ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI v. HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4206/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 420619914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACH2457B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4206/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI
Respondent HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 22-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 05-01-2012
Next Hearing Date 05-01-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 24-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI V. DRUGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3833/MUM./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ) HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. 171 DR. ANNIE BENSANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI 400 018 PAN AAACH2457B .. APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101 M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT ITA NO. 4206/MUM./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101 M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 .. APPELLANT V/S HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. 171 DR. ANNIE BENSANT ROAD WORLI MUMBAI 400 018 PAN AAACH2457B .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. KESHAV BHUJLE A/W MR. S.K. MUTSADDI REVENUE BY : MR. V.V. SHASTRI DATE OF HEARING 05.01.2012 DATE OF ORDER 22.02.2012 HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. ITA NO.3833/MUM./2010 ITA NO.4206/MUM./2010 2 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUG NED ORDER DATED 19 TH MARCH 2010 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-XI I MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS BROUGHT OUT IN PARAS-4 TO 6 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) READ AS FOLLOWS:- 4. AN AMOUNT OF ` 55 LAKHS DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD OF LEGAL PROFESSION AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES HAD BEEN PAID T O M/S. BOSTON CONSULTANCY GROUP (BCG) A RENOWNED MANAGEMENT CONSU LTANCY FIRM. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN 4 INSTALLMENTS FALLING IN T WO FINANCIAL YEARS. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT THE REASONS FOR HI RING THE BOSTON CONSULTANCY GROUP WAS TO ENABLE THE COMPANY TO ASSU ME A NEW ROLE AS THE INDIAN CORPORATE CENTRE FOR THE HINDUJA GR OUP. THIS WOULD BE A NEW LINE OF BUSINESS FOR THE COMPANY. IT WOULD GI VE ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE COMPANY AND THE GROUP AS A WHOLE. THE PURPOS E OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS TO CHANGE THE EXISTING SET UP OF TH E HINDUJA GROUP AND ENHANCE THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO MORE ACTIVELY LEAD AND SUPPORT THE ENTIRE GROUP BY PROVIDING A SI NGLE COMMON MANAGEMENT STYLE. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE AGRE EMENT SIGNED WITH BCG WAS TO BUILD BRANCH HINDUJA. 5. THE A.O. HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ARVIND MILLS V/S CIT 197 ITR 422 WHERE THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE DOES NOT BECOME REVENUE MERELY BECAUSE THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE RESULTS IN EFFICIENTLY CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. THE A.O. HAS ALSO REFERRED TO SUPREME COURT IN ALEMBIC CHEMI CAL WORKS 177 ITR 377. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS CONTENTION THAT EXPENDI TURE IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE THE A.O. HAS GIVEN S OME REASONS WHY EVEN OTHERWISE THE PAYMENT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS A B USINESS EXPENDITURE. THESE ARE AS UNDER:- A) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MAINLY PROVIDING HUMAN R ESOURCES SUPPORT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS PER THE AGREEM ENT ENETERED INTO WITH THE GROUP COMPANIES. NONE OF THE AGREEMENTS EN TERED INTO WITH THE GROUP CONCERNS MENTION ABOUT PAYING OF PROFESSI ONAL FEES FOR CREATING VALUE FOR THE GROUP AS SUCH AS ENVISAGED I N THE AGREEMENT WITH THE BCG. HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. ITA NO.3833/MUM./2010 ITA NO.4206/MUM./2010 3 B) IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED THAT ANY A DDITIONAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE SAID GROUP CO MPANIES IS SEPARATELY RECOVERED FROM THEM UNDER THE HEAD REIM BURSEMENT OF EXPENSES. C) THE PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID TO BCO IS TOWARDS THE SYNERGY OF OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ENTIRE OPERATING C OMPANIES OF THE HINDUJA GROUP IN INDIA AND CONSOLIDATING THE ASPIRA TION PERCEPTION AND BELIEF OF THE KEY STAKE HOLDERS BEING FAMILY M EMBERS BUSINESS UNITS ETC. REALIGNMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT PERFORMAN CE LEVER OF VARIOUS OPERATING COMPANIES OF THE HINDUJA GROUP. D) THE CONSULTANCY ALSO INCLUDES REDESIGNING THE CO MPENSATION SYSTEM AT HINDUJA HOSPITAL ONE OF THE GROUP CONCER NS. E) WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BENEFITED GROUP COMPANIES. 2. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) GRANT ED PART RELIEF. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WRONG IN HIS FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS THAT THE BCG REPORT IS ON AREAS WHICH ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF RE LATIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE BUSINESS UNITS OR THE OPER ATING UNITS. WHILE HOLDING SO HE RECORDED THAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS IN TH E BCG REPORT ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS IT INCLUDES RE-DESIGNING COMPENSATION SYSTEM AT HINDUJA HOSPITAL FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE AN AGREEMENT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE REPORT AIMS TO PROVIDE VALUE TO THE FAMILY BY ENHANCING ABILITY OF THE FAMILY TO MA NAGE CONTROL AND CREATE VALUE TO THE OPERATING VALUES IN INDIA . AS IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THESE TWO ASPECTS ARE OUTSI DE THE SCOPE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 30% OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AS CONSULTANCY FEES TO BOSTON CONSULTANCY GROUP. THERE ARE CERTAIN OTHER ISSUES WITH WHICH WE ARE NO T CONCERNED. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL ON THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE REV ENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL ON THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BOSTON CONSULTANCY GROUP. HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. ITA NO.3833/MUM./2010 ITA NO.4206/MUM./2010 4 4. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED SECOND GROUND IN RESPECT O F DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROU ND NO.2 AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 6. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCU RRED BY WAY OF PAYMENTS TO BOSTON CONSULTANCY GROUP FOR ITS REPORT IS NEITHER IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE NOR WAS INCURRED IN THE CAP ITAL FIELD AND THAT IT WAS INCURRED FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE BCG WHIC H HAS BEEN TAKEN TO IMPROVE THE ASSESSEES CAPACITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND BCG ARE IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS AN D THE PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES WAS IN CONNECTION OF BUSINESS AND HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 7. ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF 30% SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) HE SUBMITTED THAT ANY VALUE ADDITION TO THE FAMILY IS VALUE ADDITION TO THE GROUP AND THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE SEGREGATED ON S UCH TERMS. ON THE ISSUE OF SERVICES RENDERED TO THE HINDUJA HOSPITAL HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS LINKED WITH THE PROFESSION OF THE AS SESSEE AND THOUGH THE HINDUJA HOSPITAL IS NOT A CLIENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON DATE IT MAY IN FUTURE OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE EXP ENDITURE IF ANY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SERVICES RENDERED TO HINDUJA HO SPITAL CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- CIT V/S CROMPTON ENGINEERING CO. LTD . [2000] 242 ITR 0317 (MAD.); AND CIT V/S ABBOTT LABORATORIES (I.) PVT. LTD. [1993] 202 ITR 0818 (BOM.) . 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MR. V.V. S HASTRI REPRESENTING THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND OPPOSE D THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDIT URE WAS FOR BRAND DEVELOPMENT WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A BENEFIT OF ENDU RING NATURE AND HAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. HE RELIED ON PAR A-5.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PLACED AT PAGES-5 & 6 AND EMPHASIZED THE POI NT THAT THE AGREEMENT HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. ITA NO.3833/MUM./2010 ITA NO.4206/MUM./2010 5 WITH BCG MERELY CREATES VALUE FOR THE BRAND NAME HINDUJA AND SYNERGY OF OPERATIONS FOR THE HINDUJA GROUP AS A WHOLE. HE REF ERRED TO THE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOW ING THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS AT PARA-5.9 / PAGE-7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND RELIED ON THE SAME. 9. INSOFAR AS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS CONCE RNED THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS RIGHT IN CONCLUDING THAT SERVICES RENDERED TO THE F AMILY MEMBERS OF THE PROMOTERS AS WELL AS TO THE HINDUJA HOSPITAL WAS N OT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SAME WAS R IGHTLY DISALLOWED. 10. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ON A PERUSAL OF THE P APERS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US WE HOLD AS FOLLOW S:- 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT OUT THE SALIENT F EATURES OF THE AGREEMENT AT PARA-5.5 AND 5.6 / PAGE-4 OF HIS ORDE R WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE:- 5.5 FROM THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IT IS SEEN THAT THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT ARE:- (1) DEVELOP THE ROLE OF HGI AS THE INDIA ACTIVIST C ENTRE WHICH PROVIDES VALUE TO THE (A) FAMILY BY ENHANCING THE ABILITY OF THE FAMILY TO MANAGE CONTROL AND CREATE VALUE THROUGH THE OPERAT ING UNITS IN INDIA; (B) OPERATING UNITS AS AN ACTIVIST CORPORATE CEN TRE THAT HELPS FROM CAPTURE VALUE THAT THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CAPTURE ON THEIR OWN; (C) WHAT SHOULD HGI BE DOING V/S OPERATING COMPANI ES V/S FAMILY DIRECTLY; (2) STREAMLINE THE INFORMATION / MIS FLOW FROM THE VARIOUS OPERATING COMPANIES TO ENHANCE EFFECTIVENESS OF CON TROL AND REVIEW. 5.6 THE AGREEMENT DEFINES THE ASSESSEES COMPANYS ROLE AS UNDER:- HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. ITA NO.3833/MUM./2010 ITA NO.4206/MUM./2010 6 (A) CLEAR ARTICULATION OF THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS O F THE HGI AND ITS DETAILS INCLUDING GLUE STRUCTURE MEASURES P ROCESSES CAPABILITIES. (B) TRANSITION PLAN TO ACHIEVE NEW ROLE; (C) ALIGNMENT OF NEW ROLE AND TRANSITION PLAN AMON G KEY STAKEHOLDERS; (D) LAUNCHING THE TRANSITION PLAN (THE ENTIRE PLAN COULD TAKE 6 TO 12 MONTHS TO COMPLETE); STREAMLINING MIS: REALIGNMENT OF MIS TO ENHANCE USABILITY AND FOCUS ON KEY PERFORMANCE LEVERS. LAUNCHING THE REALIGNED MIS AND THE REVIEW PROCESS . 12. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AT PARAS-12 AND 13 OF H IS ORDER SUMMARIZED THE AGREEMENT AS FOLLOWS:- 12. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WITH THE OPERATING COMPANI ES NAMELY ASHOK LEYLAND ETC. THE APPELLANT COMPANY WOULD ADVICE AN D GUIDES THE OPERATING COMPANIES IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS:- I) IDENTIFY BUSINESS AND OPPORTUNITIES; II) GROUP / P.R. RELATIONS / COMMUNICATION STRATEGY; III) CORPORATE GOVERNANCE; IV) INTERNAL AUDIT MATTERS; V) ASSISTING IN MARKETING STRATEGY. 13. THE BCG REPORT IS ON THE FOLLOWING MAIN ISSUES; I) DEVELOPMENT AND COMMON MANAGEMENT STYLE; II) LEAD AND SUPPORT THE BUSINESS UNIT GROWTH AND E XPANSION IN INDIA; III) DEVELOP THE ROLE OF FAMILY TO MANAGE AND CONTROL TH E UNITS IN THE GROUP. IV) ENHANCE THE VALUE OF THE OPERATING UNITS VIS--VIS THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THE FAMILY. 13. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT TH E EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS RIGHT IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSERVATIONS THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WAS TO BUILD A BRAND HINDUJA IS INCORRECT. THE HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. ITA NO.3833/MUM./2010 ITA NO.4206/MUM./2010 7 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) VIDE PARAS-17 AND 18 OF HIS ORDER RIGHTLY OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 17. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING OVERALL SUPPORT IN MANY AREAS TO THE OPERATING COMPANIES AND BUSINESS UNITS. THE AGREEMENT THAT TH E APPELLANT COMPANY HAS MADE WITH THE OPERATING COMPANIES AND B USINESS UNITS IS WIDE RANGING AND OPEN ENDED. IT WOULD NOT BE CORREC T TO SAY THAT THE REPORT COMMISSIONED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE BCG IS NOT RELATED OR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPEL LANT AND THE OTHER COMPANIES. 18. THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE A.O. THAT THE SCO PE OF THE REPORT IS NOT FULLY RELATED TO THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS AN D THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN PAYMENT TO BCG IS NOT RELATABLE TO T HE APPELLANT COMPANY IS HOWEVER NOT ENTIRE INCORRECT. THERE AR E CERTAIN ELEMENTS IN THE REPORT WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF BUSINE SS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THESE ARE HIGHLIGHTED AT PARA-5.9 (C & D) NAMELY THE REPORT INCLUDES RE-DESIGNING COMPENSATION SYSTEM AT HINDU JA HOSPITAL WITH WHICH THE APPELLANT COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE AN AGREEM ENT. FURTHER THE REPORTS ALSO AIMS TO PROVIDE VALUE TO THE FAMI LY BY ENHANCING ABILITY TO THE FAMILY OF MANAGE TO CONTROL AND CRE ATE VALUE TO THE OPERATING VALUES IN INDIA. 14. COMING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF 30% WE AGREE WITH TH E ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE REPORT ON ENHANCING TH E ABILITY OF THE FAMILY TO MANAGE CONTROL AND CREATE VALUE TO THE OPERATING U NITS IN INDIA IS VALUE ADDITION TO THE COMPANY AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 15. COMING TO THE ATTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE TO SERVICE PROVIDED TO HINDUJA GROUP WE AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) THAT THE ACTIVITY IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RENDER SERVICES TO HINDUJA HOSPITAL. THE ARGUMENT T HAT THERE MIGHT BE BUSINESS IN FUTURE WHICH ENCOURAGES THE ASSESSEE T O INCUR EXPENDITURE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY R ECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS SOME BUSINESS FROM HINDUJA HOSPITAL IN TH E LATER YEARS. WE THUS SUSTAIN 10% OF THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E. HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. ITA NO.3833/MUM./2010 ITA NO.4206/MUM./2010 8 16. COMING TO THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL IN ABBOTT LABORATORIES (I.) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THE ISSUE IS W HETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY WAY OF CONSULTANCY FEES PAID TO THE FIR M FOR RE-LOCATION OF PLANT / EQUIPMENT AND UTILITY SERVICES AT EXISTING FACILITI ES IS IN THE REVENUE FIELD OR CAPITAL FIELD. THIS CASE LAW DOES NOT HELP THE ASSE SSEE ON THE ISSUE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY BOSTON GROUP TO HINDUJA HOSPIT AL FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS. SIMILARLY THE HONBLE MADR AS HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN CIT V/S CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD. [20 09] 177 TAXMAN 347 (MAD.) WAS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF CONSULTANCY FEES WAS IN THE CAPITAL FIELD OR IN THE REVENUE FIE LD. SIMILAR IS THE CASE IN CIT V/S CROMPTION ENGINEERING CO. LTD. [2000] 242 ITR 317 (MAD.). IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED; AND THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 10% OF THE PAYMEN T MADE TO BOSTON CONSULTANCY GROUP. THUS THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF PARTLY. 17. INSOFAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WISH TO PRESS THIS GROUND BEFORE U S. CONSEQUENTLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 18. GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED FO R THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE. 19. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY 2012 SD/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 22 ND FEBRUARY 2012 HINDUJA GROUP INDIA LTD. ITA NO.3833/MUM./2010 ITA NO.4206/MUM./2010 9 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A) MUMBAI CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR H BENCH ITAT MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 20.2.2012 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20.2.2012 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 20.2.2012 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 20.2.2012 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20.2.2012 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.2.2012 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.2.2012 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER