, WHICH WE FIND AS ABSENT. THERE IS, ACCORDING LY, NO BASIS FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE HELD THAT SECTION 40A(2)(B) WOULD APPLY QUA THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT/S TO ICICI CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. (I-CAPS), WHICH THUS CANNOT BE SAID T O BE ON A FIRM BASIS. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT NO COURT OR TRIBUNAL CAN, VIDE ITS ACTION OR NON AC TION, CAUSE PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY BEFORE IT. THERE HAS THUS OCCURRED A MISTAKE IN TERMS OF S ECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE MAY AT THIS STAGE ALSO CLARIFY THAT WE ARE NOT GOING BY TH E CERTIFICATE BY ICICI EQUITY FUND AND 6 MA NOS. 367 & 368/MUM/2013 (A.YS.2002-03 & 2003-04) DY. CIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES LTD. THE ORDER BY THE HONBLE COURT (AT PB PGS.12,13-17) , BEING NOW PRODUCED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME WERE NOT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NOR HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO US AS HAVING FORMED PART OF THE TRIBUNALS RECORD. WE ACCORDINGLY ADMIT THE SAID MISTAKE, RECALLING THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR DECIDING THE QUEST ION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) IN TERMS OF THE SAID PROVISION. FOR A.Y. 2003-04, THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDER DAT ED 20.08.2010, ISSUES NO SPECIFIC FINDING IN THE MATTER. RATHER, IT PROCEEDS TO DISCU SS THE ISSUE ON MERITS, ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT PER PARA 22 OF ITS ORDER, WHICH HA VE SINCE BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS NOT GIVING RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIO N OF LAW. HOWEVER, TO THE EXTENT IT ENDORSES THE FINDINGS BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2002 -03, I.E., WHEN IT STATES THAT THE TRIBUNAL (FOR A.Y. 2002-03) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, IT STANDS INFLICTED WITH THE SAME INFIRMITY AS OBSERVED BY US FOR A.Y. 2002-03, I.E., QUA THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE PER ITS INSTANT APPLICATIONS. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE ACCORDINGLY RECALLED FOR TH E SAID LIMITED PURPOSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AR E ALLOWED. ORDER U/S.254(1) (IN ITA NOS. 6559 & 6560/MUM/2006) 6. WE HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES IN THE MATTER, PROCE ED TO THE DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE, AND FOR WHICH LIMITED PURPOSE THE APPE ALS STAND RECALLED. CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 40A(2)(B) PROVIDES THAT A PERSON SHAL L BE DEEMED TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY A COMPANY IF SUCH PERSON IS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE BENEFIC IAL OWNER OF SHARES CARRYING NOT LESS THAN 20% OF THE VOTING POWER. THE REVENUE HAS PROVI DED THE SHAREHOLDING IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AS ON 31.03.2000 TO 31.03.2005 (PB PGS.1-11). BOTH AS ON 31.03.2002 AND 31.03.2003, ITS SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL OF 300 LAC EQUITY SHARES IS HELD BY ICICI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LTD. (ICICI EQUITY FUND) TO TH E EXTENT OF 299.993 LACS SHARES, WITH THE BALANCE 700 SHARES BEING HELD BY THE NOMINEES O F ICICI BANK LTD. THE EQUITY FUND HAS ALREADY ISSUED A CERTIFICATE DATED 10.09.2013 T HAT ICICI BANK LTD. IS THE ONLY INVESTOR 7 MA NOS. 367 & 368/MUM/2013 (A.YS.2002-03 & 2003-04) DY. CIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES LTD. THEREIN, HOLDING 100% OF THE UNIT CAPITAL OF THE FU ND SINCE INSPECTION. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYEE COMPANIES ARE WHOLLY OWN ED SUBSIDIARIES OF ICICI BANK LTD. IN FACT, THE PAYEE-COMPANY HAS ITSELF MERGED WITH I CICI BANK LTD. VIDE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION APPROVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 07.03.2002 EFFECTIVE 30.03.2002 (PB PGS.13-17). THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYEE COMPANY ARE THUS CLEARLY RELATED PARTIES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 40A(2)(B), SO THAT THE PROVISION OF S. 40A(2)(A) IS APPLICABLE FOR THE REL EVANT YEARS QUA THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS. THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, ON BEING SO CON FRONTED DID NOT DISPUTE THE SAME, CONTENDING THAT THIS WOULD THOUGH BE OF NO CONSEQUE NCE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS, APART FROM ITS FINDING WITH REGARD TO THE LEGAL IS SUE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(2)(B), ALSO RENDERED A FINDING ON THE MERITS OF THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(2)(A), AND WHICH STANDS NOT IMPUGNED BY THE REVENUE. IN OUR VI EW, EVEN AS THIS MAY BE RELEVANT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE, IS OF LITTL E RELEVANCE FOR US IN-AS-MUCH AS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS HAVE BEEN RECALLED ONLY FOR THE LIM ITED PURPOSE OF RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO THE LEGAL ISSUE AFORE-SAID, AND TOWA RD THE SAME PASSED AN AMENDED ORDER/S. WE, ACCORDINGLY, HOLD THE PAYEE COMPANY AS A SPECIF IED PERSON U/S. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS. THIS ORDER IS TO READ BE AL ONG WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BY THE TRIBUNAL, AND SHALL TO THE EXTENT INCONSISTENT THER EWITH, PREVAIL. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL PER ITS IMPUGNED ORDERS SHALL REMAIN UNCHANGED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 03, 2014 SD/- SD /- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ , MUMBAI; - DATED : 03.12.2014 .../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 MA NOS. 367 & 368/MUM/2013 (A.YS.2002-03 & 2003-04) DY. CIT VS. ICICI SECURITIES LTD. ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0!. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ 1& ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. $ 1& / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 45 /&6 , ' 6 * , $ , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 578 9 / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ , / ITAT, MUMBAI