SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKER LTD, v. ACIT CIR 4(2),

CO 72/MUM/2013 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 7219923 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAACS8744C
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number CO 72/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKER LTD,
Respondent ACIT CIR 4(2),
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 11-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 11-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 03-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 03-10-2013
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 21-03-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER / ITA NO. 9075 / MUM ./ 2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 7 08 ) / C.O. NO. 72/MUM./2013 ( 9075 /MUM./2010 ) ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 9 075/MUM./2010 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 08 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101 M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 .. / APPELLANT V/S M/S. SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKERS LTD. VESTA B 90 FEET ROAD PANT NAGER GHATKOPAR (E) MUMBAI 400 075 .... / RESPONDENT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAACS8744C / REVENUE BY : MRS. JYOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK / A SSESSEE BY : MR. FAROOKH IRANI / DATE OF H EARING 03 . 10 .2013 / DATE OF ORDER 1 0 - 10 - 2013 / ORDER / PER AMIT SHUKLA J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IM PUGNED ORDER DATED 27 TH OCTOBER 2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) VIII MUMBAI M/S. SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKERS LTD. 2 FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08. WE FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.9075/MUM./2010 VIDE WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. 'I. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN RESPECT OF V SA T CHARGES OF RS.6 44 107 AND TRANSACTION CHARGES OF RS.3 30 000 PAID TO STOCK EXCHANGE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THESE WERE COMPOSITE CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES RENDERED BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE TO ITS MEMBERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS THEREON. II. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THESE SERVICES ARE ESSENTIAL IN NATURE AS THEY CAN ONLY BE AVAILED BY MEMBERS OF STOCK EXCHANGE. III. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACTS THAT USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND ALGORITHMIC BASED PROGRAMS HAVE CONVERTED AN ERSTWHILE PHYSICAL MARKET INTO A DIGITALLY OPERATED MARKET.' IV. 'ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE BROKERS ARE NOT STANDARD SERVICES BUT SERVICES THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED TO CATER TO THE NEEDS OF THE BROKER COMMUNITY TO FACILITATE TRADI NG.' V. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE BROKERS HAVE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS THEMSELVES STARTED DEDUCTING THE TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS AND THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO GIVE A DIFFERENT TR EATMENT IN THIS YEAR.' VI. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW TO BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A STOCK BROKER IN BSE / NSE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 6 44 107 ON ACCOUNT OF V SAT CHAR G ES AND RS. 3 30 000 ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS CHARGES. HE HELD THAT THESE CHARGES ARE IN THE NATURE OF RENDERING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THEREFORE THE ASSES SEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT S . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED ANY TDS HE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) AFTER DETAIL DISCUSSION RUNNING INTO 10 PAGES. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KOTAK SECURITIES PVT. LTD. V/S ACIT 124 TTJ 241 (MUM.) AND DICT V/S ANGEL BROKING LTD. 35 SOT 457 (MUM.) . 3. BEFORE US IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT INSOFAR AS THE V SAT CHARGES ARE CONCERNED THE SAME ARE COV ERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S ANG EL CAPITAL AND DEBIT MARKET LTD. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.475 OF 2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 27 TH JULY 2011 WHEREIN IT HAS M/S. SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKERS LTD. 3 BEE N HELD THAT ON THE PAYMENT OF V SAT CHARGES THERE IS NO LIABILITY OF DEDUCTING TDS. MOREOVER THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. [2012] 340 ITR 333 (BOM.). AS REGARDS TRANS ACTION CHARGES IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THOUGH THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN PRINCIPLE BUT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE AS THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN ASSESSEES CASE ALSO LIKE IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES AS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE ALSO IN THE EARLIER YEARS . THUS IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA) NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE OF V SAT CHARGES IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HOWEVER REGARDING TRANSACTION CHARGES SHE SUBMITTED THAT WHETHER THE ISSUE OF TRANSACTION CHARGES HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE EARLIER YEARS OR NOT IS NOT COMING FROM THE RECORDS AND WHETHER THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WHEREIN THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OR SIMILAR PAYMENTS WER E MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR ALSO IS NOT COMING FORTH. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT INSOFAR AS THE PAYMENT OF V SAT CHARGES ARE CONCERNED THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA AND THEREFORE T HERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR DEDUCTING THE TDS AND CONSEQUENTLY NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE. REGARDING TRANSACTION CHARGES WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT WHETHER THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR S IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS. THEREFORE ON THIS SCORE WE SET ASIDE TH E ISSUE OF TRANSACTION CHARGES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER IN THE EARL IER YEARS TRANSACTIONS CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ANY DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS OR NOT . IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TRANSACTION CHARGES IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND NO DISALLOWANCE HAS M/S. SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKERS LTD. 4 BEEN MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT THEN IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA) NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE IN THIS YEAR BECAUSE IN THAT WAY IT CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT DEDUCTING THE TDS IN THIS YEAR ALSO . WITH THIS DIRECTION THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. 6. IN THE RESULT REVENU ES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE NO W TAKE UP ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO. 72/MUM./2013 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.9075/MUM./2010. T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED INTER ALIA FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS. 2 60 000 BEING COMPUTER SOFTWARE PURCHASE DURING THE YEAR AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 1.2 T HE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN THIS ERA OF HIGH TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ESPECIALLY IN THE FIELD OF COMPUT ER AND SOFTWARE THE LIFE OF THE SOFTWARE IS VERY SHORT BECAUSE BY THE TIME YOU START USING THE SOFTWARE THERE IS A BETTER AND MORE ADVANCE SOFTWARE IS AVAILABLE IN MARKET AND THEREFORE ONE TENDS TO REPLACE THE SOFTWARE FREQUENTLY TO HAVE BETTER SYSTEMS A ND CONTROL ON THE BUSINESS OPERATION. THIS IS EVEN MORE RELEVANT IN THE FIELD OF CAPITAL MARKET AND SPECIFICALLY IN THE STOCK BROKING BUSINESS WHICH IS DONE BY APPELLANT COMPANY. BECAUSE OF THE INHERENT RISK IN THE BUSINESS MAKES IT EXTREMELY NECESSARY TO HAVE MORE ADVANCED SOFTWARE TO KNOW THE CLIENT'S POSITION AT ANY POINT OF TIME. 1.3 THE APPELLANT THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE EXPENSE ON SOFTWARE IS LIKE REGULAR ONGOING BUSINESS EXPENSES AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS EVENUE EXPENSES. ONLY BECAUSE A NEW ITEM HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE DEPRECIATION TABLE DOES NOT MAKE ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH IS OF NATURE REVENUE EXPENDITURE OF THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 2 60 000 INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF C OMPUTER SOFTWARE WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BECAUSE SUCH SOFTWARE EXPENSES HAVE AN ENDURING BENEFIT AND THEREFORE HE HELD THAT ONLY DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS PER THE NEW APPENDIX OF I NCOME T AX R ULES. M/S. SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKERS LTD. 5 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TOO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 02 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE YEAR UPGRADED SOFTWARE PROGRAMMES LIKE BACK OFFICE SOFTWARE DEBT MARKET SOFTWARE ETC. WHICH IS DONE EVERY YEAR TO SUPPORT THE EXPANDING BUSIN ESS AND TO INCREASE THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO NSE AND DEBT MARKET OPERATIONS. THE APPELLANT HAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN PUT TO REST BY INSERTION OF NOME NCLATURE COMPUTER INCLUDING COMPUTER SOFTWARE AT ITEM NO.5 IN THE NEW APPENDIX I EFFECTIVE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07. IN VIEW OF THIS INSERTION ALL COMPUTER SOFTWARE ARE REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AND ONWARD. EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PURCHASE OF ANY SOFTWARE IS THEREFORE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE UPHELD. THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 9. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. FAROO KH IRANI SUBMITTED THAT THE SOFTWARE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR DAY TO DAY RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS AND WITH THE CHANGE OF TECHNOLOGY THE SPAN OF SOFTWARE IS VERY SHORT WHICH HAS TO BE CHANGED EVERY NOW AND THEN. THEREFORE IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ENDURING B ENEFIT ON THE CAPITAL FIELD . IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S ASAHI INDIA SAFETY GLASS LTD. [2012] 346 ITR 329 (DEL.). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE IN A PPENDIX I WHICH PROVIDES FOR RATE OF DEPRECIATION IN CASE OF COMPUTERS AND SOFTWARE WILL NOT LEAD TO AN AUTOMATIC CONCLUSION THAT ALL THE SOFTWARE EXPENSES ARE TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENSES FROM A.Y.2006 - 07 . RULES PER SE CANNOT DECIDE WHAT IS CAPITAL ASSET OR REVENUE EXPENDITURE BECAUSE THE SAME HAS TO BE SEEN ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE TESTS LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS COURTS FROM TIME TO TIME. 10. PER CONTRA THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE STATU TORY RULE ITSELF PRESCRIBES THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SOFTWARE THEN DEFINITELY IT SUGGESTS THAT THE SOFTWARE EXPENDITURES ARE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL ONLY. OTHERWISE DEPRECIATION RATE COULD N OT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED . THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERE D BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL AS THE MATTER PERTAINED TO THE M/S. SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKERS LTD. 6 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997 98 AND 1998 99. SHE ALSO STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES V/S DCIT [2008] 111 ITD 112 (DEL.) (SB) WHERE DETAIL GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN. SHE THUS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 11. IN THE REJOINDER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES [2012] 346 ITR 341 (DEL.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE ARE TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 12. WE HA VE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED SOFTWARE EXPENSES FOR UPGRADING THE SOFTWARE PROGRAMMES LIKE BACK OFFICE SOFTWARE DEBT MARKET SOFTWARE E TC. RELATING TO ITS BUSINESS OF STOCK BROKING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DISALLOWED THESE EXPENSES MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE I NCOME T AX R ULES APPENDIX I ITEM NO.5 WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN INCOME TAX R ULE W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 MENTION S THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTERS INCLUDING COMPUTER SOFTWARE @60% . FROM THIS THEY HAVE INFERRED THAT THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE IS NOTHING BUT CAPITAL ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED. IN OUR CON SIDERED OPINION INCLUSION OF THE WORD COMPUTER SOFTWARE IN NEW APPENDIX I GIVING THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION WILL NOT PER SE LEAD TO A CONCLUSIVE INFERENCE THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 COMPUTER SOFTWARE ARE TO BE HELD AS CAPITAL ASSET ONLY ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED AND ANY EXPENSES ON SOFTWARE CANNOT BE HELD AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE . WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR EXPENSE FALLS IN THE CAPITAL FI ELD OR REVENUE FIELD HAS TO BE JUDGED LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND VARIOUS TESTS LAID D OWN BY THE COURTS FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL. IN THIS AGE OF COMPUTERIZATION VARIOUS SOFTWARES ARE DEVELOPED FOR SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF VARIOUS BUSINESS NEED S THAT HELPS BUSINESS TO RUN EFFECTIVELY EFFICIENTLY AND PROFITABLY. THE SOFTWARES KEEP ON CHANGING AT A VERY FAST PACE WITH THE GROWING REQUIREMENT IN THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS. MOST OF THE M/S. SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKERS LTD. 7 SOFTWARES BECOME OBSOLETE IN SHORT SPAN AND NEW AND UPGRADED VERSION ARE REQUIRED FOR BETTER FUNCTIONING. UNLESS IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE SOFTWARE INSTALL ED HAS A VERY LONG LASTING LIFE AND ENDURING BENEFIT ON A CAPITAL ASSET THEN PROBABLY IT CAN BE SAID THAT IT MAY NOT BE OF REVENUE IN NATURE. HOWEVER THE SOFTWARE APPLICATION PER SE DO NOT IN ANY MANNER SUPPLANT S THE SOURCE OF INCOME OR MAKE ANY ADD ITION TO THE CAPITAL SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS IN OUR OPINION SOFTWARE APPLICATION EXPENSES ARE NOTHING BUT UP GRADATION OF EFFICIENT WORKING OF OPERATIONS THROUGH COMPUTERS IN THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS MANAGEMENT WHICH KEEPS ON CHANGING PERIODICALLY AN D THUS ANY EXPENDITURE ON SUCH AN UPGRADATION OR BUYING OF SOFTWARE IS REVENUE EXPENDITURE ONLY. THE DECISION S AS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO SUPPORTS OUR VIEW. EVEN THOUGH THE R ULES HAVE PROVIDED RATE OF DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE BUT THAT DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY KIND OF DRAWING LEGAL INFERENCE THAT ALL THE SOFTWARES HAVE TO BE CHARECTERISED AS CAPITAL ASSET. THUS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 13. 13. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 14. 14. TO SUM UP REVEN UES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 1 0 - 10 - 2013 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 0 - 10 - 2013 . SD/ - SD/ - SD / - RAJENDRA SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD / - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED : 1 0 - 10 - 2013 M/S. SANGHVI SAVLA STOCK BROKERS LTD. 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) / THE ASSESSEE ; (2) / THE REVENUE; (3) / THE CIT(A ) ; (4) / THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; (5) / THE DR ITAT MUMBAI ; (6) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER / PR ADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MU MBAI