TATA SSL LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA STEEL LTD), MUMBAI v. DCWT 2(3), MUMBAI

CO 164/MUM/2012 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16419923 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAACT2803M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number CO 164/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant TATA SSL LTD ( NOW MERGED WITH TATA STEEL LTD), MUMBAI
Respondent DCWT 2(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 24-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted WT
Tribunal Order Date 24-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 26-12-2012
Next Hearing Date 26-12-2012
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 19-07-2012
Judgment Text
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - WT BENCH. . .. . . . . . ! ! ! ! / ' ' ' ' #$ #$ #$ #$ ! ! ! ! BEFORE S/SH. R.K. GUPTA JUDICIAL MEMBER & RA JENDRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ WTA NO. 17/MUM/2012 % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2002-03 TATA SSL LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH TATA STEEL LTD.) BOMBAY HOUSE 24 HOMJI MODY STREET FORT MUMBAI- 400001 VS. DCWT 2(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACT2803M ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) &' &' &' &' * * * * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJAN R. VORA ()&' + * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIRAJ BANSAL (DR) ./ WTA NO.20/MUM/2012 % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2002-03 DCWT 2(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400020 VS. TATA SSL LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH TATA STEEL LTD.) BOMBAY HOUSE 24 HOMJI MODY STREET FORT MUMBAI- 400001 PAN:AAACS7203A ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) &' &' &' &' * * * * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJAN R. VORA ()&' + * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIRAJ BANSAL (DR) CO NO. 164/MUM/2012 % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2002-03 TATA SSL LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH TATA STEEL LTD.) BOMBAY HOUSE 24 HOMJI MODY STREET FORT MUMBAI- 400001 VS. DCWT 2(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACT2803M ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) &' &' &' &' * * * * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJAN R. VORA ()&' + * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIRAJ BANSAL (DR) + ++ + - - - - / DATE OF HEARING : 22-07-2013 ./% + - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-07-2013 PER RAJENDRA A.M. CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER (AO) AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED15.03.2012 OF COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPE AL)-6 MUMBAI. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS FOR THE SA ME ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX(APPEALS) - 6 [CWT (A)]; 2 WTA NO. 17/MUM/2012 TATA SSL LTD. RE-OPENING : 3. ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 16(3) R.W.S. 17 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT 1957; 4. FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ITS NET WEALT H AND HENCE RE-OPENING BEYOND FOUR YEARS IS BAD IN LAW; 5.FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO FRESH MATE RIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE LEARNED WEALTH TAX OFFICER (WTO) FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND HENCE REOP ENING ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS IS NOT TENABLE; ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE WTO; ON VALUE OF IMPUGNED LAND 6. ERRED IN OBJECTING THE ORDER OF HONBLE CWT(A) O N THE GROUND THAT FULL VALUE OF IMPUGNED LAND TO BE INCLUDED IN WEALTH TAX AS AGAINST 20% OF THE VALUE OF LAND HELD BY CWT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE; 7. SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE LAND DURING THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO CONSIDER EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER AND CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER DELETE OR MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. WTA/17/MUM/2012 FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE FILED BY THE AO: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT IMPUGNED IN TH E GROUNDS ENUMERATED BELOW: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TAKE ONLY 20 % OF THE VALUE OF THE LAND FOR WEALTH TAX PURPOSE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND EXPLANATION AS AGAINST THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELO PMENT RIGHTS AS ASSESSED BY THE A.O. 2.FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. WTA/20/MUM/2012 ASSESSEE HAS RAISED BELOW MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1.0.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE ARID IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS)-6 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CW T (A)) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 48 77 232/- BEING 20% OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE DCWT TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF THE LAND. 1.1.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CWT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE VALUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT TO VALU E THE LAND WITHOUT SUCH RIGHT. 1.2.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CWT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT MERE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND WITHOU T THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HAS NO VALUE FOR THE PURPO SE OF WEALTH TAX. 1.3.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CWT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AN D GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT GIVING COGNIZANCE TO THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AC T 1882 STATING THAT IT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 1.4.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CWT (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO REAL CONTROL OVER SUCH LA ND EVEN AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE APPELLANTS AGREEMENT WITH KANAKIA CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN FULLY PERFORMED. 1.5.THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CWT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS TRANSFERRED THE DEVELOPMENT R IGHTS IN THE SAID LAND AND THE CONSIDERATION PARTAKES THE FORM OF BANK BALANCE AS ON 31ST MARCH 2002 AND THE BANK BALANCE IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO WEALTH TAX UNDER SECTION 2(EA) OF THE ACT. 2.0.THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND MODIFY RESCIND SUPPLEMENT OR ALTER ANY OF THE GR OUNDS STATED HERE-IN-ABOVE EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. FACTS OF THE CASE 2.RETURN OF WEALTH DECLARING NET WEALTH OF RS. 5.85 CRORES WAS FILED ON 31.10.2002 BY THE ASSESSEE. AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 16(3) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT 1957 (ACT) ON 24.03.2005 ACCEPTING THE NET WEALTH AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E. ON 31.03.2009 A NOTICE U/S.17 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE AO WAS OF THE OP INION THAT TAXABLE WEALTH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ASSESSEE VID E ITS LETTER DATED 13.04.2009 REQUESTED THAT 3 WTA NO. 17/MUM/2012 TATA SSL LTD. RETURN FILED ON 31.10.2002 SHOULD BE TREATED AS RET URN FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 17 OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE STATED THAT RETURN WAS FILE D UNDER PROTEST. ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO SUPPLY A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENIN G THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT.AO SUPPLIED THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY HIS PREDECESSORS ON 25.09.2008 VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 12.10.2009. FOLLOWING ARE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR RE -OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS FOR A.Y. 2002-03 THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING F.Y. 2000-01 WAS IN POSSESSION OF FREE HOLD LAND AT BORIVLI WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO M/S. KANAKIA CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR DEVELOPMENT PRUPOSE.THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED TWO AGREEMENTS ON 31.08.2001 AND 13.02.2002 FOR RS. 6 48 58 160/-(9750 SQ.MTS.) AND RS. 95 28 000/- (18 63.50 SQ. MTS.) RESPECTIVELY. (HOWEVER SALE DEDUCTION TRANSFER OF LAND WAS NOT REGISTERED HENCE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF LAND FOR A.Y. 2002-03. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT THE TOTAL LAND AVAILABLE WITH TH E ASSESSEE IS 1 42 464 SQ. MTS. THE VALUE OF WHICH COMES TO RS. 94 76 87 478/- BY ADOPTING THE SAME VA LUE AS PER AGREEMENT. HOWEVER THE SAME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH RESULT ED IN UNDER ASSESSMENT OF WEALTH COVERED U/S 2(EA) OF THE W.T.ACT LEADING TO SHORT LEVY OF WEALTH TAX OF RS. 94 76 87 478/-). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I AM SATISFIED AND HAVE REASO NS TO BELIEVE THAT THE WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE TO TH E EXTENT OF RS. 72 83 88 756/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03 HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 17 OF W.T. ACT 1957 (T.E. RS. 72 83 888/-). AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ON 24.12.2009 U/S.16(3) R.W.S. 17 OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT RS. 13.3 CRORES. 2.1. DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL LAND TO KANAKIA CONSTRUCT ION PVT. LTD. (KCPL) THAT THE POSSESSION OF SUCH LAND WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED EFFECTIVELY THAT THE DEV ELOPER HAD THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE VALUE OF THE FREE-HOLD AT BORIVILI AT RS. NIL BECAUSE AS PER THE ASSESSE IT HAD SOLD THE SAID PIECE OF LA ND ON 31 ST AUGUST 2001 FOR A TOTAL PRICE OF RS. 6.48 CRORES THAT LATER ON ASSESSEE HAD ALSO TRANSFE RRED AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE BENEFITS IN THE FORM OF INTERNAL ROAD FSI TO THE EXTENT OF 18635 SQ. METERS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TOTAL AGGREGATE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 7.43 CRORES FROM THE DEVELOPER . AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CONVEYANCE DEED OF THE SAID LAND WAS NOT EXECUTED DURING THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION THAT ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED ONLY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT THE APPEL LANT WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAND WHICH WAS AN ASSET U/S 2(AE) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 7.43 CRORES TOWARDS THE FAILURE OF THE SAID LAND. 2.2. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY (FAA) CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE AO ON VALIDITY OF THE RE-OPENING AS WELL AS ON MERITS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE RE-OPENED ASSESSMENT FAA HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED MATERIAL FACTS ABOUT THE VALUE OF LAND OWNED BY IT IN THE NE T WEALTH DECLARED IN THE RETURN THAT AO HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT NET WEALTH CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT THAT THE AO HAD FOLLOWED ALL PROCEDURES FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMEN T. FINALLY HE UPHELD THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 2.2.1. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM WAS THE VALUE OF T HE PLOT OF LAND WAS NOT OF RS. 7.43 CRORES FOR COMPUTATION OF WEALTH TAX.IN THE APPELLA NT PROCEEDINGS FAA HELD THAT ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND THAT IT HAD TRANSFERRED SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE LAND BY TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT 20% OF THE DEV ELOPMENT RIGHTS COULD REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE S AID PLOT OF LAND. AS A RESULT HE CONFIRMED AN ADDITION OF RS. 1.48 CRORES TO THE TOTAL WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.3. BEFORE US DR SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD REASONS TO BELI EVE THAT NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT THAT MATTER WAS RE-OPENED ONCE IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE SALE OF PLOT OF LAND TO THE DEVELOPER THAT IN ABSENCE OF CONVEYANCE DEED ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE PLOT THAT FAA WRONGLY DELETED THE ADD ITIONS MADE BY THE AO TO THE NET WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. AR SUBMITTED THAT RE-OPENING WAS BAD IN LAW THAT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON PART OF THE 4 WTA NO. 17/MUM/2012 TATA SSL LTD. ASSESSEE THAT FROM THE REASONS RECORDED IT WAS CLEA R THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FAILED TO DISCLOSE TRUE AND FULL MATERAIL FACTS BEFORE THE AO THAT NON-EXE CUTION OF CONVEYANCE DEED DID NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE PLOT OF LAND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT OF LAND IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD PAID T AXES ACCORDINGLY THAT IN THE NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE RETURNS FACT OF SALE OF LAND WAS CLEARLY MENTIO NED.HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF SHRIRAM FOUNDRY LTD. (CTR 116 -BOM. HC) GERMAN REMDEIS LTD. (287 ITR 494-BOM.HC) AND ICICI BANK LTD. (246 CTR 292 -BOM.HC) HEMLA EMBROIDERY MI LLS(P) LTD.(311 ITR 412 -P&H) ASIAN PAINTS LTD.(308 ITR 195-BOM.HC) RADHE DEVELOPERS (2 3 SOT 420 (AHD TRIBUNAL). 2.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS THE QUEST ION OF VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE DECIDED. FROM THE RECORDS IT EMERGES THAT RE-ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AFTER THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QU ESTION.AS PER THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF TAXATION JURISPRUDENCE IF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE RE-OPENED A FTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS THE FIRST CONDITION IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULL AND TRUE ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS. NOT ONLY THIS THE AO SHOULD MENTION IN THE R EASONS RECORDED ABOUT THE ALLEGED FAILURE AND HAS TO EXPLAIN AS WHICH MATERIAL FACTS WERE NOT DIS CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE.WE HAVE PERUSED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO AND WE FIND THAT NO WHER E THE AO HAS STATED ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE AS ENVISAGED BY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW.THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO SPEAK OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A DEVELOPER. ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THESE FACTS WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF WEALTH/INCOM E. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF THE PLOT OF LAND I N QUESTION.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AO HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THE CASE UND ER CONSIDERATION TO RE-OPEN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT HAVING ANY REASONABLE BASIS.WE F IND THAT IN THE MATTER OF GERMAN REMEDIES (SUPRA)HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DISCUS SED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AS UNDER: HAVING SAID SO IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER TWO MO RE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER S. FIRSTLY THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IS BARRED BY LIMITATIO N SINCE IT WAS ISSUED BEYOND PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FAILURE ON THE PAR T OF PETITIONERS TO DISCLOSE FULL AND TRUE MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN ALLEGED. IN THIS CASE POWER TO REOPEN HAS BEE N EXERCISED AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR TO WHICH THEY RELATE. IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES THE IMPUGNED NOTICE HAVING BEEN ISSUED BEYOND 4 YEARS FROM THE LAST DATE OF THE REL EVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHOUT ALLEGING ANY FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FULL AND TRUE MATERIAL FACTS IS LIABLE TO SET ASIDE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENT.THEREFO RE WE ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.4.1. EVEN ON MERITS WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO/FAA CANNOT BE ENDORSED. IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND TO ONE DEVELOPER A ND EXCEPT FOR THE CONVEYANCE DEED ALL LEGAL FORMALITIES WERE COMPLETED.THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT BE TREATED AS OWNER OF THE SAID PLOT OF LAND.JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF HEMLA EMBROIDERY MILLS(P) LTD.(SUPRA) ENDORSES OUR VIEWS . AS A RESULT CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY STAND ALLOWED.APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 + 4 567 2 3 + 4 567 2 3 + 4 567 2 3 + 4 567 ! + # 89 ! + # 89 ! + # 89 ! + # 89. .. . 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 + ++ + 0: 0: 0: 0: + ++ + # # # # 8; 8;8; 8; 8- 0 + 8- 0 + 8- 0 + 8- 0 + <+ =>? ' <+ =>? ' <+ =>? ' <+ =>? ' #@ + #@ + #@ + #@ + # 8; # 8; # 8; # 8;. .. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JULY 2013 . A + ./% B C 24 # 2013 / + D 5 WTA NO. 17/MUM/2012 TATA SSL LTD. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . .. . . R.K. GUPTA) ( #$ #$ #$ #$ / RAJENDRA) ! ! ! ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI C /DATE: 24 TH JULY 2013 SK A A A A + ++ + ( 5 ( 5 ( 5 ( 5 E5% E5% E5% E5% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / &' 2. RESPONDENT / ()&' 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / F G 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / F G 5. DR WT BENCH ITAT MUMBAI / 5H ( . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ I )5 )5 )5 )5 ( ( ( ( //TRUE COPY// A / BY ORDER = / 8 # DY./ASST. REGISTRAR /ITAT MUMBAI