SET INDIA PVT.LTD.(NOW MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT.LTD.), MUMBAI v. ASST. C.I.T., RANGE 11(1), MUMBAI

CO 180/MUM/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 18019923 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AABCS1728D
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number CO 180/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant SET INDIA PVT.LTD.(NOW MULTI SCREEN MEDIA PVT.LTD.), MUMBAI
Respondent ASST. C.I.T., RANGE 11(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 22-06-2010
Next Hearing Date 22-06-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 01-10-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR (PRESIDENT) & SHRH R.K. PAN DA (AM) I.T.A.NO.3381/MUM/08 (A.Y. 2004-05) MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SET INDIA PVT.LTD.) INTERFACE 4 TH FLOOR BLDG.NO.7 OFF MALAD LINK RD. MALAD (W) MUMBAI-400 064. PAN: AABCS1728D VS. ASST.COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX-11(1) ROOM NO.437 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. MARG MUIMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A.NO.3 356/MUM/08 (A.Y. 2004-05) ASST.COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX-11(1) ROOM NO.437 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. MARG MUIMBAI-400 020. VS. MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SET INDIA PVT.LTD.) INTERFACE 4 TH FLOOR BLDG.NO.7 OFF MALAD LINK RD. MALAD (W) MUMBAI-400 064. PAN: AABCS1728D APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.NO. 180/MUM/08 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3536/MUM/2008) (A.Y. 2004-05) MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SET INDIA PVT.LTD.) INTERFACE 4 TH FLOOR BLDG.NO.7 OFF MALAD LINK RD. MALAD (W) MUMBAI-400 064. PAN: AABCS1728D VS. ASST.COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX-11(1) ROOM NO.437 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. MARG MUIMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI DINESH VYAS & NIMESH VORA. DEPARTMEMT BY MRS. KU SUM INGLE. O R D E R ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 2 PER R.K. PANDA AM : ITA NO. 3381/MUM/08 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO.3536/MUM/08 FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE CROSS APPEA LS AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13-02-2008 OF THE CIT(A)-XI MUMBAI RELATING TO THE ASST. YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AG AINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE CROSS APP EALS AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSE D OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.3381/MUM/08: 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS LEGALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE CLASSIFICATION OF INTEGRATED RECEIVERS AND DECODERS (IRDS) AS PL ANT & MACHINERY AND ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 25% INSTEAD OF CLASSIFY ING IRDS AS COMPUTERS AND ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 60% AS CLAIME D BY THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN PRODUCTION AND SALE OF T.V. PROGRAMMES FILMS DIST RIBUTION OF SATELLITE CHANNELS ETC. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS CLA SSIFIED IRDS AS COMPUTERS AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 60%. THE AO FOLLOWING THE O RDERS FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS HELD THAT IRDS ARE CLASSIFIED AS PLANT & MAC HINERY AND ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 25%. HE ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE D EPRECIATION TO 25% ON IRDS LEADING TO A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.32 88 084/-. 3. IN APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF H IS PREDECESSOR FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2000-01 UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. AGGRIEVE D WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSTT. YEARS 2000-0 1 2001-02 AND 2002-03 SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY WHETHER IRDS CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS COMPUTERS. HE ACC ORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 3 ISSUE CAN BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRE SH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR EARLIER YEARS. 5. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS NO OBJECTIO N IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEA RS. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE TRIBUN AL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2000-01 VIDE ITA NO.6693 /MUM/03 DATED 23-01-2003 HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT O F IRDS TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2000- 01 THE TRIBUNAL IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS I.E. ASST. Y EARS 2001-02 AND 2002-0 HAS ALSO RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR F RESH ADJUDICATION. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.3536/M/08(BY DEPTT.) & C.O.NO.180/M/08 (BY A SSESSEE): 7. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.2 32 87 949/- U/S.80HHF OF THE I. T. ACT IN RESP ECT OF F.O.B. VALUE OF EXPORT OF TELEVISION SOFTWARE AND TELECASTING RIGHTS TOTAL ING TO RS.1 77 90 08 033/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHETHER THE EXPORT RECEIVABLES AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REALIZED IN TERMS OF SEC. 80 HHF(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. ON GOING THROUGH THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REDUCED 10% OF T HE SERVICE FEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS OF BUSI NESS ON WHICH DEDUCTION U/S.80HHF IS TO BE WORKED OUT. THE AO ASKED THE ASS ESSEE TO PROVIDE ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 4 JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY 90% OF THE SERVICE FEE AMOU NTING TO RS.27 47 22 767/- SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSIN ESS FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHF AS DONE BY HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE VARIOUS EXPLA NATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 THE AO HELD THAT 90% OF THE SERVICE FEE NEEDS TO BE REDUCED WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS. THE AO WORKED OUT THE CALCULATION ACCORDING TO WHICH THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS CAME TO A NEGATIVE AT RS.5 62 37 629/-. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80HHF SINCE THE PROFI TS OF BUSINESS TURN NEGATIVE AFTER REDUCING 90% OF INTEREST INCOME AND SERVICE FEES. 8. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE ASSTT. 2000-01 HELD THAT SERVICE FEE AND SUBSCRIPT ION INCOME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR REDUCTION FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BU SINESS AND MUST BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF TURNOVER ONLY BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) IN A.Y. 2000-01 HAD OCCASION TO EXAMINE IDENTICAL MATTER. IN HIS ORDER DATED 14/8/03 IN APP EAL NO. CIT(A)XI/ADDL.CIT.RG.11(1)/IT-73/2003-04 AT PARA 4. 2.4 HAD HELD ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CLOTHING LTD. (260 ITR 371) AS UN DER : IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I HOLD THAT SERVICE FEE AND SUBSCRIPTION INCOME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR REDUCTION FOR TH E PROFITS OF BUSINESS AND MUST BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF TURNOVER ONLY. THE DEDUCTION OF RS.15 94 10 399/- U/S.80HHF AS WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IS SUSTAINED. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE THE SAM E THIS YEAR. THEREFORE THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE PRINC IPLE LAID DOWN BY THE CIT(A) IN SUCH ORDER. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENU E HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL : ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 5 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.15 94 10 399/- U/S.80HHF HOLDING THAT SERVICE FEE AND SUBSCRIPTION INCOME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR REDUCTION FROM THE PROFITS OF BUS INESS AND MUST BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF TURNOVER ONLY. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO SERVICE FEE BEING CONSIDERED FOR REDUCT ION OF PROFIT AND SHOULD BE PART OF TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHF OF THE ACT IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DRESSER RAND INDI A (P) LTD. (323 ITR 429). HOWEVER THE GROUND OF APPEAL ALSO MENTIONS ABOUT R EDUCTION OF SUBSCRIPTION INCOME FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. HOWEVER T HERE IS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR IN THE CIT(A)S OR DER AND HENCE THERE IS A MISTAKE IN TAKING THE GROUND BY THE DEPARTMENT. 10. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH DISA LLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSCRIPTION INCOME FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINES S EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE TO THIS EXTENT THERE IS A MISTA KE IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. SO FAR AS SERVICE FEE IS CONCERNED IN VIE W OF THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DRESSER RAND INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT SERVICE FEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REDUCTION FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHF OF THE I.T. ACT. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE TO THIS EXTENT IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 12. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING EXPENDITURE INCURRED O N ACCOUNT OF LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS.43 24 676/ - AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 6 THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS .43 24 676/- AND CLAIMED THE SAME TO BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. REJECTING THE V ARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 AND EARLIER YEARS THE AO HELD THAT EXPENDITURE ON LEASEHOLD IM PROVEMENTS IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. SINCE THESE ITEMS OF EXPEND ITURE ARE RELATED TO BUILDING HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 10%. 13. IN APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDERS O F HIS PREDECESSOR FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN T HE APPELLANTS OWN CASE IN ITA NO.3446/MUM/2002 FOR A.Y. 1998-99. THE ISSUE OF LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AT PARA 24 FOLLOWING THEIR CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR A .Y. 1996-97 AND 1997-98 DATED 29/7/2004 AT PARA 18. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL THE DISALLOWANCE MADE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED . APPEAL UDDER THIS HEAD IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVEN UE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDERS OF HIS PRED ECESSOR WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE FURTHER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS DISM ISSED THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSTT . YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997- 98. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO BROUGHT T O THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 IN WHI CH THE AO HAS ACCEPTED SIMILAR CLAIM FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT FOR THE ASSTT. YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE TH E GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 7 15. BY THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTI ON THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR EXC LUSION OF SUBSCRIPTION INCOME FROM PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING THE DE DUCTION U/S.80HHF. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THERE IS A MISTAKE IN TAKING THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE. 16. THE LD. D.R. FAIRLY CONCEDED THE ABOVE CONTENTI ON OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THERE IS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF REDUCTION OF SUBSCRIPTION INCOME FROM TH E PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE WE FI ND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS A MI STAKE IN TAKING THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE. CROSS OBJECTION NO. 1 BY THE ASSESSE E IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 18. CROSS OBJECTION NOS.2 3 AND 4 BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ERRED IN OBJEC TING AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHICH HAS APPROPRIATELY HELD THAT SERVICE FEES INCOME SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR REDUCTION FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS AN D MUST BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF TOTAL INCOME WHILE COMPUTIN G DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHF. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE IF AT ALL IT IS HELD THAT 90% OF SERVICE FEES NEED TO BE REDUCED FR OM ;THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 80HHGF THEN ONLY 90% OF NET SERVICE FEES SHOULD BE REDUCED AND NOT 90% OF GROSS SERVICE FEES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IF AT ALL IT IS HELD THAT 90% OF SERVICE FEES SHOULD BE EXCLUDED FR OM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTI ON 80HHF THEN THE SERVICE FEES SO EXCLUDED SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDE D FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF BUSINESS. 19. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION RELATES TO DEPARTMENTS GR OUND NO. 1 AND ONCE THE ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 8 DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D RESSER RAND INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) IS FOLLOWED WHICH IS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED THEN CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 3 AND 4 WILL NOT SURVIVE. 20. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE GROU ND RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DRESSER RAND INDIA (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 2 3 AND 4 ARE DISMISSED. 21. CROSS OBJECTION NO. 5 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ERRED IN OBJEC TING AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHICH HAS APPROPRIATELY HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS IS REVENUE IN NATURE. 22. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED. THEREFORE THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY T HE SAME IS DISMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHILE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS T HE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (R.K. PANDA) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI:30TH SEPT. 2010. NG: ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 9 COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2.DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A)-XI MUMBAI. 4 CIT-XI MUMBAI. 5.DR J BENCH MUMBAI. 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST.REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI. ITA 3381/M/08 3536/M/08 & CO 180/M/08 MULTI SCREEN MEDIA P.LTD. 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 24-09-2010 SR.PS/ 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27-09-2010 SR.PS/ 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER