LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD., MUMBAI v. THE DY.C.I.T., CIRCLE2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2683/MUM/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 268319914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACL1681P
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2683/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD., MUMBAI
Respondent THE DY.C.I.T., CIRCLE2(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 23-09-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 27-04-2009
Judgment Text
1 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN V.P. AND SHRI R.K. PANDA A.M. ITA NO. 2683/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. TAXATION DEPT. L&T HOUSE 3 RD FLOOR N.M. MARG BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI 400 001. PAN AAACL 1681P VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2 ROOM NO. 384 AAYAKAR BHAWAN M.K. MARG MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI J.D. MISTRY RESPONDENT BY SMT. USHA NAIR DATE OF HEARING 30.06.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.09.2011 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DT. 24.03.2009 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE LD. CIT- 2 M UMBAI RELATING TO A.Y. 2004-05. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT ORDER U/S 14 3(3) IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS PASSED BY THE A.O. ON 23.11.2006. THE CIT ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS NOTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING :- (I) THE EXPENDITURE OF ` 172 56 43 532/- INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA WAS NOT REDUCED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEFINITION O F THE EXPORT TURNOVER GIVEN IN CLAUSE (IV) OF EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 10A. 2 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. (II) THE COMMUNICATION EXPENSES OF ` 9 39 89 556/- HAVE NOT BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER AS PER CLAUSE (IV ) OF EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 10A. 2.1 HE THEREFORE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO TH E ASSESSEE SEEKING ITS RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED REVISION. THE ASSESSEE RA ISED VARIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REVISION THE GIST OF WHICH ARE AS UNDE R:- (I) THE DEFINITION OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER REQUIRE S EXCLUSION OF TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA ONLY IF THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE EXPORT TURNOVER. THE EXPORT TURNOVER CAN INCLUDE T HESE ITEMS ONLY IF THE COMMUNICATION CHARGES AND EXPENSES IN PROVIDING TEC HNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA ARE GOT REIMBURSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL SUM OF ` 82 29 459/- BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OF COMMUNICATI ON CHARGES FROM THE CLIENTS. THIS SUM HAS BEEN EXCLUDED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ARRIVING AT THE EXPORT TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 10A. THE SUM OF ` 9 39 89 556/- REPRESENTS COMMUNICATION CHARGES INC URRED BY ASSESSEE AND DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT IN ARRIVING AT THE PROFITS. (II) THE SUM OF ` 172 56 43 532/- HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED OUTSIDE INDI A IN PROVIDING ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES. ON THE OTHER HAND THE SAME HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE ON CO NTRACT BASIS AND THE SAME WERE HANDED OVER TO THE CLIENTS. AS PER GENER ALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING AND BUSINESS PRACTICES IF ANY SERVICES ARE ENTERED IN RESPECT OF GOODS THOSE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO GOODS AND SU CH EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE SO A S TO BE CALLED IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES EXPENSES. (III) EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS IN THE NATURE OF EXPENSES FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA THE SAME CANNOT FORM PART OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER AS NO PART OF IT HAS BEEN R ECEIVED BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT. IN FACT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN D EBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN ARRIVING AT THE PROFIT. (IV) IN CASE TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES AND THE EXP ENSES FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA ARE TO B E EXCLUDED IN ARRIVING AT THE EXPORT TURNOVER SAME AMOUNTS NEED TO BE DED UCTED IN ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A. 2.2 HOWEVER THE LD. CIT WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOU NT OF ALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE 3 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. DEDUCTION U/S 10A DUE TO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A.O. TO EXCLUDE THE COMMUNICATION CHARGES OF ` 9 39 89 556/- AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA OF ` 172 56 43 532/- FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER THOUGH THE DEFINITION OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER IN S ECTION 10A REQUIRED SUCH EXCLUSION. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE WAS LACK OF PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE A.O.. HE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE T HE ASSESSMENT WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/ S 10A TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPORT TURNOVER WHICH EXCLUDES TELECOMMUNICATIO N CHARGES AND EXPENSES FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA. 2.3 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2 [CIT] ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [THE ACT] ON 23.11.2006 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE DEDUCTION U/S 10A . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN EXCLUDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY FROM EXPORT TURNOVER FOR DETERMINING DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN EXCLUDING COMMUNICATION EX PENSES FROM EXPORT TURNOVER FOR DETERMINING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 1 0A OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTEN TION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IF COMMUNICATION EXPENSES & EXPENDITURE IN FOR EIGN CURRENCY ARE TO BE EXCLUDED AT ALL IN ARRIVING THE EXPORT TURNOVER SIMILAR EXCLUSION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL TURNOVE R FOR DETERMINING DEDUCTION U/S 10A. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING ASSESSING OFFICER T O RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPORT TURNOVER WHICH EXCLUDES TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES AND EXPENS ES FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA. 4 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT. THE ONLY QUESTION TO BE DECID ED IS AS TO WHETHER TELECOMMUNICATION EXPENSES OF ` 9 39 89 556/- AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA OF ` 172 56 43 532/- SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER OR NOT. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PATN I TELECOM P. LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN [2009] 308 ITR (AT) 414 (HYD) HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT FOR CALCULATION OF EXPO RT TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10A EXPENDITURE SUCH AS FREIGHT TELE COMMUNICATION CHARGES OR INSURANCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DELIVERY OF THE ARTIC LES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE OUTSIDE INDIA OR EXPENSES INCURRED IN FORE IGN EXCHANGE IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA ARE NOT REQUIRED T O BE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL DTD. 11.1.2008 RELATES TO A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT YEA R INVOLVED IN THE INSTANCE CASE IS A.Y. 2004-05. THEREFORE THE A.O. HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW IN EXCLUDING THE COMMUNICATION CHARGES AND EXPENSES IN CURRED IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA FROM THE EXPORT TU RNOVER. 3.1 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SAK SOFT LTD. REPORTED IN [2009] 313 ITR (AT) 0 353 HAS HELD THAT EXPENSES ON FREIGHT TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES OR INSURANCE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DELIVERY OF THE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE OUTS IDE INDIA OR EXPENSES INCURRED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES OUTSIDE INDIA WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXPORT T URNOVER AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION 2(III) BELOW SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961 SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE FIGURE OF TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE AP PLYING THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 10-B OF THE ACT. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE HOLDING SO HAS FOLLOWED THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LAXMI MACHINE WORKS RE PORTED IN 290 ITR 667. THIS DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH RELATES TO A.Y. 2002-03 AND WAS DELIVERED ON 6.3.2009. 5 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. 3.2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTEN TION OF THE BENCH TO PAGE 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE NOTES FORMING PAR T OF ACCOUNTS. REFERRING TO CLAUSE 5 OF THE SAID NOTES THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ITEM-WISE FULL DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE IN FOREIGN CU RRENCY HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNT. REFERRING TO PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUDITORS HAVE GIVEN THEIR REPORT U/S 10A IN FORM NO . 56F. REFERRING TO PAGE 30 & 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUDIT ORS QUANTIFIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A AT ` 71 951 002/-. REFERRING TO PAGE 45 OF THE PAPER BO OK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE NOTICE IS SUED BY THE A.O. U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO PAGE 46 AND 47 OF THE PAPE R BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE ANNEXURE TO THE NOTICE U/S 142( 1) IN WHICH THE A.O. HAS ASKED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. REFERRING TO CLAUSE 16 O F THE SAID ANNEXURE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH WHERE THE A.O. HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH P&L A/C OF ALL THE SE VEN UNITS LOCATED IN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS. REFERRING TO PAGE 48 TO 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O. AND SUBMITTED THAT IN CLAUSE 2 4 OF THE SAID LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAD ENCLOSED A STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE I.T. ACT CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. AFTER ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE. 3.3 REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE BREAK-UP OF EXPENDITURE IN FOREIGN CURRENCY (PLACED AT PAGE NO. 53 TO 54 OF TH E PAPER BOOK) HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE BREAK-UP OF EXPENDITURE IN FOREIGN C URRENCY IS IN THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PATNI TELECOM PVT. LTD. (SU PRA). REFERRING TO THE INVOICES (SAMPLE COPIES PLACED AT PAGE 55 TO 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK) HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO RECOVERY OF EXPENSES. HE SUBMITTED THA T AFTER ASKING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS THE A.O. SCRUTINIZED THOSE DETAILS TOOK A POSSIBLE VIEW AND AMENDED 6 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. THE 10A CALCULATION PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AL LOWED DEDUCTION U/S 10A AT ` 8 36 40 603/-. THEREFORE THIS IS NOT AN ERRONEOU S ORDER SINCE THE A.O. HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. 3.4. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 295 ITR 282 HE SUBMITTE D THAT WHEN THE A.O. ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND I T HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE IN COME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UN-SUSTAINABLE I N LAW. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY T HE LD. CIT BEING NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW SHOULD BE QUASHED. 3.5 THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) THERE IS ABSOLUT ELY NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A.O. NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN DONE FOR VERIFICATI ON OF THE EXPORT TURNOVER AND THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S 10A OF THE ACT IN T HE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT REPORTED IN 243 ITR 83 THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MRS. USHA A. KALWANI VS. S.N. SONI AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 272 ITR 67 AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHARIWAL IN DUSTRIES LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN [2008] 300 ITR (AT) 50 (PUNE [SB] HE S UBMITTED THAT WHEN THERE IS LACK OF ENQUIRY OR NO ENQUIRY THE CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES PURSUED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER 7 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. BOOK WE FIND THERE IS NO PROPER ENQUIRY OR VERIFICA TION BY THE A.O. THE ORDER IS ABSOLUTELY SILENT ABOUT THE INCLUSION OR EXCLUSION OF VARIOUS ITEMS FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER FOR CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALSO DOES NOT CO NTAIN ANY SUCH DIRECT QUERY TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10 A OF THE AC T. ALTHOUGH THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS PASSED ON 6.3.09 WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. (SINCE THE DAT E OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS 23.11.06) WE FIND THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE PROVISIONS. WE THEREFORE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THERE IS NO PROPER ENQUIRY OR DUE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A.O. IN T HE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4.1 IT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIO NS THAT WHEN THERE IS LACK OF ENQUIRY OR NO ENQUIRY THE CIT HAS POWER TO ASSU ME JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE A.O. HAS F AILED TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY AND HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND THEREFORE THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORD INGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 IS JUSTIFIED. 4.2 HOWEVER WE FIND THE CIT WHILE DIRECTING THE A. O. TO RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A HAS DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RE-COMPU TE THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPORT TURNOVER WHICH EX CLUDES TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES AND EXPENSES FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVIC ES OUTSIDE INDIA. HOWEVER HE HAS FAILED TO DIRECT THE A.O. TO EXCLUDE THE ABO VE ITEMS FROM THE FIGURE OF TOTAL TURNOVER WHILE APPLYING THE FORMULA PRESCRI BED U/S 10B(4) OF THE ACT AS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF SAK SOFT LTD. (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT WITH A DIRECTION TO MODIFY HIS ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DIRECTING THE A.O.TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 8 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISPOSED OF IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23.09.2011. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (R.K. PANDA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 23.09.2011. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI 4. THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH A 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI 9 ITA 2683/ M/2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 12.9.2011 20.9.2011 SR. PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 13.9.2011 21.9.2011 SR. PS 3 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS SR. PS 5 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS 6 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS 7 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER