UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ACIT CIR 2(3), MUMBAI

I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH MUMBAI. [ CORAM: D.K. AGARWAL JM AND PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD. .. APPELLANT 2 ND FLOOR UNITED INDIA BUILDING SIR P.M. ROAD FORT MUMBAI-400 001 PA NO.AAACU 0641 E VS ACIT CIRCLE 2(3) . RESPONDENT MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: SUNIL JHUNJHUNWALA FOR THE APPELLANT L.K.AGARWAL FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CALLED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 24.12. 2009 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 RELATE TO CONFIRMATION OF DISA LLOWANCE OF ` . 1 48 602 U./S.14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE LIKE TH IS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPT INCOME OF ` . 79 37 927 AND RS. 13 987. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE REASONS AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCES BE NOT MADE IN VIEW OF THE BOARDS NOTIFICATION NO.45/2008. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. THE AO WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 4 67 308 U/S.14A AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1 48 602 BY THE CIT (A) IN FIRST APPEAL. 4. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES AGREE THAT SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF RULE 8D IS CONCERNED THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESEE BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE O F GODREJ & BOYCE MFG CO LTD VS DCIT (328 ITR 81) BUT A REASONABLE DISALLOW ANCE FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME IS NEVERTHELESS TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG CO. LTD (SUPRA) AND AS AG REED TO BY THE PARTIES WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG CO. LTD (SUPRA). GROU ND NOS.1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NOS.4 TO 6 RELATE TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDI TION OF RS. 6 68 117 AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LOAN RECEIVED FROM ELIAN TRADING CO. P.LTD. 6. BRIEFLY STATED MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A LOAN OF RS. 87 90 125 FROM ELIAN TRADING C O. PVT.LTD.. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ELIAN TRADING C O. PVT.LTD. WERE HAVING COMMON DIRECTORS AND COMMON SHARE HOLDERS I.E. SUJ ATA PAREKH KUMAR WAS I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 3 HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF MORE THAN 20% IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HOLDING MORE THAN 10% OF THE V OTING POWER IN ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD HAD RESERVES AND SURPLUS AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 68 177 AS ON 31.3.2006. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRE D THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SUMS BE NOT TREATED AS DEEMED D IVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE AOS REQUISITION IT W AS INTER ALIA EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WA S IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THAT LENDING OF LOAN IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD.. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SUBSTANT IAL PART OF THE PROFITS OF ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD. CONSISTS OF SERVICES CHA RGES AND NOT LENDING MONIES. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. IT WAS NOTED BY T HE CIT (A) THAT MORE THAN 50% OF THE INCOME OF ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD. COM PRISES OF SERVICE CHARGES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER OB SERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT IN THE NORMAL PARLANCE THE EXPRESSION SUBSTANTIA L WOULD ALWAYS MEAN 50% OR MORE UNLESS EXPLICITLY DEFINED OTHERWISE IN THE STATUTE AND THAT SINCE ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO SUCH DEFINITION PRO VIDED BY THE STATUTE THE INTERPRETATION ADOPTED BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THE A SSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CA SE AS ALSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 8. ON A PERUSAL OF STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS OF M/S. ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD AS FILED BEFORE US AT PAGE 42 OF PAPER BOOK WE HAVE NOTICED THAT INTEREST EARNING CONSTITUTE 47.52% OF THE GROSS REC EIPTS WHEREAS 75.01% OF GROSS ASSETS ARE USED IN GIVING ADVANCES. HOWEVER EVEN ON THESE FACTS THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DECLINED TO TREAT THE LENDIN G OF FUNDS AS SUBSTANTIAL ACTIVITY OF ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD SOLELY ON TH E GROUND THAT PROFITS FROM I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 4 MONEY LENDING WERE LESS THAN 50% OF OVER ALL PROFIT S. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARLE PLASTICS LTD IN ITA NO.37 OF 2002 ORDER DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 A COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THE APP ROACH SO ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN PARLE PLASTICS LTDS CASE (SUPRA) THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE INTER ALIA OBSERVED THAT IN OUR VIEW THE EXPRESSION SUBSTANTIAL PART DOES NOT CONNOTE AN I DEA OF BEING THE MAJOR PART OR THE PART THAT CONSTITUTES MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE. THEIR LORDSHIPS OBSERVED THAT IF THE LEGISLATURE REALLY INTENDED T HAT MORE THAN 50% OF THE BUSINESS OF THE LENDING COMPANY MUST COME FROM THE BUSINESS OF LENDING NOTHING PREVENTED THE LEGISLATURE FROM USING THE EX PRESSION MAJORITY OF BUSINESS. IT WAS IN THIS BACKGROUND THAT THEIR LO RDSHIPS HELD THAT EVEN IN A SITUATION WHERE ONLY 42% OF THE ASSETS OF A COMPANY WERE DEPLOYED IN GRANTING LOANS AND ADVANCES LENDING OF MONEY WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS SUBSTANTIAL PART OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. WE MA Y IN THIS REGARD REFER TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT: 11. THE EXPRESSION USED UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SECTI ON 2(22) IS SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS. WE WOULD THERE FORE HAVE TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL AP PEARING IN THE EXPRESSION SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS. STRO UD'S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY FIFTH EDITION GIVES THE FIRST MEANING OF WORD SUBSTANTIAL AS A WORD OF NO FIXED MEANING IT IS AN UNSATISFACTORY MEDIUM FOR CARRYING THE IDEA OF SOME ASCERTAINABLE PROPORTION OF THE WHOLE. THE DECISIO N OF TERRY'S MOTORS LT. V. RINDER [1948] S.A.S.R. 167) IS GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF THIS MEANING. IN THE MEANING NO.8 WHILE CONSIDERING SU BSTANTIAL AMOUNT IT IS STATED THAT OUT OF A RENT OF 80 P.A .. 13 P.A. ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AMOUNT PAID FOR FURNITURE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IN MACLAY V. D IXON 170 L.T. 49 . IN MEANING NO.15 RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF LADB ROOKE (FOOTBALL) V. WILLIAM HILL (FOOTBALL) [1964] 1 W.L. R. 273 IT IS SAID THAT IN DECIDING WHETHER THE REPRODUCED PART OF COP YRIGHT MATERIAL IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE WHOLE IT I S THE QUALITY RATHER THAN THE QUANTITY OF THE PART THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY SIXTH EDITION DEFINES THE W ORD SUBSTANTIAL AS OF REAL WORTH AND IMPORTANCE; OF CONSIDERABLE VALUE; VALUABLE; BELONGING TO SUBSTANCE; ACTUALLY E XISTING; REAL; NOT SEEMING OR IMAGINARY; NOT ILLUSIVE; SOLID; TRUE ; VERITABLE. SOMETHING WORTHWHILE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM SOMETHIN G WITHOUT VALUE OR MERELY NOMINAL. NO DECISION WAS CITED BEF ORE US I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 5 WHEREIN A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT A PART OF THE WHOLE TO BE TREATED AS SUBSTANTIAL PART THE PART MUST EXCEED 50% OF THE WHOLE. IN OUR VIEW THE EXPRESSIO N SUBSTANTIAL PART DOES NOT CONNOTE AN IDEA OF BEING THE MAJOR PART OR THE PART THAT CONSTITUTES MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE. IF THE LEGISLATURE REALLY INTENDED THAT MORE THAN 50% OF THE BUSINESS OF THE LENDING COMPANY MUST COME FROM THE BUSINESS OF LENDING NOT HING PREVENTED THE LEGISLATURE FROM USING THE EXPRESSION MAJORITY OF BUSINESS. IF THE LEGISLATURE AT ALL INTENDED THAT A PARTICULAR MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF THE BUSINESS OF A LENDING COM PANY SHOULD COME FROM THE BUSINESS OF LENDING THE LEGISLATURE COULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR THAT PERCENTAGE WHILE DRA FTING CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE ACT. THE LEGISLATURE HAD DE LIBERATELY USED THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL INSTEAD OF USING THE WORD M AJOR AND/OR SPECIFYING ANY PERCENTAGE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFIT TO BE COMING FROM THE LENDING BUSINESS OF THE LENDING COMPANY FO R THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE ACT. WE WOUL D GIVE A AN ILLUSTRATION TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OF THE EXPRES SION SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS OR SUBSTANTIAL INCOME OF A COMPANY. IN THE MODERN DAYS LARGE NUMBER OF COMPANIES DO NOT R ESTRICT TO ONE OR TWO BUSINESSES. THEY CARRY ON NUMEROUS ACTIV ITIES AND CARRY ON NUMEROUS BUSINESSES AND HAVE NUMEROUS BUSI NESS DIVISIONS. LET US TAKE A CASE OF A FIRST COMPANY WH ICH HAS 3 DIVISIONS OF WORKS CONSISTING OF THREE DIFFERENT TY PES OF BUSINESS. TURN OVER AS WELL AS THE PROFIT OF THE FIRST DIVISI ON IS 40%; TURN OVER AND PROFIT OF SECOND DIVISION IS 30% AND THE T URN OVER AND PROFIT OF THE THIRD LINE OF BUSINESS IS 30% . IN TH E CASE OF THIS COMPANY NO PART OF THE BUSINESS HAS TURN OVER EXCEE DING 50% AND NO PART OF THE BUSINESS COMPANY GENERATES PROFI T OF MORE THAN 50% OF THE TOTAL. IN SUCH A CASE CAN IT BE SAI D THAT NONE OF THE BUSINESSES OF THE SAID COMPANY IS A SUBSTANTIAL BUS INESS OF THE COMPANY. IN OUR VIEW NOT. THE FIRST BUSINESS WHICH CONSTITUTES 40% OF THE TURN OVER AND CONTRIBUTES 40 % TO THE PR OFIT WOULD BE THE SINGLE LARGEST PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMP ANY THE SECOND AND THIRD DIVISIONS OF THE BUSINESS EACH OF WHICH CONTRIBUTES 30% OF THE TURN OVER AS WELL AS PROFIT OF THE COMPA NY THOUGH NOT THE MAJOR AND NOT EVEN SINGLE LARGEST PART OF THE B USINESS OF THE COMPANY WOULD STILL BE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE B USINESS OF THE COMPANY BECAUSE IF ANY PART OF THE THREE DIVISIONS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY WAS TO BE CLOSED DOWN THAT WOULD RESULT IN LOSS OF TURN OVER AND/OR BUSINESS OF 30% ORDINA RILY NO COMPANY WOULD REGARD SUCH PART OF THE BUSINESS AS I NSIGNIFICANT. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED IN STROUD'S JUDICIAL DICTIONARY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GIVE ANY FIXED DEFINITION OF THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS OF A COMPANY. ANY BUSINESS OF A COMPANY WHICH THE COMPANY DOES NOT REGARD AS SMAL L TRIVIAL OR INCONSEQUENTIAL AS COMPARED TO THE WHOLE OF THE BUS INESS IS SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS. VARIOUS FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES WOULD BE I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 6 REQUIRED TO BE LOOKED INTO WHILE CONSIDERING WHETHE R A PART OF THE BUSINESS OF A COMPANY IS ITS SUBSTANTIAL BUSINE SS. SOMETIMES A PORTION WHICH CONTRIBUTES SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE T URN OVER THOUGH IT CONTRIBUTES A RELATIVELY SMALL PORTION OF THE PROFIT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS. SIMILARL Y A PORTION WHICH RELATIVELY A SMALL AS COMPARED TO THE TOTAL T URNOVER BUT GENERATES A LARGE SAY MORE THAN 50 % OF THE TOTAL PROFIT OF THE COMPANY WOULD ALSO BE SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS BUSIN ESS. PERCENTAGE OF TURN OVER IN RELATION TO THE WHOLE AS ALSO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROFIT IN RELATION TO THE WHOLE A ND SOMETIMES EVEN PERCENTAGE OF A MANPOWER USED FOR A PARTICULAR PART OF BUSINESS IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL MAN POWER OR WORK ING FORCE OF THE COMPANY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION. EMPLOYEES OF A COMPANY ARE NOW CALLED ITS HUMAN RE SOURCES AND THEREFORE THE PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN RESOURCES USED BY THE COMPANY FOR CARRYING ON A PARTICULAR DIVISION OF BU SINESS MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHI LE CONSIDERING WHETHER A PARTICULAR BUSINESS FORMS SUBSTANTIAL PAR T OF ITS BUSINESS UNDISPUTEDLY THE CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY A CO MPANY FOR CARRYING ON A PARTICULAR DIVISION OF ITS BUSINESS A S COMPARED TO THE TOTAL CAPITAL EMPLOYED BY IT WOULD ALSO BE RELE VANT WHILE CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY CONSTITUTES SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF T HE COMPANY. 12. APPLYING THESE TESTS TO THE PRESENT CASE WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE ITAT HAS COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN COMING TO THE C ONCLUSION THAT LENDING OF MONEY WAS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF AMPL. THE ITAT HAS NOTED THAT 42% OF THE TOTAL ASSE TS OF AMPL AS ON 31.3.1996 AND 39% OF THE TOTAL ASSETS OF AMPL AS ON 31.3.1997 WERE DEPLOYED BY IT BY WAY OF TOTAL LOANS AND ADVAN CES. BY NO MEANS THE DEPLOYMENT OF ABOUT 40% OF THE TOTAL ASS ETS INTO THE BUSINESS OF LENDING COULD BE REGARDED AS AN INSIGNI FICANT PART OF THE BUSINESS OF AMPL. THE ITAT HAS ALSO HELD THAT T HE INCOME AMPL HAD RECEIVED BY WAY OF INTEREST OF RS.1 08 18 036/- WHILE ITS TOTAL PROFIT WAS RS.67 56 335/- . EXCLUDING THE INCOME EARNED BY AMPL BY WAY OF INTEREST THE OTHER BUSINESS HAD RESULTED INTO NET LOSS. IN OUR VIEW THE ITAT HAS TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND HAS APPLIED THE CORRECT TESTS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT LENDING OF MONEY WAS SUBSTANTIAL PA RT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE AMPL. SINCE LENDING OF MONEY WAS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BUSINESS OF AMPL THE MONEY GIVEN BY IT BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE REGARD ED AS A DIVIDEND AS IT HAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINIT ION OF DIVIDEND BY VIRTUE OF CLAUSE (II) OF SECTION 2(22 ) OF THE ACT. HENCE QUESTION NO.2 IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 7 9. AS EVIDENT FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE OB SERVATIONS MADE BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHICH ARE IN THE CON TEXT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) THE APPROACH ADOPT ED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. THERE IS NO SUPPORT FO R THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ONLY WHEN MORE THAN 50% OF T HE PROFITS COME FROM A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY THE SAID ACTIVITY CAN BE SAID TO BE SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND APPLY ING THE TEST LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARLE PLASTICS LTD (SUPRA) ON THE GIVEN FACTS (IN WHICH 75% OF THE ASSETS ARE DEP LOYED IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND 47% OF THE RECEIPTS ARE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST) IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS OF ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD. CAN INDEED BE SAID TO BE MONEY LENDING. IN THIS VIEW O F THE MATTER THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM ELIAN TRADING CO. PVT.LTD. WILL NOT BE HIT BY SECTION 2(22)(E) AS THE SUBSTANTIAL ACTIVITY OF ALIAN TRADING CO. P .LTD. WAS GIVING LOANS AND ADVANCES. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW GROUND NOS.4 TO 6. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD FEBRUARY 2011 SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI DATED 23 RD FEBRUARY 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 6 MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH F MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 8 I.T.A NO.2662/ MUM/2010 UNI RECUCLERS P. LTD 9