ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI v. MORAJ CONSTRUCTION (I) P.,LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 2947/MUM/2012 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 294719914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AACCM6664M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2947/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI
Respondent MORAJ CONSTRUCTION (I) P.,LTD, NAVI MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 19-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 09-09-2014
Next Hearing Date 09-09-2014
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 30-04-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA A M & AMIT SHUKLA J M ITA NO S . 2945 TO 29 49 / MUM/20 1 2 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2006 - 07 ) ITO - 10(3)(4) MUMBAI - 20 VS. MORAJ CONSTRUCTION (I) PVT. LTD. 162 CENTRAL FACILITY BUILDING APMC MARKET TURBHE VASHI NAVI MUMBAI - 400 705 PAN/GIR NO. : A A CCM 6664 M ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) AND ITA NO S . 29 50 &2951 / MUM/20 12 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001 - 02 & 2003 - 04 ) ITO - 10(3)(4) MUMBAI - 20 VS. MORAJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. D - 5 BIG SPLASH SECTOR - 17 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI - 400703 PAN/GIR NO. : A ACCM 6 72 4 E ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI PREMANAND J. /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRADIP KAPASI DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH SEPTEMBER 201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 TH NOV 201 4 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) F OR A.Y S. 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 2006 - 07 RESPECTIVELY IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) / 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE IT ACT . ITA NO S . 2945 TO 2951 /1 2 2 2. COMMON ISSUES IN ALL THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PERTAIN TO DECLINE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). DURIN G THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT/RE - ASSESSMENT THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF TWO FLATS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE BEARING NUMBERS 103 & 104 THE AREA EXCEEDED 1000 SQ.FT.. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT COMMERCIAL AREA EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED PERCENTAGE OF 1 0 OF THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AREA THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). BY IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES 33 3 ITR 289 .THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) WAS AS UNDER : - 4.5 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT. THE FIRST GROUND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AO. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) IS THAT IN RESPECT OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS THE BUILT UP AREA EXCEEDS 1000 SQ. FTS. SINCE TWO FLATS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE SAME PERSON. DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO. HAS CARRIE D OUT VERIFICATION OF THESE TWO FLATS AND FOUND THAT FLAT N O.1 03 WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SHRI DHARMENDRA DHADE VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 22.06.2000 AND FLAT NO.L04 WAS SOLD BY ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SH RI SURESH KADAM. VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 4.7.2000. SU BSEQUENTLY VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 3.3.2005 FLAT NO.I03 WAS SOLD BY DHARMENDRA DHADE TO SMT. PRATIMA SURESH K ADAM WIFE OF SHRI SURESH KADAM. THE AO. ALSO REPORTED THAT AS PER FLOOR PLAN THESE TWO FLATS WERE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER BY A BRICK WALL AND ALSO HAD TWO S EPARATE ENTRANCES AND SEPARATE KITCHENS . THUS THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE A.O. THAT THE FLATS WERE SOLD TO THE SAME PERSON BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON THE HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI DECISION IN THE CASE OF MANJU GUPTA (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT BEFORE OF BEING USED ON STAND ALONE BASIS DEDUCTION U/S80IB(10) CANNOT BE DE CLINED ON THE GROUND THAT MORE THAN ONE FLAT WAS SOLD TO A SAME PERSON. IN THIS C ASE THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY FACT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIA TE THAT THIS CONDITION W AS NOT S ATISFIED. THE SECOND ISSUE RELATING TO THIS IS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL SHOPS WHEREIN THE AREA EXCEEDS 1000 SQ.FTS INDEPENDENTLY. THIS FACT IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE ARE ONLY TWO FLATS I.E. FLAT NO.1 03 AN D FLAT NO.1 04 AND THE BALANCE ARE SHOPS. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE CONDITION OF 1000 SQ.FT. IS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ONLY AND NOT FOR SHOPS. ON PERUSAL OF THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 80LB(10) THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO BE CORREC T. THE SECOND GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION BY A.O. WAS THAT AS PER THE PAPERS GIVEN ITA NO S . 2945 TO 2951 /1 2 3 TO THE AKOLA JANTA COMMERCIAL BANK AKOLA THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WAS 19.09 .L998 AND SINCE THIS WAS PRIOR TO 1.10.1998 NO DEDUCTION WAS ADMISSIB LE. THIS WAS EXPLAINED TO BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR BY THE 'APPELLANT STATING THAT THIS WAS THE DATE OF INCORPORATION OF COMPANY WHILE THE PROJECT HAD ACTUALLY COMMENCED ON 09.03.2000. THESE FACTS HAVE NOW BEEN VERIFIED BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED IN THE REMA ND REPORT AS ABOVE. THUS THIS ARGUMENT OF THE A.O. GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ALSO MISFOUNDED. THE THIRD GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS THAT THE COMMERCIAL AREA EXCEEDS 5% OF THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA WHICH W AS CALCULATED BY HIM AS 6% IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THIS CASE THE PROJECT COMMENCED ON 09.03.2000 AND THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED ON 23.01.2003 AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. HAS CALCUL ATED THE COMMERCIAL AREA AT 6% ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT AND OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AFTER INCLUSION OF CLUB HOUSE. THE APPELLANT ARGUED THAT A COMMON AREA DOESN'T FORM PART OF EITHER BUILT UP RESIDENTIAL AREA OR BUILT UP COMMERCIAL AREA HENC E IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE CALCULATING AGGREGATE BUILT UP COMMERCIAL AREA. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE CASE OF BHUMIRAJ HOMES LTD. A SISTER CONCERN OF ASSESSEE THE HO N 'BLE ITAT IN A.Y. 2004 - 2005 HAS HELD THAT COMMON AREA DOES NOT FOR M PART OF COMMERCIAL AREA. FURTHER IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN THE CASE OF BRAMHA ASSOCIATES 333 ITR 289 HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO PROJECTS WHICH INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AREA WHEN THE PROJECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY EVEN WHERE COMMERCIAL AREA EXCEEDS 10%. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT DREW MY ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF A.O. IN PARA 4.2.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE A.O. HAS ADMITTED THAT THE MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL AREA AS PER APPROVAL GRANTED BY NMMC FOR CONSTRUCTION AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE IS 15%. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE COMMERCIAL AREA IS WITHIN THE LIMIT OF DEV ELOPMENT CONTROL RULES. THE APPELLANT ALSO INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI DATED 20.05.2011 IN THE CASE OF A PPELLANT SISTER CONCERN M/ S. BHUMIRAJ HOMES FOR .Y. 2005 - 2006. WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FAC TS THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE SAID ORDER THE HONBLE ITAT DISCUSSING THE ISSUE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : '7 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CAREFULLY AND FIND THAT B ASICALLY TWO DISPUTES ARE INVOLVED. THE FIRST DISPUTE IS WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) CAN BE ALLOWED EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE COMMERCIAL AREA IS MORE THAN 10%. THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS CONCLUDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECI SION OF THE HON 'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRAMHA ASSOCIATES [SUPRA J. IN THIS CASE THE CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED AT PARA 30 WHICH READS AS UNDER: '30. IN THE RESULT THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN APPEAL ARE A) UPTO 311312005 (SUBJEC T TO FULFILLING OTHER CONDITIONS) DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80LB(10 ) IS ALLOWABLE TO HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH COMMERCIAL USER TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER THE DC RULES/REGULATIONS FRAMED BY THE RESPECTI VE LOCAL AUTHORITY. ITA NO S . 2945 TO 2951 /1 2 4 B) IN SUCH A CASE WHERE THE COMMERCIAL USER PERMITTED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IS WITHIN THE 'LIMITS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE DC RULES/REGULATION THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80113'(10) UPTO 311312005 WOULD BE ALLOWABLE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT IS APPROVED AS 'HOUSING PROJECT' OR 'RESIDENTIAL PLUS COMMERCIAL '. C) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISIONS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT UPTO 311312005 DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) WOULD BE ALLOWABLE TO THE PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH COMMERCIAL USER UPTO 10% OF THE TOTAL BUILT - UP - AREA OF THE PLOT. D) SINCE DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) IS ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE HOUSING PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS A WHOLE THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING SECTION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION ONLY TO A PART OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ALLOWING SECT ION 80IB(10) DEDUCTION TO A PART OF THE PROJECT WE DO NOT DISTURB THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT BEHALF. E) CLAUSE (D) INSERTED TO SECTION 80IB(10) WITH EFFECT FROM 1/4/2005 IS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE AND HENCE CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1/4/2005 .' FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT IF THE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY EVEN WITH HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF COMMERCIAL AREA THEN DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT. IN ANY CASE FU RTH E R SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y 2004 - 05 IN I TA.NO. 2170 / M/09. 8. THE SECOND DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SEC.80IB(10) W.E.F 1 - 4 - 2005 COULD BE APPLIED TO THE PROJECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED BEFORE THE AM ENDMENT. THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SAROJ SALES ORGANIZATION ITO (SUPRA). TH E RELEVANT PORTION OF THE HEADNOTE READS AS UNDER : - FURTHER THE HOUSING PROJECT HAVING BEEN APPROVED BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 2005 THE CO NDITION OF SHOPPING AREA NOT EXCEEDING 5 PER CENT OF BUILT - UP AREA AS INTRODUCED BY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT AND APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF PROJECTS APPROVED BEFORE 31 ST MARCH 2007 DID NOT APPLY. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV VS. DY.CIT[SUPR A] IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : - 'DEDUCTION UNDER S. 801B(1 0) - ALLOWABILITY - ASSESSEE DEVELOPER OF BUILDING PROJECT SUBMITTED ITS PROPOSAL FOR SLUM REHABILITATION AND THE PERMISSION FOR CARRYING OUT THE DEVELOPMENT - ACCORDING TO THE AO AS THE PROVISIONS O F S.80IB(10)(D) AS APPLICABLE W.E.F 1ST APRIL 2005 THE LIMIT FOR HAVING COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE HOUSING PROJECTS IS 5 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL BUILT - UP AREA OR 2 000 SQ.FT. WHICHEVER IS LESS - ITA NO S . 2945 TO 2951 /1 2 5 ASSESSEE WAS DENIED DEDUCTION S. 80IB(10) ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD EXCEEDED THE SPACE AND NUMBER OF UNIT CRITERIA - ASSESSEE CONTENDING THAT CONDITIONS UNDER S. 80IB(10) REQUIRES TO BE TESTED AT THE TIME THE PROJECT WAS CONCEPTUALIZED AND IF THE CONDITIONS STOOD FULFILLED AT THE TIME OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT TH E CONDITIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WIT H ' - SLUM REHABILITATION SCHEMES INVOLVE PROVIDING ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION TO SLUM DWELLERS WHO ARE DISPLACED FROM THEIR EXISTING PLACE - THEREFORE THEY HAVE TO BE TREATED AS HOUSING PROJECT - LAW AS IT EXISTED IN THE ASST. YR. 2004 - 05 WHEN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS PROPOSAL FOR SLUM REHABILITATION AND THE PERMISSION FOR CARRYING OUT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS ACCORDED ON 17TH NOV. 2003 AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE APPLIED. ' SIMILA RLY VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE OTHER CASES CITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS WE HOLD THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE US SINCE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED ON 27 - 3 - 200 1 AND WAS COMPLETED ON 16 - 1 - 2003 [DATE OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE 31 - 3 - 2003] THEREFORE THE AMENDED PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB ( 10 ) . WE ACCORDINGLY THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 8 0IB(10) 9. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ' ACCORDINGLY IT WAS ARGUED THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE EVEN IF THE PROJECT OF THE APPELLANT WAS APPROVED AS 'RESIDENTIAL CUM COMMERCIAL' PROJECT AS HELD BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN BRAMHA ASSOCIA TES (SUPRA).IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. 3 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDE R OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEALS BEFORE US.. 4 . LEARNED AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CATEGORICAL FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO FLAT NOS.103 & 104 TO THE EFFECT THAT AREA OF EACH FLAT WAS BELOW 1000 SQ.FT.. OUR ATTENTION WAS A LSO INVITED TO THE REMAND REPORT CALLED BY THE CIT(A) FROM THE AO AND IT WAS CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITA NO S . 2945 TO 2951 /1 2 6 HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) . 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO DELIBERATED ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR AND DR BEFORE US IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE . 7 . FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS CARRIED OUT VERIFICATION OF THESE TWO FLATS AND FOUND THAT FLAT NO.103 WAS SOLD BY THE AS SESSEE COMPANY TO SHRI DHARMENDRA DHADE VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 22.06.2000 AND FLAT NO. 1 04 WAS SOLD BY ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SH RI SURESH KADAM. VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 4.7.2000. SUBSEQUENTLY VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 3.3.2005 FLAT NO. 1 03 WAS SOLD BY DHARMENDRA DHADE T O SMT. PRATIMA SURESH K ADAM WIFE OF SHRI SURESH KADAM. THE AO. ALSO REPORTED THAT AS PER FLOOR PLAN THESE TWO FLATS WERE SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER BY A BRICK WALL AND ALSO HAD TWO S EPARATE ENTRANCES AND SEPARATE KITCHENS . WE FOUND THAT BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS INDEPENDENTLY CAPABLE OF BEING USE OF STAND ALONE BASIS AND AREA OF EACH UNIT WAS WITHIN 1000 SQ.FT.. WITH REGARD TO THE COMMERCIAL AREA THE CIT(A) ALSO RECORDED A FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT IN TERMS OF DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THERE WAS NO CONDITION OF 1000 SQ.FT. FOR SHOPS AND THIS CONDITION WAS ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE CIT(A) ALSO RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMMENCED ON 9 - 3 - 2000 AND A COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 23 - 1 - 2003. HOWEVER THE AO ITA NO S . 2945 TO 2951 /1 2 7 HAS INCLUDED THE COMMERCIAL AREA AT 6% ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT AND OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AFTER INCLUSION OF CLUB HOUSE. THE AO HAS ALSO COMPUTED THE AREA WHICH NEITHER FORM PART OF RESIDENTIAL AREA NOR OF BUILT - UP COMMERCIAL AREA ACC ORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO PROJECTS WHICH INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AREA WHEN THE PROJECT IS AP PROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY EVEN WHERE COMMERCIAL AREA EXCEEDS 10%. AFTER RELYING ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) . 8 . THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SAME . ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9 . IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 /11/ 201 4 . 19 /11/ 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 19 / 11 /2014 /PKM PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. ITA NO S . 2945 TO 2951 /1 2 8 / BY ORDER ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI //TRUE COPY//