THE JCIT (OSD) RG 3(3), MUMBAI v. M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 193/MUM/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 19319914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACR5055K
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 193/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant THE JCIT (OSD) RG 3(3), MUMBAI
Respondent M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 28-12-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 09-01-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP AM AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKA R JM. I.T.A.NOS . ASSESSMENT YEAR : 191/MUM/2009 1999-2000 192/MUM/2009 2000-2001 193/MUM/2009 2001-2002 194/MUM/2009 2002-2003 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (OSD) RANGE 3(3) MUMBAI. VS. M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 3 RD FLOOR MAKER CHAMBERS-IV NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN: AAACR 5055 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A.NOS . ASSESSMENT YEAR : 71/MUM/2009 1999-2000 72/MUM/2009 2000-2001 73/MUM/2009 2001-2002 74/MUM/2009 2002-2003 M/S. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. 3 RD FLOOR MAKER CHAMBERS-IV NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN: AAACR 5055 K VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (OSD) RANGE 3(3) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ARVIND SONDE RESPONDENT BY : DR. (SHRI) B. SENTHIL KUMAR O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE EIGHT APPEALS FOUR BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOU R BY THE REVENUE ARE CROSS APPEALS WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST FOUR SEPA RATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III M UMBAI. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS APPEALS FILED F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 BEING ITA NOS.191/MUM/2009 & 71/MUM/2009 WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III DATED 23.10.2008. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO TH ESE APPEALS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH FILED ITS ORIGINAL RET URN OF INCOME ON 30.12.1999 ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL COMPUTED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS. 19 84 37 353/- U/S.115JA OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDE R DATED 28.03.2002 THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AT RS. 10 19 30 410/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE A CT AND AT RS.22 47 70 079/- UNDER SECTION 115JA OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ALLOWED CERTAIN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND VIDE AN ORDER PASSED ON 15.03.2005 AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT NIL UNDER THE NORMAL PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT AND AT RS. 22 47 70 079/- U/S. 115JA. IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 20.03.2002 NO DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WAS ALLOWED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 115JA. THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 24.03.2003 HOWEVER DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC ON THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JA ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROFIT AS PER THE ACCOUNTS AND NOT TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THIS DIRECTION WAS NOT INITIALLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE G IVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THIS MISTAKE HOWEVER WAS SUBSEQUE NTLY RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN ORDER DATED 24.07.2006 BY A LLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 154 AND ACCORDINGLY DEDU CTION U/S.80HHC WAS ALLOWED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROFIT AS PER THE ACCOUNTS F OR DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFITS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS NO TICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC ON THE BOOK PROFIT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF HAD REDUCED 90% OF THE RENT INCOME B UT NO REDUCTION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF OTHER INCOME SUCH AS INTEREST PROFIT AN D SALE ON INVESTMENT ETC. ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS THUS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE U/S.154 WAS ISSUED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.6.2007 ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 3 REQUIRING IT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY RECTIFICATION U/S.154 SHOULD NOT BE MADE BY REDUCING 90% OF OTHER INCOME SUCH AS INTEREST AND PROFIT AND SALE OF INTEREST ETC. FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS PROFIT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUC TION U/S.80HHC FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JA. IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT CLAUSE (BAA) OF EXPLANATION T O SECTION 80HHC IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC FOR TH E PURPOSE OF DETERMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JA. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WA S PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SICOM FORMULATIONS (I) LTD. 13 SOT 414 WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD THAT DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC IN THE CASE OF MAT ASSESSMENT IS TO BE WORKED OUT ON T HE BASIS OF ADJUSTED BOOK PROFIT AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF PROFIT COMPUTED ON REGULAR BASIS AS PER LAW APPLICABLE TO THE COMPUTATION OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IT WAS HELD THAT SUB-SECTION (4B) OF SECTION 80HHC HAS BEE N EXCLUDED FROM THE PURVIEW OF EXPLANATION U/S.115JA. IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE SAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE I.T.A .T THAT EXPLANATION (BAA) SOUGHT TO BE INVOKED FOR RECTIFICATION U/S.154 IS APPLICAB LE FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFITS U/S.115JA. IT WAS ALSO CONT ENDED THAT A CLEAR DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO COMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OUT OF BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JA ONLY WITH RE FERENCE TO THE PROFIT AS PER THE ACCOUNTS AND NOT TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS THUS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDE D THAT THE RECTIFICATION PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOLVED A DEBATABLE POI NT OF LAW INVOLVING MORE THAN ONE POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISI ON AND THE SAME WAS THEREFORE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION PERMISSIBLE U/S.1 54. ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 4 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF RECTIFI CATION PROCEEDINGS U/S. 154. ACCORDING TO HIM THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A) IN THIS CONTEXT WAS TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC ON THE PROFIT AS PER THE ACCOUNTS AND NOT ON THE PROFIT COMPUTED AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO SUGGEST THAT ADJ USTMENT AS PER EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE WHIL E COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION OF BOOK PROFIT. HE ALSO NOTED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OUT OF BOOK PROFIT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF HAS REDUCE D 90% OF THE RATE AND THEREFORE THE STAND NOW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY THAT 90% OF INTEREST PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT ETC. COULD NOT BE RED UCED FROM THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WAS SELF-C ONTRADICTORY. HE THEREFORE PROCEEDED TO PASS AN ORDER U/S.154 AND REDUCED 90% OF OTHER INCOME SUCH AS INTEREST PROFIT AND SALE OF INVESTMENT ETC. FROM ELIGIBLE BUSINESS PROFIT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80 HHC FOR THE PURPOSE OF D ETERMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JA. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S.154 OF THE ACT AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF PF THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA THAT T HE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS SPECIFICALLY TO COMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DETERMINING BOOK PROFITS AND SINCE THE SAID DIRECT ION WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE AP PELLATE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE SAID ORDER WARR ANTING ANY RECTIFICATION U/S.154 OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ISSUE ON WHICH RECTIFICATION WAS D ONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 5 ANY CASE WAS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND IT WAS THEREFOR E BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154. THESE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE BEFORE HIM WERE FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSE E BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA NO. 8.4 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000: IN THE NORMAL COMPUTATION OF INCOME EXPLANATION (B AA) IS AUTOMATICALLY INVOKED. AS HAS BEEN DETAILED IN THE PRECEDING PARA OF THIS ORDER THIS EXPLANATION PERMITS THE SPECIFIED ADJUSTMENTS IN PR OFIT COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PR OFESSION. HOWEVER WHEN THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER DIRECTED THAT DEDUC TION U/S.80HHC BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSE E FOR DETERMINING BOOK THE REFERENCE TO PROFITS UNDER THE HEAD PROF IT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION IS NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL. THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO BAR IN THE APPELLATE OR DER FOR INVOKING EXPLANATION (BAA) AND THEREFORE HE IS INVOKING EX PLANATION (BAA) IS A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE. IT IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE ON THE FACE OF IT THE ADJUSTMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE EXPLANATION CAN ONL Y BE MADE TO PROFITS CALCULATED UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSI NESS AND PROFESSION. IN THE COMPUTATION BEING MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER TH IS PROFIT HAS NOT BEEN CALCULATED AT ALL. THE PROFIT BEING CONSIDERED IS PROFIT AS PER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE PRIMA FACIE THE ADJUSTMEN TS SPECIFIED IN EXPLANATION CANNOT BE INVOKED. YET IT IS A FACT TH AT IN THE PRECEDING PARA ON MERITS I HAVE HELD THAT ADJUSTMENTS SPECIFIED I N THE EXPLANATION CAN STILL BE INVOKED IN THE COMPUTATION BEING MADE BY A SSESSING OFFICER. THUS THE DEBATE IS BETWEEN WHAT IS APPARENT FROM THE EXP LANATION AND WHAT THE REAL INTENT OF THE EXPLANATION IS. TO MY MIND THIS IS A HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE AND IS DEFINITELY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTIO N 154. FURTHER THAT EXPLANATION (BAA) CAN STILL BE INVOKED WHEN DEDUCTI ON U/S.80HHC IS BEING CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE CAN BE CONCLUDED ONLY AFTER FOLLOWING DETAILED ARGUMENTS. NOT ONLY THIS THAT T HE CONCLUSION OF MINE IS EMERGING FROM AN INTERPRETATION OF FIRST OF WHAT IS AN EXPLANATION IN STATUTES AND SECOND OF WHAT IS THE INTENTION OF TH E LEGISLATURE BEHIND THIS EXPLANATION. BOTH THESE INTERPRETATION ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF DEBATE AND ARE NOT ISSUES DIRECTLY APPARENT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF T HE SECTION UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN FACT LANGUAGE OF EXPLANATION (B AA) APPARENTLY SUGGESTS THAT SUCH ADJUSTMENTS CANNOT BE MADE. TO MY MIND THE ISSUE INVOLVES INVOKING PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO WHAT IS AN EXPLANATION AND WHAT THE REAL INTENT BEHIND EXPLANATION (BAA) THE ISSUE IS BASED UPON DETAILED AND LENGTHY ARGUMENT. TWO DISTINCT VIES ARE POSSIBLE. THE ISSUE IS DEFINITELY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 WHICH RESTRICTS TO ONLY RECTIFICATIONS WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THIS IS NOT SO. THEREF ORE IT IS HELD THAT THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ARE BEYOND TH E SCOPE OF SECTION 154. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CANCELLED THE INTEREST C HARGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 234D OBSERVING THAT THE SAID PROVISION HAVING BEEN ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 6 INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.20 03 WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ITS APPEALS RAISING ITS ALTERNATIVE CLAIMS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT WH ILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE HIM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 999-2000 VIDE AN APPELLATE ORDER DATED 24.03.2003 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS D IRECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JA ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO PROFIT AS PER THE ACCOUNTS AND NOT TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO THE AMOUNT COMPUTED AND ALLOWED UNDER THE N ORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ALTHOUGH THIS DIRECTION WAS NOT INITIALLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) PA SSED ON 31.3.2005 HE LATER ON COMPLIED WITH THE SAID DIRECTION BY PASSING A RECTI FICATION ORDER DATED 24.7.2006 ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 154. THEREAFTER HE PASSED ONE MORE ORDER U/S.154 ON 09.05.2008 RESTRICTING THE DE DUCTION COMPUTED U/S.80HHC WHILE DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM IN THE ORDER DATED 24.07. 2006 WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT REDUCING THE PRO FITS OF THE BUSINESS BY 90% OF OTHER INCOME SUCH AS INTEREST PROFIT FROM SALE OF INVESTMENTS ETC. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US A SPECIFIC DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED C IT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 24.3.2003 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE DEDUC TION U/S.80HHC FOR DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.115 JA WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROFIT AS PER THE ACCOUNTS AND NOT TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO THE AMOUNT COMPUTED AND ALLOWED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. KE EPING IN VIEW THIS SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 7 MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT REDUCING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS BY 90% OF THE OTHER INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC CALLING FOR ANY RECTIFICATION U/S.154. I N OUR OPINION THERE WAS THUS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON 24.07.2006 GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WA RRANTING ANY RECTIFICATION U/S.154. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) THA T THIS ISSUE AS TO WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S .115JA IS TO BE ALLOWED WITH REFERENCE TO ELIGIBLE PROFIT AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OR WITH REFERENCE TO THE ELIGIBLE PROFIT AS COMPUT ED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT IN ANY CASE WAS HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE AT THE RELEVANT TIME AND RECTIFICATION ON THE SAID ISSUE WAS BEYOND THE SCOP E OF SECTION 154. WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THI S ISSUE TO THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE REVENUES BY PASSING RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S.1 54 OF THE ACT AND UPHOLD THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 8. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED THEREIN RELATING TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234D IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD. (ITA NO. 198 OF 2009 DATED 15.04.2009) WHEREI N IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B HAVING COME ON THE STATU TE BOOK WITH EFFECT FROM 1.6.2003 AND THE SAME HAVING NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFEC T INTEREST UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS CANNOT BE CHARGED IN RESPECT OF REFUNDS GRANTED PRIOR TO 01.6.2003. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO ASCERTAIN EXACT DATE OF GRANT OF CORRESPONDING REFU ND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY DECIDE THIS ISSUE KE EPING IN VIEW THE JUDGMENT OF ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 8 THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD.(SUPRA). GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN ITS APPEAL FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 -2000 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RELATING TO ITS ALTERNATIVE CLA IMS. AS A RESULT OF OUR DECISION RENDERED ABOVE UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RESTRIC TING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE T HE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL GR OUND HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS AGREED EVEN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 10. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 BEING ITA NO. 192/M/2009 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) III MUMBAI DATED 23.10.2008. 11. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED THEREIN RELATING TO DELETION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RESTR ICTING DEDUCTION U/S.80-HHC FOR DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1999-2000. SINCE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE SAID ISSUE AS INVOLV ED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01 ARE SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WE FOLLOW OUR DECISION RENDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 IT IS OBSERVED THAT T HE ISSUE RAISED THEREIN RELATING TO LEVY OF LEVY UNDER SECTION 234D IS SIM ILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1999-2000. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION RENDERED ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1999-2000 WE RESTORE THIS ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 9 MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASCERTAIN THE EXACT DATE OF GRANT OF CORRESPONDING REFUND TO THE ASSESS EE AND DECIDE THE SAME AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. BAJAJ HINDUSTAN LTD. (SUPRA). GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 13. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 BEING ITA NO. 72/MUM/09 IT IS OBSERVED THAT ALL TH E GROUNDS RAISED THEREIN INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RELATING TO THE AS SESSEES ALTERNATIVE CLAIMS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS A RESULT OF OUR DECISION UPHO LDING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BY RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT S OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTU OUS. 14. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 BEING ITA NO. 73/MUM/09 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III MUMBAI DATED 23.10.2008. 15. THE RELEVANT FACTS INVOLVED IN THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ARE SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 INASMUCH AS THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS RECTIFIED BY HIM BY RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WHILE DETERMINI NG THE BOOK PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE BY REDUCING 90% OF OTHER INCOME AS PER EX PLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC. ALTHOUGH A SIMILAR ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION U/S.154 IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CI T(A) HOLDING THAT THE SAME WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 HE TOOK A DIFF ERENT VIEW IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND CONFIRMED THE SAID ADJUSTMENT FOR THE F OLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 6.6 OF HIS ORDER PASSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 -02: ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 10 TRUE HE ADJUSTMENTS SPECIFIED IN EXPLANATION (BAA ) ARE SPECIFIED TO BE WITH REFERENCE TO PROFITS UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME PROF ITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THOSE ADJUSTMENTS ARE CONDITIONS TO BE INVOKED FOR MAKING CALCULATION U/S. 80HHC(3). AND SECTION 115JB CLAUS E (IV) CATEGORICALLY SPECIFIES THAT ALL CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80HHC HAVE TO BE INVOKED. IN EXPLANATION (BAA) THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE CONDITI ON IS THE SPECIFIED ADJUSTMENTS. THAT THE ADJUSTMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE W ITH REFERENCE TO PROFITS AS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME PROFIT AND GA INS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION IS A METHODOLOGY OF COMPUTATION RELEVA NT FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC UNDER NORMAL COMPUTATION. THE M OMENT A DIVERSION IS TAKEN FROM NORMAL COMPUTATION. THE MOMENT A DIVERSI ON IS TAKEN FROM NORMAL COMPUTATION TO SECTION 115JB THAT METHODO LOGY BECOMES IRRELEVANT BUT NOT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED. IN ACCORDANCE WIT H CLAUSE (IV) OF SECTION 115JB THEN THE SPECIFIED CONDITION HOLDS IS RELEVA NT AND HAS TO BE INVOKED FOR CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT. TO MY MIND THERE IS NOT AN IOTA OF DOUBT ON THAT CLAUSE (IV) OF SECTION 115JB REQUIRES ALL COND ITIONS OF SECTION 115JB TO BE INVOKED. THEREFORE THE CONDITION CONTAINED I N EXPLANATION (BAA) OF SECTION 80HHC HAS NECESSARILY TO BE INVOKED. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THEREFORE IN CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC(3) FO R THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 115JB CLAUSE (IV) OF SECTION 115JB REQUIRING ALL C ONDITIONS OF SECTION 80HHC TO BE SATISFIED UNAMBIGUOUSLY REQUIRES EFFECT TO B E GIVEN TO THE CONDITION PORTION OF EXPLANATION (BAA) OF SECTION 80HHC THE CONDITION BEING SPECIFIED ADJUSTMENTS TO BE MADE. THIS THEN IS A STRAIGHT FOR WARD ISSUE WHICH CAN BE SQUARELY COVERED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154. A CTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED. I HASTEN TO POINT OUT THA T SIMILAR ISSUE U/S.115JA WAS DECIDED BY ME IN EARLIER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS OF AP PELLANT WHERE I HAD HELD BY ORDER OF EVEN DATE THAT ACTION U/S.154 IS NOT JU STIFIED. THAT WAS BECAUSE IN THE RELEVANT CLAUSE (VIII) OF SECTION 115JA THE CONDITIONALITY REQUIREMENT THAT ALL CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80HHC HAVE TO BE INV OKED WAS ABSENT. THIS IS NOT SO IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB. THEREFOR E A DIFFERENT SCENARIO IS HERE. IT IS CONSEQUENTLY HELD THAT ACTION OF ASSESS ING OFFICER U/S.154 IS JUSTIFIED IN PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE. 16. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THUS RELIED ON THE PROVISION S OF CLAUSE (IV) OF SECTION 115JB TO CONFIRM THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION U/S.154 HOLDING THAT AS PER THE SAID CLAUSE ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC INCLUDING THE CONDITI ON CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION (BAA) WERE REQUIRED TO BE INVOKED WHILE COMPUTING D EDUCTION U/S.80HHC FOR DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFIT US/.115JB. IN THIS REG ARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE LATEST DECISION OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AJANTA PHARMA LTD. V CIT(327 ITR 305)(SC) WHERE IN A SIMILAR STAND AS TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER WAS SOU GHT TO BE TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN SUPPORT ITS CASE AND THE SAME WAS NO T ACCEPTED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT FOR THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS RECORDED IN THE JUDGMENT: ONE OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE DEP ARTMENT WAS THAT IF CLAUSE (IV) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB IS READ IN ENTIRETY INCLUDING ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 11 THE LAST LINE THEREOF (WHICH READS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THAT SECTION) IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT OF PROF ITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR C LAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (3A) AS THE CASE MAY BE IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THAT SECTION. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IS TRYING TO READ THE VARIOUS PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 80HHC IN ISOLATION WHEREAS AS PER CLAUSE (IV) OF THE EXPLANA TION TO SECTION 1125JB IT IS CLEARS THAT THE BOOK PROFIT SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC AS COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SUB-SECTION (3A) AS THE CASE MAY BE OF THAT SECTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECI FIED IN THAT SECTION THEREBY MEAN THAT THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE WOULD BE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DEDUCTION COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 80HHC. THUS ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT BOTH ELIGIBILITY AS WELL AS DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE PROFIT HAVE GOT TO BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER FOR WORKI NG OUT THE DEDUCTION AS MENTIONED IN CLAUSE (IV) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECT ION 115JB. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS ARGUMENT. IF THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN ELIGIBILITY OF PROFIT AND DEDUCTIBILITY OF PROFIT IS NOT KEPT IN MIND THEN SECTION 115JB WILL CEASE TO BE A SELF-CONTAINED CODE. IN SECTION 115JB AS IN SECTION 115JA IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT THE RELIEF WILL BE COMPUTED UND ER SECTION 80HHC(3)/(3A) SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER SUB-SECTIONS (4) AN D (4A) OF THAT SECTION. THE CONDITIONS ARE ONLY THAT THE RELIEF SHOULD BE C ERTIFIED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. SUCH CONDITION IS NOT A QUALIFYING COND ITION BUT IT IS A COMPLIANCE CONDITION. THEREFORE ONE CANNOT RELY UPON THE LAST SENTENCE IN CLAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB (SUBJECT TO THE CONDIT IONS SPECIFIED IN SUB- SECTION (4) AND (4A) OF THAT SECTION) TO OBLITERATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ELIGIBILITY AND DEDUCTIBILITY OF PROFITS AS CON TENDED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. 17. AS HELD BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF AJANTA PHARMA LTD. (SUPRA) SECTION 115JB IS THE SUCCESSOR OF SECTION 1 15JA AND THE SAME CONTINUES TO REMAIN A SELF-CONTAINED CODE AND REQUIRED TO BE APP LIED ACCORDINGLY NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE ACT. IT WAS HE LD THAT IF THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN ELIGIBILITY OF PROFITS AND DEDUCTIBILI TY OF PROFIT IS NOT KEPT IN MIND SECTION 115JB WOULD CEASE TO BE A SELF-CONTAINED C ODE. IT WAS HELD THAT ONE THEREFORE CANNOT RELY UPON THE LAST SENTENCE IN C LAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB TO OBLITERATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ELIGIBILITY AND DEDUCTIBILITY OF PROFITS AS CONTENTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF AJANTA PHARMA LTD.(SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE RELIANCE OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) ON CLAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB TO CONFIRM THE ADJUSTM ENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION U/S.154 HOLDING THA T THE SAME WAS NO MORE A ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 12 DEBATABLE ISSUE IS CLEARLY MISPLACED. MOREOVER A SPECIFIC DIRECTION WAS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER TO COMPUTE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC FOR DETERMINING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROFITS AS PER THE ACCOUNTS AND NOT TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO THE AMOUNT COMPUTED AND ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE I .T. ACT. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN NOT REDUCING PRO FIT OF THE BUSINESS BY 90% OF THE OTHER INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUC TION U/S.80HHC TO DETERMINE THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB CALLING FOR ANY RECTIFICA TION U/S.154. WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE A.O. BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION U/S.154. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 BEING ITA NO. 73/MUM/2009 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 18. AS REGARDS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 BEING ITA NO. 193/MUM/2009 IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED THEREIN RELATING TO LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND 2000-01. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION RENDERED IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AS PER THE SAME DIRECTION AS GIVEN IN ASSESSME NT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 BEING ITA NO. 74/MUM/2009 WHICH IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III MUMBAI DATED 23.10.2008. ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 13 20. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PEP RUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED HAT THE MAIN ISS UE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION RE NDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WE REVERSE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE ADJUSTMEN T MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION U/S.154. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 BEING ITA NO. 74/MUM/2009 IS ACCORDIN GLY ALLOWED. 21. AS REGARDS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03 IN ITA NO. 194/MUM/2009 IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED THEREIN RELATING TO LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D IS SIMILAR TO T HE ONE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2 000 AND 2000-01. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION RENDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999- 2000 2000-01 WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AS PER THE SAME DECISIONS AS GIVEN IN A.YS. 1999-2000 AND 2000-2001 . THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 22. IN THE RESULT (A) REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-200 0 & 2000-01 BEING ITA NOS. 191/M/2009 AND 192/MUM/2009 ARE PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (B) REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 BEING ITA NOS. 193/MUM/2009 AND 194/MUM/2009 ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (C) ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-200 0 AND 2000- 2011 BEING ITA NOS. 71/MUM/2009 AND 72/MUM/2009 ARE DISMISSED AND ITA NOS. 191 TO 194 & 71 TO 74/M/2009 M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 14 (D) ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 BEING ITA NOS. 73/MUM/2009 AND 74/MUM/2009 ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23RD DA Y OF MARCH 2011. SD. SD. (R.S. PADVEKAR) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE 23 RD MARCH 2011. KN\ COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE JCIT(OSD) RG. 3(3) MUMBAI 3. THE CIT-3 MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-III MUMBAI 5. THE DR D BENCH MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI