DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI v. CIT 8, MUMBAI

ITA 3989/MUM/2013 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 398919914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN NUARY2011P
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3989/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent CIT 8, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 28-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 06-05-2016
Next Hearing Date 06-05-2016
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 17-05-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOS AIN JM ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) DUN & BRADSTREET INFORMATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD. ICC CHAMBERS 98 SAKI VIHAR ROAD POWAI MUMBAI 400 072 VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN M. K. ROAD MUMBAI PAN: AAACD P APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI F. B. IRANI AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ABHINAY KUMBHAR DR DATE OF HEARING: 06-05-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28-09-2016 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER NO.CIT.8/263(14)/2011-12 OF THE LEARNED CIT - 8 MUMBAI DATED 18 TH MARCH 2013 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1 961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- THE UNDER MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL; ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER: 1. THE ORDER DATED 18 TH MARCH 2013 (THE IMPUGNED ORDER) PASSED BY THE CIT-8 MUMBAI (THE CIT) PURPORTEDLY UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) IS ILLEGAL WITHOUT JURISDICTION VOID BAD-IN-LAW CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS ERRONEOUS AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE CIT ERRED IN ALLEGING THAT: I) THE ORDER DATED 25 TH JANUARY 2011 PASSED BY THE DCIT-8(1) MUMBAI (THE AO) WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. II) THE COMPUTATION BY THE AO OF THE CAPITAL GAINS COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 50B OF THE ACT WAS ERRONEOUS . ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 2 III) THE NET WORTH HAD TO BE REDUCED BY DEPRECIATIO N OF RS.19 968 604 WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 50B OF T HE ACT. IV) THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF WARNER LAMBERT INDIA PVT. LTD. (THE SAID DECISION ). V) THE AO HAD ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE SAID DECISI ON TO THE APPELLANTS CASE. 3. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SAID DECIS ION WAS WITH RESPECT ERRONEOUS AND IN ANY EVENT WAS DISTINGUI SHABLE FROM THE APPELLANTS CASE. 4. THE CIT ERRED IN HIS INTERPRETATION INTER ALIA O F SECTION 50B AND SECTION 436) OF THE ACT. 5. THE CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK UNIT BY REDUCING DEPRECIATION OF RS.19 968 604 BOTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT AS WELL AS F OR T HE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS IN TERMS OF SECT ION 50B OF THE ACT. 6. THE CITS DIRECTION REGARDING REDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 10A OF THE ACT ARE IN ANY EVENT ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THEY WERE NEVER THE SUBJECT OF THE CITS SECTION 263 NOTICE AND WERE NEVER PUT TO THE APPELL ANT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC BU SINESS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION SERVICES RELEASING PUBLICATIONS SOFTW ARE DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT SERVICES AND FINANCIAL EDUCATION SERVICES F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 30-10-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14 09 29 031/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF RS.4 09 14 952/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 2 9-08-2008 AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. NO TICES WERE ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT SEEKING RE PLIES AND AFTER RECEIPT OF REPLIES FROM THE ASSESSEE THE DRAFT OF THE PROPO SED ORDER OF ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 3 ASSESSMENT WAS PREPARED U/S 144C(1) OF THE ACT AT A N ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.15 55 83 590 WHEREIN DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 43 30 864/- U/S 92CA(3) AND DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT OF RS.4 05 91 252/ - WAS PROPOSED ON 26-12-2010 UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PROPOSING TOTAL VARIAT ION OF RS.1 46 54 564/- TO BE MADE IN THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSES SEE AND HENCE THE AO SENT THE COPY OF THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING IT U/S 144C(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE SAME FOR ( A) ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSED VARIATION OR (B) TO FILE OBJECTION IF ANY TO SUCH VARIATION BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL OR BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ON RECEIPT OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER I NTIMATED THE AO VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 13-01-2011 THAT IT WOULD PREFER TO FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) AS AGAINST APPROACHING TO DRP AND R EQUESTED THE AO TO ISSUE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. ON THIS BASIS THE AO FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144C (1) OF THE ACT ON 25 TH JANUARY 2011. 3. LD. CITWHILE EXERCISING ITS JURISDICTION U/S 263 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2007-08 HAS FOUND THAT WHIL E PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) OF THE A CT DATED 25.01.2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY COMPUTED THE CAPI TAL GAIN U/S 50B OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT R ETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WAS FILED BY YOU ON 30.10.2007 DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 4 RS.14 09 29 030/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT OF RS.4 09 14 952/-. IT IS FURTHER SEEN FROM THE RECOR D THAT YOU HAVE SOLD YOUR STPI UNIT ON SLUMP SALE BASIS TO M/S DUN 7 BRA DSTREET PREDICTIVE SCIENCES & ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.14 15 00 000/- AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 50B AMOUNTING TO RS .1 70 56 696/- ON THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWE VER WHILE COMPUTING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AN AMOUNT OF RS.12 36 81 9 23/- HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF PROV ISION OF SECTION 50B R.W.S. 43(6)(C)(C)(I) AND SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. TH E AO WHILE COMPUTING THE ASSESSMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE COMPUTATION OF SHOR T TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 50B WITHOUT REDUCING THE NET WORTH BY THE CURRE NT YEARS DEPRECIATION. AS PER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 50B THE NET WORTH OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS OF THE UNDERTAKING OR DIVISION AS REDUCED BY THE VALUE OF LIABILITIES OF SUCH UNDERTAKING OR DIVISION AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FURTHER IN EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 50B IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT FOR COMPUTING THE NET WORTH THE AGGR EGATE VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS IN THE CASE OF DEPRECIABLE ASSETS WOULD BE T HE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE PROVISIONS OF SUB ITEM OF ITEM(I) OF SUB CLAUSE (C) OF CLAUSE (6) O F SECTION 43. THE SUB CLAUSE (C) LAYS DOWN THE SPECIFIC MODE FOR COMPUTAT ION OF WDV IN THE CASE OF A SLUMP SALE AS PRODUCED BELOW: (C) IN THE CASE OF A SLUMP SALE DECREASE BY THE AC TUAL COST OF THE ASSET FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK AS REDUCED- A) BY THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ACTUALLY ALLOWED T O HIM UNDER THIS ACT OR UNDER THE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF THE INDIA INC OME-TAX ACT 1922 IN RESPECT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESS MENT COMMENCING BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL1988 AND B) BY THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION THAT WOULD HAVE BE EN ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR A FTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 1988 AS IF THE BLOCK ASSET WAS THE ONLY ASSET IN THE RELEVANT BLOCK OF ASSETS. SO HOWEVER THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH DECREASE NOT E XCEED THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE: THE ABOVE MODE OF COMPUTATION HAS BEEN REITERATED I N THE CASE OF DCIT V. WARNER LAMBERT (INDIA)(P) LTD. REPORTED IN 56 DT R 121 BY THE ITAT MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY THE NET WORTH OF THE UNDERTAKI NG SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTATED AS UNDER: SALE CONSIDERATION 14 15 00 000 LESS: 1.FIXED ASSETS(WDV) 6 26 71 984 LESS: DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE 1 99 68 604 4 29 03 380 2 NET CURRENT ASSETS 6 08 09 939 NET WORTH AS ON 14.02.2007 10 37 13 319 LESS: EXPENSES ON TRANSFER 7 61 381 CAPITAL GAIN (SHORT TERM) 3 70 25 300 HOWEVER AS STATED IN PARA 3 ABOVE THE AO HAS ERRE D IN NOT REDUCING THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.1 99 68 604/- WHILE COMPUTING TH E NET WORTH OF THE UNIT. ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 5 CONSEQUENTLY THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED BY THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1 99 68 604/-. THUS THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) ON 25.0 1.2011 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFO RE YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT MAD E BYT EH ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT BE CANCELLED/SET ASIDE TO THE EXTENT AS DETAILED ABOVE. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUIRED TO ATT END BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON 28 TH FEBRUARY 2012 AT 11.30 AM EITHER IN PERSON OR BY A REPRESENTATIVE DULY AUTHORIZED IN WRITING IN THIS B EHALF. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OFF BEING HEARD IN PER SON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS PASSED. 4. AFTER RECEIVING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ASSESSEE FILED DETAIL REPLY WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW. (1) (A) THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE CIT UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED IN A CASE HERE THE FOLLOWING TWO C IRCUMSTANCES ARE JOINTLY FULFILLED: 1) ORDER IS ERRONEOUS; AND 2) ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO . LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) H AS OPINED AS UNDER; THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVE NUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE AO . EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF AO CANNOT B E TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN IN CASE OF VIJAY KUMA R MEGOTIA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2010) 3 ITR (TRIB.) 760 (PATNA). (B) NET WORTH OF THE UNDERTAKING WAS COMPUTED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50B READ WITH SECTION 43(6)(C) OF THE ACT BY INCREASING THE OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE(WDV) OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS SOLD UNDER SLUMP SALE WITH THE ADDI TIONS MADE DURING THE YEAR. IN COMPUTING THE NET WORTH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM AND REDUCE DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SALE TOOK P LACE (I.E. PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08) BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTIONS 50B READ WITH 43(6)(C) AND 32. (C) IN REPLY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS QUERY THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON 9 TH DECEMBER 2010 EXPLAINING THE INTERPRETATION TAKEN AND COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE RELEVANT Y EAR. AFTER PROPER ENQUIRY AND DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE PREVAILING LEG ISLATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONVINCED WITH THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE. (II) WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN S THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED AS UNDER: (A) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50B OF THE ACT ANY PROFIT OR GAIN ARISING FROM SLUMP SALE EFFECTED DURING THE PREVIOU S YEAR SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS CAPITAL GAIN IN THE YEAR IN WH ICH TRANSFER TAKES PLACE. IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS NET WORTH OF THE UNDERTAKING SOLD SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND C OST OF IMPROVEMENT. ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 6 (B) EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 50B PROVIDES THAT NET WORTH SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF TOTAL ASSETS OF THE UNDERTAKIN G AS REDUCED BY THE VALUE OF LIABILITIES OF SUCH UNDERTAKING. (C) FURTHER EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 50B PROVIDES THAT IN THE CASE OF DEPRECIABLE ASSETS THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF TOTAL AS SETS SHALL BE THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS DETERMINE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-ITEM (C) OF IT EM (I) OF SECTION 43(6)(C) OF THE ACT. (D) HENCE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 50B OF THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING NET WORTH OF THE UNDERTAK ING WDV OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS TRANSFERRED SHALL BE WDV AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER/SALE. WDV ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER/SALE SHO ULD BE TAKEN AS WDV AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. 1 ST APRIL 2006 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(6)(C) READ WITH SECTIO N 32(1). (E) IN VIEW OF SECTION 43(6)(C)(I) WDV OF A BLOCK OF ASSETS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR HAS TO BE ADJUSTED B Y THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO ARRIVE AT THE WDV OF THE BLOCK ON WHICH DE PRECATION FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHOULD BE CALCULATED. (I) INCREASE THE BLOCK BY ACTUAL COST OF ASSETS FAL LING WITHIN THAT BLOCK ACQUIRED DURING THE RELEVANT CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR; (ITEM A) (II) REDUCE THE BLOCK BY MONIES RECEIVABLE TOWARDS SALE OF ANY ASSETS FALLING WITHIN THAT BLOCK DURING THE RELEVAN T CURRENT PREVIOUS YEAR: (ITEM B) AND (III) IN THE CASE OF SLUMP SALE REDUCE THE FIGURE A RRIVED AT BY DECREASING FROM THE ACTUAL COST OF THAT ASSET DEPR ECIATION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWABLE ASSUMING THAT THE ASSET W AS THE ONLY ASSET IN THE RELEVANT BLOCK OF ASSETS. (ITEM C) (IV) IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT REDUCTION CANNOT E XCEED THE WDV OF THE BLOCK AS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. (F) THE ABOVE ADJUSTMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO THE OPENING WDV OF THE BLOCK AND HENCE THE WDV AS REFERRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCTION IS THE OPENING WDV OF THE RELEVANT BLOCK AND NOT THE WDV OF THE BLOCK AFTER CONSIDERING THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. ALL THE ABOVE ADJUSTMENTS ARE PRIOR TO DETERMINATIO N OF WDV ON WHICH DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THIS POINT IS NOT S PECIFICALLY CONSIDERED IN CASE OF DIT VS. WARNER LAMBERT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 56 DTR 121 (MUM). IN OTHER WORDS WDV OF THE BLOCK ARRIVED AT AFTER MAKING THE AFOREMENTIONED ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE WDV OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS AS ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ADJUSTED WDV). THE ADJUSTED WD V IS THE FIGURE ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS TO BE CALCULATED AT THE RATES APPLICABLE ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS ASP ECT ALSO REMAINED UNEXAMINED IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. WARNER LAMBERT IN DIA PRIVATE LIMITED 56 DTR 121 (MUM). (G) SINCE 4THE ASSETS SOLD ON SLUMP SALE ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE RELEVANT ASSESMSEN5T YEAR AND SINCE THE WDV OF THE ASSETS SOLD ON SLUMP SALE IS ALREADY REDUCED FROM T HE OPENING WDV OF THE RELEVANT BLOCK THE QUESTION OF COMPUTING DE PRECATION ON THE ASSETS SOLD ON SLUMP SALE DOES NOT ARISE. (H) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED JUDIC IAL POSITION THAT LAW APPLICABLE AND TO BE APPLIED SHALL BE THE LAW AS ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS IS A UNIVERSA LLY ACCEPTED PROPOSITION WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS .CIT [(1979 ) 120 ITR 921]. THUS APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION THE RATE OF DEPRECIATION IS TO BE APPLIED ON THE WDV OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS EXISTING AS ON THE 1 ST DAY OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. AS ON 1 APRIL 2007 IN THE ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 7 PRESENT CASE HOWEVER SINCE THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN T RANSFERRED BY WAY OF SLUMP SALE ON 14.02.2007 AND ARE NOT OWNED B Y THE ASSESSEE ON 1 APRIL 2007 NO DEPRECIATION CAN BE GRANTED TO IT. (I) ANOTHER ABSURDITY THAT WILL ARISE IF DEPRECIATI ON IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH ASSETS ARE SOLD UNDE R SLUMP SALE IS THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE PURCHASER WIL L BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME AMOUNT. FOR EXAMPLE IF TH E OPENING WDV OF THE PLANT IS SAY RS.100 AND IT IS SOLD BY THE AS SESSEE ON 14 FEBRUARY 2007 AT SAY RS.200 THE ASSESSEE WILL BE A LLOWED DEPRECIATION AT 25% ON RS.100 FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR I .E. RS.25 AND PURCHASER SHALL ALSO BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON RS.200 AT 12.5% (SINCE THE PLANT HAS BEEN PURCHASED AFTER 1 SEPTEMB ER 2002 I.E. FOR HALF YEAR). (J) THE PROVISO TO SECTION 32 PROVIDES FOR ALLOWAN CE OF DEPRECIATION TO THE ACQUIREROF THE ASSET BASED ON THE CRITERIA O F USAGE OF THE ASSET FOR MORE OR LESS THAN 180 DAYS. HENCE THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION FOR MORE OR LESS THAN 180 DAYS SHALL APPLY ONLY TO THE ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR AND NOT TO THOSE ASSETS WHICH ARE S OLD DURING THE YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS AN ANNUAL EXERCISE AND AS ON 31 MARCH IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE PERSON I S NOT THE OWNER AND USER OF THE ASSESSEE THEN DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE GR ANTED TO HIM. THIS ASPECT IS NOT DISCUSSED IN CASE OF DIT VS. WARNER L AMBERT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 58 DTR 121 (MUM). WITH THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE RECOMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS U/S 50B AS PROPOSED IN THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT HOWEVER REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTION TO BE E RRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND DIR ECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE STP UNIT BY REDUCING DEPREC IATION BOTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A AS WELLS FOR THE PURPO SE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS U/S 50B OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS. 6. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO MADE REASONABLE ENQUIRIES ON THE ISSUES IN RESPO NSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILED EXPLANATION FOR THE STA ND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH ACCOUNTANTS REPORT SHOWING THE COMPUTATION FOR SLUMP SALE WORKING ON SALES CONSIDERATION FOR SLUM P SALE AND COPY OF ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 8 THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT. THE AO AFTER PERUSING THE A BOVE SUBMISSIONS WAS SATISFIED WITH THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE CIT HAS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS ERRED WHILE PASSING THE ORDER BUT HAS NOT PROVIDED THE FULCRUM FOR SUCH A CLAIM OR JU STIFY WHY SUCH A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE. THEREFORE THIS ISSUE ALSO DOES NOT WARRANT PASSING OF ANY ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DR REPRES ENTING THE REVENUE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT PASSED U /S 263 OF THE ACT WITH REGARD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LEARNED CIT AS WELL AS HEARING THE PARTIES AT LENGTH WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS SUBMITTED ALL TH E DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE IN QUESTION THEREF ORE ANY ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN THIS REGARD IS UNWARRANTED. 8. FURTHER THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GAB RIEL INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN [1993] 203 ITR 108 (BOM.) / [1993] 71 TAXMAN 585 (BOMBAY) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 REVISION OF ORDERS PREJUDICIAL TO INTERESTS OF REVENUE ASSESSMENT YE AR 1973-74 ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.99 326 DESCRIBED AS P LANT RELAY OUT EXPENSES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND ITO AFTER MAK ING ENQUIRIES IN REGARD TO NATURE OF SAID EXPENDITURE AND CONSIDE RING EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD ALLOWED ASSES SEES CLAIM. SUBSEQUENTLY COMMISSIONER EXERCISING POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 CANCELLED ORDER OF THE ITO OBSERVING THAT ORDER OF ITO DID NOT CONTAIN DISCUSSION IN REGARD TO ALLOWABILITY OF CLA IM FOR DEDUCTION WHICH INDICATED NON-APPLICATION OF MIND AND THAT CL AIM OF ASSESSEE ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 9 REQUIRED EXAMINATION AS TO WHETHER EXPENDITURE IN Q UESTION WAS A REVENUE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND DIRECTED ITO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT ON LINES INDICATED BY HIM WHETHER UNDE R SECTION 263 SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER FO R THAT OF THE ITO IS PERMISSIBLE HELD NO WHETHER ITOS CONCLUSIO N CAN BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE COMMISSIONER DOE S NOT AGREE WITH HIS CONCLUSION HELD NO WHETHER ITOS ORDE R COULD BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE DI D NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION HELD NO WHETHER PROVISION S OF SECTION 263 WERE APPLICABLE TO INSTANT CASE AND COMMISSIONE R WAS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD NO. FROM PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT IT BECOMES C LEAR THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE HAS A LREADY SUBMITTED A DETAILED EXPLANATION AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE THEN SUCH A DECISION OF THE AO CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNLESS IT IS FOUND TO BE L EGALLY AND FACTUALLY UNSUSTAINABLE. 9. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE AO WHILE PASSING T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MADE SPECIFIC QUERIES ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUS TMENT OF COMPUTING ARMS LENGTH PRICE WHICH IS MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 4. ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COMPUTATION OF ARMS LE NGTH PRICE 4.1 AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TRANSACTIONS WITH T HE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES EXCEEDING RS.15CRORES THEREFORE A REFE RENCE WAS MADE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER MUMBAI TO ASCERTAIN T HE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. VIDE ORDER U/S 92CA(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 DATED 2 8.10.2010 THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER-I(6) MUMBAI HAS PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1 43 30 864/- ON ACCOUNT OF ARMS L ENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER-I(6) HAS HELD AS UNDER; IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ARGUMENTS PROVIDED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS A RE REJECTED AND THE OPERATING MARGIN HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT 27.96% IS A PPLIED TO THE TOTAL COST OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WILL GIVE THE OPERATING MARGIN OF RS.3 38 28 638/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE OPERAT ING MARGIN OF RS.1 94 97 774/-. THUS THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1 43 3 0 864/- WOULD BE ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 10 ADJUSTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION RELATING TOT HIS ACTIVITY TO ARRIVE AT AN ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE TRANSACTION. THUS THE AO WOULD REQUIRE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1 43 30 864/- IN THE SAID ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD ACCORDINGLY INCREASE. THUS UPWARD ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT FOLLOWING: (I) SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT RS.1 43 30 864/- 4.2 IN TERMS OF SECTION 92CA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT 196 1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MANDATED TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SUB SECTION 4 OF SECTION 92CA IN CONFORMITY WITH TH E ARMS LENGTH PRICE AS SO DETERMINED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER VIDE ORDER U/S 92CA(3) DATED 15.10.2010. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ADDITIO N OF RS.1 43 30 864/- IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 92CA(4) IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE DE TERMINED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER I(6) MUMBAI. NO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OR SECTION 10B OR CHAPTER VIA OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IS ALLOWED ON THIS ADDITION. AND AS FAR AS DEDUCTION U/S 10A IS CONCERNED THE A O HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN PARA NO.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHIC H IS REPRODUCED BELOW: DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 25.11.2010 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THESE UN IT ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE VI DE LETTER DATED 03.12.2010 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: DURING THE YEAR THE AUDIT FEES OF RS.13 00 000/- WAS NOT APPORTIONED TO STP UNIT. THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE STP UNIT IS NOT A SEPARATE ENTITY AND IT IS PART OF DBIS ONLY AND THEREFORE THESE EXP ENSES WERE NOT APPORTIONED TO STP UNIT. FURTHER IN CASE OF DIRECTO RS REMUNERATION THE EXPENSES WERE ALLOCATED TO NON-STP UNIT AND STP UNI T ON ACTUAL BASIS. THERE WERE TWO DIRECTORS OUT OF WHICH EXPENSE RELAT ING TO ONE DIRECTOR WAS ALLOCATED TO NON-STP UNIT AND EXPENSES RELATED TO OTHER DIRECTOR WAS ALLOCATED TO STP UNIT ON ACTUAL BASIS. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDER ED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE EXPENSES LIKE A UDITORS REMUNERATION ARE COMMON OVERHEAD EXPENSES WHICH CANNOT BE APPOR TIONED ONLY AGAINST ONE UNIT. THE REMUNERATION TO AUDITORS ARE NOT PAID FOR A PARTICULAR UNIT. THE AUDITOR IS REQUIRED TO AUDIT THE ENTIRE A CCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY AS A WHOLE AND AS SUCH THESE EXPENSES ARE ALSO REQU IRED TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST EACH UNIT. ACCORDINGLY THE FOL LOWING EXPENSE ARE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE 10A UNIT. THE EXPENSES APPORTIONED ARE WORKED OUT AS UNDER: EXPENSES TOTAL AMOUNT 10A UNIT (24.90%) NON 10A UNIT (75.10%) AUDIT FEES 13 00 000 323700 976300 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE PROFIT U/S 10A IS REWORKED OUT AS UNDER: NET PROFIT OF SECTION 10A UNIT RS.4 09 14 952 LESS: APPPORTIONABLE EXPENSES RS. 3 23 700 PROFIT FROM SECTION 10A UNIT RS.4 05 91 252 ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 11 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A IS ALLO WED AT RS.4 05 91 252- AS AGAINST RS.4 09 14 952/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO A NON 10A UNIT IS REQUIRED T O BE ALLOWED AT RS.9 76 300/- AS AGAINST RS.13 00 000/- THEREBY AN INCREASE OF PROFIT OF RS.3 23 700/- IN NON 10A UNIT. HOWEVER AS THE TOTA L INCOME IS COMPUTED AFTER TAKING NET PROFIT OF WHOLE UNIT NO SEPARATE WORKING OF NON 10A UNIT IS MADE. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ITS PAPER BOOK AND UPON HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESS EE HAD SUBMITTED A DETAILED EXPLANATION ALONG WITH RELEVANT DETAILS AS SESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO PRIMA FACIE ON BEING SATISFIED WI TH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LEARNED CIT H AS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 BY CONCLUDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHOUT PROVIDING A FULCRU M FOR SUCH A CLAIM OR JUSTIFY SUCH A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE. WE HAVE NOTICED FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE AO IN HIS ORDE R DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION OR DID NOT CALL FOR ANY FURTHE R DETAILS THAT BY ITSELF CANNOT BE A GROUND TO HOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO TO BE ERRONEOUS FOR LACK OF ENQUIRY. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE AO AND THEREFORE IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE THE LEARNED CIT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO WRONGLY ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT UNDE R THE GUISE OF AOS FAILURE TO CONDUCT ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. THE LEARNED CIT HAS PASSED HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE ON THE GROUND THAT NO ENQUIRY A T ALL WAS CONDUCTED BY THE AO. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE NOTICED THA T THE STAND TAKEN BY CIT IS INCORRECT. THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT ESTABLI SHES THAT AN ENQUIRY ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 12 WAS CONDUCTED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO P ARTICIPATED AND FILED REPLY BEFORE THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE CASE FACTUAL POSI TION AND DOCUMENTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT C ASE ON THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND DEPRECIATION THE AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THE D ETAILED EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENTLY THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO ON BE ING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE LEARNE D CIT IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF TH E ACT ON ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A SETTLED LAW TH AT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES ONE VIEW THEN ORDER CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ERRONEOUS? IN THIS RESPECT WE DRAW SUPP ORT FROM THE CASE TITLED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DESIGN & AUT OMATION ENGINEERS (BOMBAY)(P) LTD (2010) 323 ITR 632 (BOM)WHEREIN BOM BAY HIGH COURT CONCLUDED THE FOLLOWING: 'WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE A DVOCATES APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE. IN T HE INSTANT CASE AS RECORDED EARLIER THE ITO HAD BY HIS ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER 1996 SOUGHT DETAILS/EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN BY HIS LETTER DATED 5TH NOVEMBER 1996. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS CONSIDERED AIL DETAILED PARTICULARS FILED BEFORE HIM AND AFTER DISCUSSION ALLOWED THE D EDUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO HIS EXP ORT BUSINESS. WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (S UPRA) AND WE REJECT THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS OR IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER HE HAS NOT MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD . IN ANY EVENT THE REVENUE HAS ADMITTEDLY NOT ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. CIT(A) HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIT DID NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TOOK A VIEW DIFFERENT THAN THAT TAKEN B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR VIEW IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE GRANTING DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION BOHHC AS ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 13 REGARDS NET PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAININ G TO THEIR EXPORT BUSINESS. IN OUR VIEW THE' TRIBUNAL IS CORRECT IN ITS VIEW THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 2 63 BY THE CIT DID NOT EXIST. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT ITAT WAS JUST IFIED IN UPSETTING THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT 1961. WE THEREFORE ANSWER THE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE ABOVE APPEAL THEREFORE STANDS DISMISSED. HOWEVER THERE WILL BE NO ORDER A S TO COSTS. ' A SIMILAR STAND WAS AGAIN TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING CA SES: GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (2010) 321 ITR 92 (80M) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LIMITED (2010) 323 ITR 206 (BOM) . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. R.K. CONSTRUCTION CO. (2009) 3131TR 65 (GUJ) HENCE CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT AS ABOVE AND ON THE BASIS OF REASONING GIVEN ABOVE WE CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE AO FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28-09-2016 SD/- SD/- (B. R. BASKARAN) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 28-09-2016. PS. ASHWINI PS. ASHWINI PS. ASHWINI PS. ASHWINI ITA NO.3989/MUM/2013 14 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A) MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//