DCIT CENT. CIR. 13, MUMBAI v. M/s. UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 3603/MUM/2005 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 360319914 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN AAACU4786C
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3603/MUM/2005
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant DCIT CENT. CIR. 13, MUMBAI
Respondent M/s. UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD., MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 09-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 08-02-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 13-05-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL AM AND SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR JM ITA NO.3603/MUM/2005 : ASST.YEAR 2001-2002 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 13 MUMBAI. VS. M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED PARIJAAT HOUSE 1076 DR.E.MOSES ROAD WORLI NAKA MUMBAI 400 018. PA NO.AAACU4786C. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3463/MUM/2005 : ASST.YEAR 2001-2002 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED PARIJAAT HOUSE 1076 DR.E.MOSES ROAD WORLI NAKA MUMBAI 400 018. VS. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 13 MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S/SHRI S.S.RANA PEEYUSH JAIN & PRABHA T JHA ASSESSEE BY : DR.K.SHIVRAM O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL AM : THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE OTHER BY THE REVENUE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON 15.3.2005 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2 002. 2. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS A RECALLED MATTER INASM UCH AS THE EARLIER EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE BENCH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECALLED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16.4.2009. 3. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST T HE DELETION OF ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.350 LAKHS ON S ALE OF TV SERIAL YUG. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY SOLD SOME OF ITS SHAREHOLDING IN OTHER GROUP COMPANIES AND EARNED CA PITAL GAIN OF RS.19 50 52 094. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF ITS INVESTME NT IN RIGHTS OF TV SERIAL YUG. ITA NOS.3603 & 3463/MUM/2005 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. 2 AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 17.12.1999 M/S.UNITED DIGIT AL DISPLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED (UDDPL) BOUGHT MARKETING RIGHTS OF TV SERI AL YUG FROM M/S.UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3.50 CRORE. M/S.UDDPL GOT MERGED WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ON 1 .4.2000. THE SAID RIGHTS WERE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TELECAST OF FIRST EPISODE AND LAST EPISODE I.E. BEING 11.9.1996 AND 13.11.1997. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT COULD NOT EXPLOIT THESE RIGHTS AND HENCE VALUE OF THE SAI D RIGHTS WAS WRITTEN OFF AS LOSS ON INVENTORIES RESULTING INTO TRADING LOSS OF RS.3.50 CRORE. ON BEING SHOW CAUSED IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT YUG WAS AN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL SERIAL WHICH HAD DONE VERY WELL IN ITS FIRST RUN ON DOO RDARSHAN. THE ASSESSEE SPOTTED A MARKETING OPPORTUNITY TO BUY THE RIGHTS OF THIS SER IAL FROM UTV IN ORDER TO SELL IT TO OTHER OUTSIDE PARTIES AT A PROFIT. THESE RIGHTS WER E STATED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED WHEN IT HAD A WINDOW OF A FULL 9 MONTHS MORE TO EXP LOIT THE SERIAL. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE OVERALL COMMERCIAL VIABILITY OF DOO RDARSHAN AS A CHANNEL STARTED DROPPING SUBSTANTIALLY AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS L EFT WITH LIMITED OPTIONS. THERE BEING NO OPTION LEFT WITH THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLOIT T HE SAME IT HAD TO WRITE OFF THE ENTIRE LOSS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE RELATI ONSHIP OF VARIOUS ENTITIES OF UTV GROUP AS UNDER:- (A) UTV HOLDS 54% SHARES OF USL. (B) UDDPL HOLDS 20% SHARES OF UTV. (C) USL AMALGAMATED WITH UTV AND UDDPL WITH THE AS SESSEE COMPANY W.E.F. 1.4.2000. (D) THE ASSESSEE M/S.USL AND UDDPL ARE ALL GROUP COMPANIES OF M/S.UTV AND SHRI ROHINTON SCREWVALA MANAGING DIREC TOR OF M/S.UTV PLAYS A DOMINANT AND DECISIVE ROLE IN THE AFFAIRS O F THE GROUP COMPANIES. 4. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT UDDPL (WHICH SUBS EQUENTLY MERGED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY) BOUGHT MARKETING RIGHTS FROM ITS OWN CONCERN AT A TIME ITA NOS.3603 & 3463/MUM/2005 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. 3 WHEN THE TIME LEFT FOR ITS COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION WAS LESS THAN A YEAR. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IT WAS OPINED BY THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY THAT : THE ASSESSEE HAD DEVISED A MECHANISM BY WHICH IT TRIED TO AVOID THE INCIDENCE OF TAX. THE WHOLE TRANSACTION WITH UTV AND THE ASSESSEE INV OLVING THE PURCHASE OF MARKETING RIGHTS AND ITS SUBSEQUENT WRITE OFF IS NO THING BUT A COLOURABLE DEVICE. HE THEREFORE DID NOT ALLOW THE SAID LOSS OF RS.3 .50 CRORE. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ELABORATE SUBMISSION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELEVANT PART OF WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE REMAND REPORT BY THE A.O. AND THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(A) CAME TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OPINION A BOUT A COLOURABLE DEVICE FOR REDUCING THE INCIDENCE OF TAX WAS NOT CORRECT. HE R EPRODUCED THE WORKING OF TAX LIABILITY BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES ON THE SAID TRANS ACTION ON PAGES 7 AND 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FINALLY OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSA CTION HAD RESULTED IN MORE PAYMENT OF TAX TO THE TUNE OF RS.59 82 500. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT UDDPL PURCHASED RIGHTS IN TV SERIAL YUG AT RS.3.50 CRORES IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 -2001. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS REFLECTED AS STOCK IN TRADE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR A ND BROUGHT FORWARD IN THIS YEAR AS OPENING STOCK. THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASING RIGHTS OF TV SERIAL YUG GOT COMPLETED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THE SAME WAS AP PROPRIATELY REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS WHICH FACT HAD NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMMERCIALLY EXPLOIT THE RIGHTS OF THIS TV SERIAL AND ON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD FOR WHICH SUCH RIGHTS WERE AVA ILABLE IT HAD NO OPTION BUT TO WRITE OFF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS LOSS. THERE IS NO CONTRARY FINDING RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT NOT REALIZ ED ANY AMOUNT FROM THE EXPLOITATION OF TV SERIAL YUG. ITA NOS.3603 & 3463/MUM/2005 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. 4 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW THE LOSS MAINLY ON THE PREMISE THAT IT WAS A COLOURABLE DEVICE ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH UTV WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF TAX. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED W ITH THIS POINT OF VIEW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT IT IS A TRANSACTION BET WEEN GROUP CONCERNS. BUT IT IS TOO WIDE TO HOLD THAT IN EVERY TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE GROUP CONCERNS THERE IS INTENTION OF THE AVOIDANCE OF TAX. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE W ORKING TABULATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS TRANSACTION THE TOTAL PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE GROUP AS A WHOLE WAS IN EXCESS BY RS.59.82 LAKHS. THE OBVIOUS REASON BEING THAT UTV SUFFERED TAX AT THE RATE OF 35% AND THE ASSESSE E SUFFERED TAX ONLY AT THE RATE OF 20% ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE LD. DR FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAID WORKING. IF THAT BE THE POSITION WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE THE VIEW POINT OF THE AO ABOUT THIS TRANSACTION BEING A COLORABLE DEVICE AIMED AT SHRINKING THE PAYMENT OF TAX LIABILITY. UNABLE TO FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN T HE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND VIEW POINT CANVASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 7. GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST T HE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.56.33 LAKHS ON SALE OF SHARES OF UNITED TELESHOPPING MARKETING CO. PVT. LTD. THE FACTS OF T HIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SOLD SOME SHARES TO SHRI MOHAN NAI R AND INCURRED CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.56 32 930. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THIS TR ANSACTION TO BE A COLORABLE DEVICE AND DISALLOWED THE LOSS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN VIEW OF THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED B Y THE A.O. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF FIV E LACS EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10 EACH OF UNITED TELESHOPPING MARKETING CO. PVT. LTD. (TSN) AT THE RATE OF RE.1 EACH TO SHRI MOHAN NAIR. THE A.O. NOTED THAT SHRI M OHAN NAIR WAS ONE OF THE ITA NOS.3603 & 3463/MUM/2005 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. 5 DIRECTORS OF M/S.TRISH BRUSHES PRIVATE LIMITED AND LOGIC PLASTIC PRIVATE LIMITED THE COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF S HRI ROHINTON SCREWVALA. HE RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MOHAN NAIR DURING TH E REMAND PROCEEDINGS A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 198 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH HE ADMITTED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE SAID SHARES WITH A VIEW TO REVIVE THA T COMPANY. IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.3 IT WAS STATED BY SHRI MOHAN NAIR THAT HE PURCHASED 5 LAKH EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10 EACH IN THE SAID COMPANY FOR RS.5 L AKHS. FURTHER IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.4 IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS NO COM PULSION FOR PURCHASING THE ABOVE MENTIONED SHARES. THERE IS CATEGORICAL DENIAL THAT THE SAID SH. MOHAN NAIR WAS IN ANY WAY RELATED TO SHRI ROHINTON SCREWVALA. HE CON SIDERED THE BRAND VALUE OF TSN AND FOUND SOME SENSE IN MAKING INVESTMENT IN TH E SHARES OF THIS COMPANY AT A THROW AWAY PRICE. EVEN IF THE SHARES HAD NEGATIVE VALUE STILL SHRI MOHAN NAIR AGREED TO BUY THE SHARES AT RE.1 EACH AS AGAINST TH E FACE VALUE OF RS.10 EACH. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASER APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADMITTED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE SHARES AT THE STATED CONSIDERATION IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE IN DISPOSING OF THE SHARES WITH NEGATIVE BOOK VALUE FOR SOME POSITIVE CONSIDERATION . WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS NOT AL LOWED. 9. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND N O.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ON A COMMON ISSUE. THE FACTS OF THESE GR OUNDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED LOSS OF RS.2 97 23 402 ON TRADING OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE BRO KERS NOTES IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. ON THE PERUSAL OF THESE NOTES IT WA S NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN DELIVERY OF SHARES AND HAD M ERELY CARRIED FORWARD THE TRANSACTIONS FROM ONE SETTLEMENT PERIOD TO THE OTHE R. ON BEING SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS AN INVESTMENT COMPAN Y AND THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AS PART OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY I N THE CAPACITY AS DEALER IN SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE COVERED U/S. 43(5)(B) BUT WAS A ITA NOS.3603 & 3463/MUM/2005 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. 6 SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE SAID LOSS OF RS.2.97 CRORE. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED TH AT TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF SHARES OF M/S.HUGHES SOFTWARE LEADING TO LOSS OF RS .51.85 LAKHS WERE DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTIONS AND HENCE NOT HIT BY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE TUNE OF RS.51. 85 LAKHS AND SUSTAINED THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.2.45 CRORE AS SPECULATIVE LOSS. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER A DMITTED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RESULTING INTO LO SS OF RS.51 85 006 WERE DELIVERY BASED. OBVIOUSLY TO THAT EXTENT THE SAME CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. INSOFAR AS THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF R S.2.45 CRORE IS CONCERNED IT IS FOUND THAT THE VIEW POINT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO DELIVERY IN RESPECT OF THESE SHARES HAS REMAINED UNALTERED EITH ER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE US. IT IS PATENT THAT WHEN D ELIVERY DID NOT TAKE PLACE THE TRANSACTIONS WOULD BE SPECULATIVE AND THE PROFIT OR LOSS THERE FROM SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY. WE THEREFORE APPROVE THE VIEW T AKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS THE REVENUE THEREFORE STANDS DISMISSED. 11. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND WHICH SURVIVES IN ASSESSE ES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS IN SALE OF RIGHTS FOR FEATURE FILM SUCH A LONG JOURNEY AT RS.115 LAKHS. THE RIGHTS OF THE FILM SUCH A LONG J OURNEY WERE PURCHASED BY UDDPL VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 10.12.1999 FROM USL. SUB SEQUENTLY UDDPL AMALGAMATED WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WITH EFFECT F ROM 1.4.2000 AND USL AMALGAMATED WITH UTV WITH EFFECT FROM THE SAME DATE I.E. 1.4.2000. UDDPL BOUGHT THESE RIGHTS FOR RS.1.40 CRORE. THE SAME WER E SOLD AT A PRICE OF RS.25 LAKHS TO UTV VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 28.4.2000 WHICH RESULTE D INTO LOSS OF RS.1.15 CRORE. ITA NOS.3603 & 3463/MUM/2005 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. 7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW THE LOSS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A CIRCUITOUS TRANSACTION BY WHICH THE FILM WAS INITIALLY WITH US L WHO SOLD TO UDDPL AND WHEN UDDPL GOT AMALGAMATED WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y IT SOLD THE FILM TO UTV THEREBY INCURRING LOSS OF RS.1.15 CRORE. IT WAS CON TENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE RIGHTS IN THE FIL M WAS MADE AS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION AS THE ASSESSEE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY SINC E THE MOVIE HAD AN EXCELLENT CAST ETC. LATER ON THE CENSOR BOARD PROPOSED CLOSE TO 15 MINUTES OF CUTS PLUS CENSORING OF MANY SCENES WHICH ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE HAD MAXIMUM APPEAL AND WITH THESE CUTS ETC. THE VALUE OF THE RIGHTS WAS SE VERLY HIT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION. 12. THE LEARNED A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMI SSIONS ADVANCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS LETTER WRITTEN BY CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE A T PAGE 125 OF THE PAPER BOOK REFERRING TO CERTAIN CUTS PROPOSED IN THE FILM. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER AGITATED THE MATTER BEFORE THE REGIONAL OFFICER CENTRAL BOARD O F FILM CERTIFICATION AND REVISING COMMITTEE BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE LOSS OCCURRED DUE TO THE NON-GRANTING OF APPROPRIATE CER TIFICATE BY THE CENSOR BOARD. 13. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE CONTENTION PUT FO RTH BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE P URCHASED RIGHTS IN THE FILM FOR RS.1.40 CRORE FROM ONE GROUP COMPANY ON 10.12.1999 THE CENSOR BOARD HAD ALREADY PROPOSED THE CUTS VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 1 3.4.1999. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE ASSE SSEE SOLD THE RIGHTS ON 28.4.2000 TO ANOTHER GROUP CONCERN AT RS.25 LAKHS. HERE IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE RIGHTS IN THE FILM WERE PURCHASED BY UDDPL FROM USL. SUBSEQUENTLY UDDPL AMALGAMATED WITH THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND USL WITH UTV. EVENTUALLY THESE RIGHTS WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO UTV. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT WHEREAS THE ITA NOS.3603 & 3463/MUM/2005 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. 8 ORIGINAL PURCHASE WAS MADE FROM USL AND EVENTUALLY IT GOT SOLD TO USL (WHICH GOT MERGED WITH UTV). IT IS A TRANSACTION OF PURCH ASE AND SALE BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES THOUGH UNDERGOING AMALGAMATION. IT IS IN S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE CORPORATE VEIL NEEDS TO BE PIERCED FOR FINDING OUT THE REALITY BEHIND THE SCENE. IN VIEW OF FOREGOING REASONS WE ARE SATISFIED THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION ON THIS ISS UE. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.S.PADVEKAR) ( R.S.SYAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER MUMBAI : 9 TH FEBRUARY 2010. DEVDAS* COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CENTRAL-VII MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI. ITA NOS.3603 & 3463/MUM/2005 M/S.UNILAZER EXPORTS & MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD. 9 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 08 .02.2010 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 0 8 .02.2010 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *