AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI

MA 545/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0350 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTHILAKSHMI NAYAKDR
• Assessee Lawyers: J D MISTRY; MAYUR KISNADWALA ARS
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 MA 545/MUM/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NO.545/MUM/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7189/MUM/2017) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. AFCONS HOUSE 16, SHAH INDUSTRIAL ESTATE VEERA DESAI ROAD ANDHERI(WEST) MUMBAI-400 053 PAN : AAACA9067G VS DY. CIT ,RANGE - 9(1)(1) ROOM NO.260A, 2 ND FLOOR AAYKAR BHAWAN, M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY SHRI J.D.MISTRY & SHRI MAYUR KISNADWALA, ARS RESPONDENT BY SMT.JYOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK,DR DATE OF HEARING 0 8.11 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 .1 2 .2019 O R D ER PER G MANJUNATHA: AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AND REQUESTED TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.7189/MUM/2017, VIDE ORDER DATED 27/03/2019 FOR A Y 2014-15. THE ASSESSE HAS NARRATED FACTS AND MISTAKES STATED TO B E APPARENT ON 2 MA 545/MUM/2019 RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27/03/201 9. THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS H OARD AND DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2019 RECEIVED BY TILE RESPONDENT ON 15.05.2019. OUR REPRESENTATIVE MR. MAYUR KISNADWALA , (THE AR) HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH FOR REPRESENTATIO N IN THE MATTER. IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN ERRORS HAVE INA DVERTENTLY CREPT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER WHICH MERIT RECTIFICATION. THE DETA ILS ARE SUBMITTED HEREUNDER 2. THE ASSESSES IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVISION OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSME NT YEAR WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED DCIT -9(1 )(1) ,MUMBAI ON 30.11.2016 WHEREIN THE AO DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF PROFESSION AL FEES OF RS, 4,57,65,986/ - INCURRED IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ARBIT RATION PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH THE ASSESSE WAS A PARTY. THE AO HAD STATED IN THE O RDER THAT TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE AND FOLLOWING THE EARLIER YEAR'S ORDERS HE HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR ARBITRATION. 3, THE ASSESSE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 16 WHEREIN IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID PROFESSIONAL FEES WERE ACTUALLY PAID DURING THE YEA R, IN CONNECTION WITH VARIOUS ARBITRATION MATTERS, WHICH IS A NORMAL BUSI NESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID EXPENSES OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION U/ S 37(1) OF THE ACT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE CO RRESPONDING AMOUNTS AWARDED BY ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN RECOGN IZED AS INCOME IN THE BOOKS OR AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX OR NOT DURING THE YEAR. THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ARBITRATION AWARDS IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ARBITRATION DISPUTES ARE FINALIZED AND A RIGHT TO R ECEIVE THE AMOUNTS IN RESPECT OF THE ARBITRATION MATTERS FINALLY ACCRUES TO THE A PPELLANT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 16 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND AFTER FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN AY 2004-05 TO 2011-12, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE. WHILE DELETING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - 16 CAT EGORICALLY OBSERVED IN PARAGRAPH 6.1.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AS UNDER: THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR FACTUAL CHANGE IN THE INSTA NT CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS ARE PERI MATERIAL SAME WITH FA CTS IN THE EARLIER YEARS DECIDED BY ME. ' 4. AGAINST THE SAID CIT(A) ORDER- THE REVENUE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, FOR WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29. 03.2019. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF PROFESSIONAL FEES PAYMENTS TOWARDS ARBITRATION WAS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 91 63/ MUM/ 2010 WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FA CTS THE SAID DISALLOWANCE 3 MA 545/MUM/2019 WAS DELETED BY THE HON'BLE 'L' BENCH. ATTENTION OF THE HON'BLE BENCH WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE FACT THAT EVEN FOR THE AYS 2006 -07 TO 2008-09, THE ORDER OF AY 2005-06 WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IT WAS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 5. AT PARA NO. 6 OF THE SAID ITAT ORDER, THE H ON'BLE BENCH RECORDED A FINDING THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED EARLIER IN THY CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 9 163/MUM/2010, WHEREIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE PROFESSIONAL FEES PAYMENTS TOWA RDS ARBITRATION WAS DELETED AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFESSIONAL FEES' PAID FOR THE ARBITRATION AWARDS ARE IN THE NATURE OF NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 6. AT PARA NO, 7 IT HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE HON' BLE BENCH THAT IN AY 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE HAD RECOGNIZED INCOME FROM ARBITRATION AWARDS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BUT WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME, HAD REDU CED SUCH AMOUNTS RECOGNIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TOWARDS ARBITRAT ION INCOME AS ITS CLIENT HAD CHALLENGED THE ARBITRATION AWARD BEFORE THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT. THUS, THE ISSUE WAS NOT SETTLED IN THAT YEAR AS A RESULT OF W HICH THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED AS FOLLOWS: 'WE FURTHER NOTICED FROM FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE T RIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECOR DED FINDING ON FIX BASIS OF FACTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSES THAT ALT HOUGH THE ASSESSEE LIES RECOGNIZED ARBITRATION INCOME FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BAT WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INC OME, HAS DEDUCTED AMOUNT RECOGNIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TOWARDS, ARBITRATION INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLIENT CHALLENGED THE RECEIP T OF ARBITRATION AWARDS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AND IN VIEW OF THIS, T HE ISSUE WAS NOT SETTLED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. UNDER THOS E FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS D EMONSTRATED WITH EVIDENCE THE FACT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWAR DS ARBITRATION AWARD, MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT NO INCOME HAS BEEN OFFER ED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, MORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE MA TTER HAS BEEN DISPUTED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, CORRESPONDI NG EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. IN THIS CASE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO SUCH FINDINGS HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES..'(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) THE AO IN ITS ORDER AT PARA 4 HAS DEALT WITH THE EX PENSE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES. THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES INCURRED IN RELATI ON TO ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS. THE COUNSEL DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS HA D SUBMITTED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF LEGAL AND PROFES SIONAL FEES TOWARDS ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS ART INCURRED DURING A YEAR, WHILE AWARDS MAY FRUCTIFY AND ATTAIN FINALITY DURING VARIOUS SUBSEQUENT YEARS . THEREFORE, NO CORRELATION CAN BE MADE BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE ON PROFESSIONAL FEES AND INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ARISING PURSUANT TO SUCH EXPENDIT URE. 7. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, A QUESTION WAS POSED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH TO THE COUNSEL OF THE APPLICANT AS TO WHETHER ANY INCOME 4 MA 545/MUM/2019 ARISING FROM ARBITRATION AWARDS HAD BEEN OFFERED FO R TAX. THE COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT ARBITRATION AWARDS ARE OFFERED FOR TAX ON ATTAINING FINALITY AND THAT CERTAIN AWARDS HAD REACHED FINALITY DURING THE PREV IOUS YEAR. THE COUNSEL ALSO PROVIDED THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE AY 2014-15 AND POINTED OUT IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME THAT DURING TH E YEAR IN RESPECT OF ARBITRATION AWARDS AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,82,59,000 WA S OFFERED TO TAX CONSEQUENT TO THE AWARDS ATTAINING FINALITY. 8. WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER THE TRIBUNAL HAS FIRSTLY CORRECTLY NOTED AND RECORDED THE DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL FOR VARIOUS YEARS THAT EXPENDITURE ON SUCH PROFESSIONAL FEES WAS AN A LLOWABLE DEDUCTION REGARDLESS OF WHETHER INCOME FROM ARBITRATION AWARD S WAS OFFERED FOR TAX OR NOT. HOWEVER IT HAS THEREAFTER COME TO THE WHOLLY O PPOSITE CONCLUSION THAT 'ONCE, THE INCOME FROM ARBITRATION AWARDS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME NEEDS TO BE ALLOTTED AS A DEDUCTION. HOWEVER THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF ARBITRATION AWARD I NCOME HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT OAT BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER.' THE REFORE, WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PART OF ASSESSMEN T RECORDS OR NOTE HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW FLINT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIF ICATION OF FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF INCOME ARISING OUT OF AR BITRATION AWARD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN CASE, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECOGNIZED INCOME FROM ARBITRATION AWARD, CORRE SPONDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME INC LUDING PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID FOR ARBITRATION AWARD NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION.' 9. FURTHER A DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER ARBITRATION AWARD ADMITTED/ RECOGNIZED AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2014-15, AND IF SO, THE DEDUCTION OF 'CORRESPOND ING' PROFESSIONAL FEES BE ALSO ALLOWED, 10. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THEREFORE COME TO A FINDING AND HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY AND ALLOW CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE IN RELAT ION TO INCOME FROM ARBITRATION AWARDS OFFERED FOR TAX- THIS IS IN DIRE CT CONTRADICTION TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 2005-06 AT PARA 7 OF THE ORDER. AT PARA 7 THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2005-06 THAT WHEN THE ASSESSE HAS DEMONSTRATED WITH EVIDENCE THE FACT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARDS ARBITRATION AWARD, MERELY FOR THE REASON TH AT NO INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR THE YEAR, CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE CAN NOT BE DISALLOWED. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 2005-06 HAD CLEARLY H ELD THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR ANY CORRELATION BETWEEN THE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED AND THE INCOME TO BE OFFERED FOR TAX IN ANY YEAR. 11. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER IN THE ABOVE DIRE CTION, THE WORD 'CORRESPONDING' SEEMS ALSO TO HAVE BEEN MENTIONED E RRONEOUSLY WHICH OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 12. THE ASSESSEE AT RISK OF REPETITION WOULD LIK E TO STATE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE EARLIER BENCH FOR THE AY'S 20 05-06 TO AY 2007-08 THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH CANNOT TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THE SAID POSITION IS WELL SETTLED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF COURTS. 5 MA 545/MUM/2019 2. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, INASMUCH AS, THE TRIBUNAL HA S RECORDED FINDING THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ASSESEE OWN CASE FOR AY 2005-06 IN ITA NO.9163/MUM/2010. BUT, FURTHER WENT ON TO RECORD IT S FINDINGS AND SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR VERI FICATION OF FACTS WITH REGARD TO INCOME RECOGNIZED FROM ARBITRATION AND CO RRESPONDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH ARBITRATIO N DISPUTES AND DIRECTED THE LD. AO TO ALLOW EXPENDITURE, IF THE ASSESSE HAS RECOGNIZED INCOME FROM ARBITRATION AWARD. THE LD. AR, FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT SAID FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, B ECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 2005-06 HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND HE LD THAT WHETHER, INCOME FROM ARBITRATION AWARD WAS RECOGNIZED OR NOT , BUT EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO ARBITRATION DISPUTES NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. HOWEVER, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN DIFFERENT FINDING, EVEN THOUGH IT HAS FOLLOWE D ITS EARLIER ORDER. THEREFORE, THE SAID OBSERVATIONS CONSTITUTE MISTAKE S APPARENT ON RECORD, WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) AND HENCE, O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE IS NO MERIT IN ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION U/S 25 4(2) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, BUT WHAT THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUING IS, TO REVIEW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THIS CASE, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. HENCE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NEE DS TO BE DISMISSED. 6 MA 545/MUM/2019 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESEE ALONG WITH ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.7189/MUM/2017, DATED 27/03/2019 AND FIND THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED ITS FINDINGS, IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL RECORDED FOR AY 2005-06 IN ITA NO.9163/MUM/2010. BUT, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE LD. AO FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION OF FACTS WIT H REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE, IN LIGHT OF FINDINGS RECORDED BY TH E LD. AO THAT NO ARBITRATION INCOME WAS RECOGNIZED IN BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN FORM OF STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR AY 2014-15 AND ARGUED THAT INCOME FROM ARBITRATION AWARD WAS FINAL LY RECOGNIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR AY 2014-15, WHEN THE DISPUTE HAS REACHED FINALITY IN THE COURT OF LAW. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE TRIBUNA L HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO VERIFY THE FACTS . BUT, INSOFAR AS THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO ARBITRATION AWARD, THERE IS NO DISPUTE, BECAUSE IT HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE AR, WHERE IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT WHETHER, INCOME FROM ARBITR ATION AWARD WAS RECOGNIZED OR NOT, BUT EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELA TION TO ARBITRATION MATTERS NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO T HE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, INSOFAR AS ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE IN CURRED RELATED TO ARBITRATION MATTERS. BUT, THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE, IN LIGHT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO , AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE WAS NOT CLEAR AND HENCE, THE MATTER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FIL E OF THE LD. AO. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS A MERIT IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN SOFAR AS, IT RELATES TO FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CORRESPONDING EXP ENDITURE INCURRED IN 7 MA 545/MUM/2019 RELATION TO INCOME RECOGNIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS ONLY NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED. HENCE, WE MODIFIED OUR DIRECTIONS INSOFAR AS, THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND DIRECT THE LD.AO TO VERIFY THE FACT WI TH REGARD TO GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE , IN LIGHT OF ARBITRATION MATTERS PENDING BEFORE VARIOUS ARBITRA TORS OR COURTS AND IF THE LD. AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSE HAS INCURRED EXPE NDITURE IN RELATION TO ARBITRATION MATTERS, THEN WHETHER OR NOT INCOME IS RECOGNIZED FROM ARBITRATION AWARDS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE INCURRED SHALL BE ALLOWED AS EXPENDITUR E INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR OBSERVATIONS GIVEN HEREINAB OVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12.2019. SD/- SD/- PAWAN SINGH G MANJUNATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 11.12.2019 THIRUMALESH, SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//