INDIA TUBE MILLS & METAL INDUSTRIES P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2634/MUM/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 263419914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACI3048R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2634/MUM/2011
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant INDIA TUBE MILLS & METAL INDUSTRIES P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 06-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 2634 & 2635/MUM/2011. ASSESSME NT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2008-09. M/S INDIA TUBE MILLS & ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX- 10(3) L.B.S. MARG VIKROLI (W) MUMBAI. MUMBAI 4000083. PAN AAACI3048R APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHR I SURINDER MEHRA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PARTHASARTHI NAIK. DATE OF HEARING : 31-01-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNC EMENT : 30-03-2012 O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP A.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TW O SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 15-02-2011 AND 07-02-2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-22 MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09 HAVE BEEN HEAR D TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BEING ITA NO. 2634/MUM/2011 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 15-02-2011 WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE AO AT RS.66 65 793/- AS AGAINST RS.93 383/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 2 ITA NOS.2634&2635/MUM/2011. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY WH ICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF BRIGHT BARS AND FABRIC ATION OF STRONG TANKS AND PRESSURE VESSELS ETC. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 09-11-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3 03 70 295/- INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.93 383/-. THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAND AT L.B.S. MARG VIKROLI (WEST) MUMBAI CERTAIN PO RTION OF WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROAD WIDENING. IN LIEU OF THE LAND SO ACQUIRED THE GOVERNMENT GRANTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHT CERTIFICAT E TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DATED 25-04-2005. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ASSIGNED THE SAID DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER BY ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 15- 06-2005 TO M/S JOY HOME CREATIONS PVT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.90 66 525/-. SINCE THE SAID ASSIGNMENT WAS DONE IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECEIVING THE DEVELOPMEN T RIGHT CERTIFICATE THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.90 66 525/- RECEIVED AGAINST AS SIGNMENT WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS CONSIDERATION/COMPENSATION RECE IVED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS COM PUTED AT RS.93 383/- WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(5) AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKER AGE PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.1 26 542/- AND INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. SINC E THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEFORE 01-04-1981 THE MARKET VALU E OF THE LAND AS ON 01-04- 1981 ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AT RS.17 80 000/- WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE SAME WAS IN DEXED WHILE CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN . 4. THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO HIM THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 07-1-1999 AND EVEN PO SSESSION THEREOF WAS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 16-03-2004 AS MENTIONED IN THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT 3 ITA NOS.2634&2635/MUM/2011. CERTIFICATE. HE HELD THAT THE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPM ENT RIGHTS THUS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16-03-2004 ITSELF AND THERE WERE TH US TWO DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE FIRST WHEN ASSESSEE RECEIVED T DR AGAINST ACQUISITION OF LAND ON 16-03-204 AND SECONDLY WHEN HE SOLD THE SAID TDR ON 12-06-205. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE YEAR 1999 ITSELF AND THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THAT ACQUISITIO N HAD ARISEN IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HE ALSO HELD T HAT THE TDR WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CAPITA L GAIN ARISING FROM THE SAID SALE WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 07 -12-1999 HE ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE SAID LAND ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEES VALUER AT RS.17 80 000/- AS COST OF ACQUISITION OF TDR AND AFTER INDEXING THE SAME A T RS.22 74 190/- HE COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF TDR AT RS.66 65 793/- IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 26-12-2008. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143 AN A PPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CHALLENGIN G THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE AO AT RS.66 65 793/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT A LTHOUGH THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED ON 17-12-1999 BY THE GOVERNMENT AND POSSESSION WAS ALSO TAKEN THEREAFTER THE COMPENSATION IN THE FORM OF TDR WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(5) THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ACQUISITION OF LAND T HUS WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AS HELD BY THE AO. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES LAND WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.17 80 000/- AS ON 01-04-1981 AND THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN ADOPTING THE SAME AS THE VALUATI ON OF LAND ON 17-12-1999 FOR THE 4 ITA NOS.2634&2635/MUM/2011. PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF TDR. THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTA BLE BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHO CONFIRMED THE COMPUTATION OF CAPIT AL GAIN MADE BY THE AO AT RS.66 65 793/- FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN P ARAGRAPH NO. 6.1 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER : I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH THE A/R OF THE APP ELLANT. HOWEVER I AM NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS PLACED BY THE APPELLAN T. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(5) THE COMPENSATION FROM GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE TAXED AT THE FIRST INSTANCE AND IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT SUCH FIRS T INSTANCE IS 17-1-299 WHICH IS MENTIONED AS 7-1299 IN THE DEVELOPMENT RIG HT CERTIFICATE DATED 25- 4-05. ONCE THE POSSESSION HAS BEEN GIVEN PART PERF ORMANCE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT AND HENCE TRANSFER HAS OCCURRED. THE SUBSEQUENT INSTANCES THAT IS RECEIPT OF THE COMPENSATION ETC. ARE IN COMPLIANCE THEREOF. FURTHER ASSESSEE IS BEEN A COMPANY FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WHEREIN THE INCOME HAS TO BE OFFERED ON ACCRUED BASIS. THE APPELLANT H AS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE VALUATION AS ON 1-4-81 AS NOT APPLICABLE ITS CASE. HOWEVER SINCE SAME WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF THE ASSESSEE CANN OT GO BACK TO CLAIM IT OTHERWISE. REGARDING OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. IN REM AND REPORT FOR ENHANCED CAPITAL GAINS I DO NOT AGREE AS A.O. HAS SIMPLY OB SERVED THAT THE AGREEMENT TO ASSIGN TDR DATED 5-6-05 IS UNREGISTERED AND STAM P DUTY VALUATION IS NOT AVAILABLE HENCE THE VALUE SHOULD BE MORE THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN. FURTHER HE HAS SHOWN REVERSE WORKING TAKING THE BRO KERAGE NORMALLY IN THE RATE OF 1 TO 1.25%. HOWEVER THESE ARE MERE ESTIMATE S AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. FURTHER THE A.O. HAS NOT DONE ANY ENQUIRY TO PROVE THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS HIGHER THAN S HOWN BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE DETAILED EXPLANATION GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AS ABOVE I DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE OBS ERVATIONS REGARDING ENHANCED CAPITAL GAINS OF THE A.O. HOWEVER THE FIND INGS OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDING TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GA INS OF RS.66 65 793/- ARE UPHELD. 5 ITA NOS.2634&2635/MUM/2011. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH TH E LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE YEAR 1999 AND POSSESSION THEREOF WAS ALSO TAKEN ON 16-03-2004 AS MENTIONED IN THE DE VELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE THE COMPENSATION FOR THE SAID LAND WAS PAID TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT BY WAY OF CERTIFICAT E ISSUED ON 25 TH APRIL 2005 I.E. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM TRANSFE R OF A CAPITAL ASSET BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW ARE CONTAINED IN SECTION 45(5) AND THE RELEVANT PORTION THEREOF WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : [(5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SEC TION (1) WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET B EING A TRANSFER BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW OR A TRANSFER THE CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH WAS DETERMINED OR APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T OR THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND THE COMPENSATION OR THE CONSIDERATION FO R SUCH TRANSFER IS ENHANCED OR FURTHER ENHANCED BY ANY COURT TRIBUNAL OR OTHER AU THORITY THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER NAMELY : ( A ) THE CAPITAL GAIN COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE C OMPENSATION AWARDED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE 92 OR AS THE CASE MAY BE THE CONSIDERATION DETERMIN ED OR APPROVED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT OR THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA SHALL BE CHARGEABLE AS 93 [INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH COMPENSAT ION OR PART THEREOF OR SUCH CONSIDERATION OR PART THEREOF WAS FIRST RECEI VED]; (B) - - - - - - - - - - (C) - - - - - - - - - - 6 ITA NOS.2634&2635/MUM/2011. AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS TH E CAPITAL GAIN AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQU ISITION IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE FIST INSTANCE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH COM PENSATION AGAINST SUCH ACQUISITION WAS FIRST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE SUCH COMPENSATION IN THE FORM OF TDR WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I.E. THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITIO N OF THE ASSESSEES LAND BY THE GOVERNMENT THUS WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THAT YEAR AND NOT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. SINCE THE SAID TDR WAS IMMEDIATELY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ASSIGNMENT FOR RS.90 666 525/- WE FIND THAT THE SA ME COULD BE TAKEN AS MONETARY VALUE OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE FORM OF TDR FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. MOREOVER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVE RNMENT HAD BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AT RS.17 80 000/- AS ON 01-04 -1991 AND SINCE THE SAID LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO 01-04-1981 IT WAS ENTITLED TO ADOPT THE SAID VALUE AS COST OF ACQUISITION DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTAT ION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION. WE THERE FORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE CO MPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE AO AT RS.66 65 793/- AND DIRECT TH E AO TO ACCEPT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.93 3 83/-. 7. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 BEING ITA NO. 2635/MUM/2011 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 07-02-2011. 7 ITA NOS.2634&2635/MUM/2011. 9. THE SOLITARY ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THIS APPEAL RE LATES TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON ACCOUNT OF ROAD TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF CARS TREATING TH E SAME AS THE EXPENDITURE IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL. 10. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAD ACQUIRED MOTOR VEHICLES AND THE RTO TAX OF RS.8 45 507/- PAID IN R ESPECT OF THE SAID VEHICLES WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIBLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BEING RE VENUE IN NATURE. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE SAID EXPENDITURE FORMED PART OF THE COS T OF ACQUISITION OF THE VEHICLES AND THE SAME THEREFORE WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT THE SAID ASSET INTO EXISTENC E AND PUT THE SAME TO USE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF RTO TAX. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF R TO TAXES. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE TAX COLLECTED BY RTO FOR USE OF THE ROADS WAS EARLIER COLLECTED ON Y EAR TO YEAR BASIS AND AS PER THE REVISED SCHEME THE SAME NOW WAS COLLECTED AS ONE T IME PAYMENT IN THE YEAR OF REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE ITSELF. IT WAS CONTENDED TH AT THE SAID EXPENDITURE THUS WAS REVENUE IN NATURE AND ALTHOUGH THE SAME WAS PAID IN LUMPSUM IN THE FIRST YEAR ITSELF AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT IT WAS ENTIRELY DEDUCTIBLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE OBSERVING THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PA YMENT OF RTO TAX AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION FORMED PART OF THE COST OF THE VEHICLE WHICH CONSTITUTED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES O N THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THA T THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PAYMENT OF TAXES TO RTO FOR USE OF THE ROADS WHICH IS 8 ITA NOS.2634&2635/MUM/2011. COMMONLY KNOWN AS ROAD TAX. SUCH ROAD TAX WAS BEING COLLECTED BY THE RTO EARLIER ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS AND THE SAME THEN WAS BEING ALLOWED AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. AS PER THE NEW SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMEN T RTO STARTED COLLECTING THE ROAD TAX IN LUMPSUM AS ONE TIME PAYMENT MADE AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE ITSELF AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ACCORDINGLY HAD PAID THE RTO TAX AT ONE TIME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN THE VEHIC LES WERE ACQUIRED AND REGISTERED WITH RTO. IN OUR OPINION THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT OF ROAD TAX WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE FIRST YEAR ITSE LF AS A ONE TIME PAYMENT AS PER THE REVISED SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT CHANG E THE CHARACTER OF RTO TAX WHICH IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE PAYMENT WAS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE IN ONE STROKE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN LIEU OF T HE ROAD TAX WHICH EARLIER WAS PAYABLE ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS AND SINCE THE ROAD TA X ITSELF IS THE EXPENDITURE OF REVENUE NATURE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ONE TIME PAYMENT OF SUCH ROAD TAX WILL ALSO BE OF T HE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF MARCH 2012. SD/- SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (P.M. JAGT AP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 30 TH MARCH 2012. WAKODE COPY TO : 9 ITA NOS.2634&2635/MUM/2011. 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR I-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.