ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6218/MUM/2008 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 621819914 RSA 2008
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6218/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., MUMBAI
Respondent INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-1(5), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 21-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-12-2009
Next Hearing Date 08-12-2009
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 20-10-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA AM AND SHRI V.D. RAO JM I.T.A. NO. 6218/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) I.T.A. NO. 6219/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) I.T.A. NO. 6221/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ELDER HOUSE C-9 DALIA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OFF. VEERA DESAI ROAD ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI-400 058 PAN:AAACE1831G VS. I.T.O. (TDS)-1(5) ACIT CC-34 AAYAKAR BHAVAN FIRST FLOOR MUMBAI-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 6220/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ELDER HOUSE C-9 DALIA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OFF. VEERA DESAI ROAD ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI-400 058 PAN:AAACE1831G VS. ACIT CC-34 AAYAKAR BHAVAN FIRST FLOOR MUMBAI-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 6309/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) I.T.A. NO. 6244/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ACIT CC-34 AAYAKAR BHAVAN FIRST FLOOR MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ELDER HOUSE C-9 DALIA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OFF. VEERA DESAI ROAD ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI-400 058 PAN:AAACE1831G APPELLANT RESPONDENT M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 2 APPELLANT BY: SHRI A.K. GHOSH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HEMANT J. LAL O R D E R DATE OF HEARING: 08.12.2009 DATE OF ORDER: 21.01.2010 PER R.K. PANDA AM: I.T.A. 6218/MUM/2008 TO I.T.A. NO. 6221/MUM/08 ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 18 TH AUGUST 2008 OF THE CIT(A) CENTRAL VI MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. SIMILARLY I.T.A. NO. 6309/MUM/2008 AND I.T.A. NO. 6244/MUM/2008 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 18 TH AUGUST 2008 OF THE CIT(A) CENTRAL VI MUMBAI RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. I.T.A. NO. 6221/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2006-07) (BY ASSESSEE): 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ARE NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE C IT(A) AND THEREFORE THE SAME HAVE TO BE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 3. THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE ABOVE SUBMIS SION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY I.T .A. NO. 6221/MUM/2008 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. I.T.A. NO. 6218/MUM/08 & I.T.A. NO. 6309/MUM/08 (CROSS APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2003-04) 4. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 3 BY THE ASSESSEE AND G ROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 3 ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM L IC GRATUITY FUND AMOUNTING TO RS.11 58 811/- AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM T RADE DEPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.2 35 56 164/- AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS ON OVER-DUE DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.3 89 633/- AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING T HAT 90% OF INTEREST RECEIPTS FROM ICDS FDS (MARGIN MONEY) AND LOAN GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOS E OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE ITEMS OF INCOME DO ES NOT HAVE AN IMMEDIATE NEXUS WITH THE EXPORT BUSINES S AND ARE COVERED BY THE EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 4.1 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT 1961 (THE ACT) DID NOT ALLOW NETTING OFF OF INTEREST INCOME AGAINS T INTEREST EXPENDITURE DESPITE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS DIRECT NEX US BETWEEN THE INTEREST INCOME INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 4.2 BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENSES ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND ALSO EA RNED CERTAIN INTEREST INCOME WHICH HAD BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND THE NET INTEREST HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOS S A/C. THE DETAILS OF INTEREST RECEIPTS WERE FURNISHED WHICH ARE AS UNDER : M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 4 S. NO. PARTICULARS A.Y. 2003-04 A.Y. 2004-05 (A) INT. ON LOAN GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES 74 870 99 858 (B) INT. ON DEPOSITS WITH MSEB 4 595 (C) LIC (GRATUITY) 11 58 811 (D) INT. ON FDR (MARGIN MONEY) 51 37 185 20 17 533 (E) INT. ON ICD 1 42 47 000 91 85 533 (F) INT. ON TRADE DEPOSIT 2 35 56 164 2 13 53 116 (G) INT. ON OVERDUE DEBTS 3 89 633 12 47 408 (H) INT. FROM CREDIT SOCIETY - 14 438 4.3 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED CAP ITAL ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID AND THE SAME BORROWED FUND HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO VARIOUS SISTER CONCERNS FROM WHOM INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED. THEREFORE THERE WAS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST PAID AN D THE INTEREST EARNED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT CERTAIN NON FUND BASED CREDIT FACILITIES LIKE BANK GUARANTEE AND LC FROM I TS BANKER AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING OF THIS FACILITY THE ASSESSEE W AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN MARGIN AND CERTAIN MARGIN WAS GIVEN IN THE FORM OF FDS. THE FDS WERE MADE OUT OF CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WIT H THE BANK. AT THE TIME OF MAKING FDS THE ASSESSEE HAD NEGATIVE BANK B ALANCE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO GIVEN CERTAIN ADVANCES TO THE EMPLOYEES AN D ALSO MADE CERTAIN SECURITY DEPOSITS WHICH WERE MADE OUT OF BORROWED F UNDS FROM THE BANK. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN INTEREST FROM ITS DEBTORS ON ACCOUNT OF OVERDUE INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING BILLS. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE BEING DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENDITURE THE SAME SHOULD BE NETTED OFF AND THEREFORE 90% OF THE INTEREST INCOME COULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE P ROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF LALSONS ENTERPRISES REPORTED IN 89 ITD 25 AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PINK STAR VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 66 TTJ 85 AN D THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NA GPUR ENGINEERING CO. REPORTED IN 245 ITR 806 WERE CITED. FURTHER THE DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 WAS ALS O CITED WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 90% OF INTEREST RECEIPT LISTED AT S. NO. A B D AND E AT PARA 4.2 ABOVE WERE NOT TO BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 5 PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS WERE ALSO CITED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4.4 THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR F OR THE A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2002-03 AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FO R THE A.Y. 2002-03 HELD THAT 90% OF INTEREST RECEIPTS LISTED AT S. NOS . A B D AND E AT PARA NO. 4.2 ABOVE ARE NOT TO BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. HOWEVER AS REGARDS THE OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST SUCH AS INTEREST ON OVERDUE DEBTS AND INTEREST FROM CREDIT SOCIETY HE HELD THAT THE SAME HAS RIGH TLY BEEN REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. AGGRIEV ED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.5 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE ARGUING GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT ALL IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WHILE NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM L IC GRATUITY FUND AND TRADE DEPOSIT AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEC ISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LALSONS ENTERP RISES (89 ITD 25) INDO- SWISS JEWELS LTD. 284 ITR 389 AND TATA SPONGE IRON LTD. 292 ITR 175. AS REGARDS SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM SU NDRY DEBTORS ON OVERDUE DEBTS AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIRMA IND USTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 283 ITR 402 AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUDARSHAN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 10 8 TTJ (PUNE) 28. THE OTHER DECISIONS CITED FOR GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ALSO EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3. AS REGARDS INTEREST RECEIVED FROM ICD FDS (MARGIN MONEY) AND LOANS GIVEN TO EMPLOYEE S WHICH HAS BEEN HELD BY THE CIT(A) AS NOT TO BE REDUCED FROM THE PR OFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC A S THERE IS NEXUS M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 6 BETWEEN INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND INTEREST INCOME FO R WHICH NETTING HAS TO BE ALLOWED HE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS CITED BEFO RE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R THE A.Y. 2002-03 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 4.6 THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE DE CISION IN THE CASE OF RANI PALIWAL REPORTED IN 268 ITR 220 (P&H) CIT VS. P. CHINNA REDDY REPORTED IN 282 ITR 389 GENERAL FINANCE INDU STRIES REPORTED IN 207 CTR 187 AND THE DECISION REPORTED IN 162 TAXMAN 123 65 TTJ 826 AND 245 ITR 548 AND SUBMITTED THAT NETTING IS NOT P ERMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS. 4.7 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOIND ER SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 AND 2 BY T HE ASSESSEE THE SAME MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE NEX US AND IF THE NEXUS IS PROVED THEN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LALSONS ENTERPRISES (SUPRA) NETTING SHO ULD BE ALLOWED. 4.8 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES PERUSED 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 RELIED ON BY BOTH THE SIDES. IN OUR OPIN ION THE ABOVE THREE GROUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL N O. 1 BY THE REVENUE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. ITO AND KALPATARU COLOURS AND CH EMICALS VS. ADDL. CIT REPORTED IN 218 ITR (AT) 87 AT PAGES 150 TO 156 . IN THE SAID DECISION THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDO-SWISS JEWELS (SUPRA) THE DECISIONS OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRIRAM HONDA POW ER EQUIPMENT 289 ITR 475 AND CIT VS. DELHI BRASS & METAL WORKS LTD. REPORTED IN 313 ITR 352 AND THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CA SE OF LALSONS INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) APART FROM VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS AND HAS LAID DOWN CERTAIN M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 7 PRINCIPLES. SINCE THE ABOVE DECISION WAS NEITHER C ITED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES NOR CONFRONTED TO THE PARTIES AT THE TIME O F HEARING OF THE APPEAL THEREFORE WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WI TH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF TH E SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED ABOVE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFT ER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOL D AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 3 BY THE ASSESSEE AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UN DER: 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AOS ACTION OF REDUCING OF 90% OF T HE MARKETING FEE MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION CHARGES FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 5.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCLUDED 90% OF MARKETING FEE MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTIO N CHARGES FROM THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E MARKETING FEE MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION CHARGES WERE PART OF THE OPERATIONAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE I N VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . BANGALORE CLOTHING CO. REPORTED IN 260 ITR 371 90% OF THE MARKETING FEE MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION CHARGES SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S . 80HHC. 5.2 HOWEVER THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR REPORTED IN 2007-TIOL-202-SC HAS LAID DOWN AN IMPORTANT RATIO THAT PROCESSING CHARGE S OR JOB CHARGES (LIKE MARKETING FEE MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION CHARG ES) OR ANY SIMILAR INCOME HAVING NO NEXUS WITH THE EXPORT TURNOVER COU LD BE CONSIDERED AS A COMPONENT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME BEING PROFIT OF B USINESS AND 90% OF M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 8 SUCH RECEIPTS IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS TOTA L INCOME IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (BAA) TO ARRIVE AT THE BUSINESS PROFIT AND T HE SAME HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL TURNOVER IN THE FORMULA LAID DOWN U/S. 80HHC(3) OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS RIGHTLY REDUCED 90% OF OTHER CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 5.3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 20 02-03 VIDE I.T.A. NO. 2646/MUM/06 AND I.T.A. NO. 2983/MUM/06 ORDER DATED 27 TH AUGUST 2007 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 REFERRED TO PARAS 6 AND 7 OF THE ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5.4 THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5.5 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT INDEPENDENT INCOME HAVING NO NEXUS WITH THE EXPORT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE BUSINESS PROFIT UN DER CLAUSE (BAA). THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE SUBMISS ION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THE SAME WAS RENDERED PRIOR TO TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.N. RAVINDRAN ATHAN NAIR (SUPRA). HOWEVER IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS N OT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER TH IS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UND ER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING T HAT 90% OF INSURANCE CLAIM SCRAP SALE AND SUNDRY M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 9 BALANCES WRITTEN OFF SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTIN G DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT RECEIPTS FROM INSURANCE CLAIM SCRAP SALES AND SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF ARE NOT OUT OF MAIN EXP ORT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARE THUS COVERED BY TH E EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. 6.1 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC REDUCED 90% OF THE F OLLOWING SUMS FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. OTHER INCOME A.Y. 2003-04 A.Y. 2004-05 INSURANCE CLAIM 1088416 94607 DIVIDEND 159647 MISC. INCOME RENT 3161000 2759400 SCRAP SALE ETC. 438914 397424 BALANCE WRITTEN OFF 5007 1304375 SALE OF LICENCE 582748 .. DUTY DRAWBACK 7830089 7521840 13156000 12237295 6.2 IN APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRI BUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 HELD THAT 90% OF THE INSURANCE CLAIM SCRAP SALES AND SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COM PUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6.3 THE LEARNED DR REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE MAD RAS HIGH ?COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. REPORTED IN 297 ITR 107 SUBMITTED THAT SCRAP SALES IS NOT A PART OF THE TUR NOVER. SIMILARLY 90% OF THE INSURANCE CLAIM AND SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR (SUPRA). 6.4 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE DECISION OF M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 10 THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES PERUSED 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. WE FIND THE HONBLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT SCRAP SALES IS NOT A PART OF THE TURNOVER. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR ARE ALSO TAKING THE VIEW THAT E VEN THOUGH SCRAP IS GENERATED OUT OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY OF THE ASS ESSEE BUT IT CANNOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF EXPORT TURNOVER. ON THE C ONTRARY IT IS AN INDEPENDENT INCOME UNCONNECTED WITH THE EXPORT. IT HAS BEENHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. RAVINDRANAT HAN NAIR (SUPRA) THAT INDEPENDENT INCOME IS LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER IN THE FORMULA GIVEN U/S. 80HHC(3) OF THE ACT. WE THEREF ORE REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RENDERED PRIOR TO TH E DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR (SUPRA). THE SAME PRINCIPLE WILL EQUALLY APPLY TO OTHER ITEMS SUCH AS INSURANCE CLAIM AND SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF. THE GROUND RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 6219/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05): 7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 AND 2 BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM T RADE DEPOSIT AMOUNT IN TO RS.2 13 53 116/- AGAINST INTER EST EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS ON OVERDUE DEBTS AMOUNTING TO M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 11 RS.12 47 408/- AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U /S. 80HHC. 7.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ABOVE TWO GROUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 AND 3 IN I.T.A. NO. 6218/ MUM/2008. WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE ABOVE ISSUE S TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIG HT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN THEREIN. FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO THE ABOVE TWO G ROUNDS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION. THESE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UN DER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM C REDIT SOCIETY AMOUNTING TO RS.14 438/- AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 8.1 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION SINCE THERE IS NO DISCUSSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL AS BY THE CIT(A). 8.2 THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT T HIS ISSUE HAS TO BE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO NEC ESSITY TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8.3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH WAS NEITHER CONFRONTED TO THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL NOR CI TED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH CITED ABOVE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOL D AND DIRECT M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 12 ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORD INGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UN DER: 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AOS ACTION OF REDUCING OF 90% OF TH E MARKETING FEE MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION CHARGES FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 9.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THIS GROUND I S IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 IN I.T.A. NO. 6218/MUM/2008 . WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUND HAS BEEN DECIDED A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 5 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 35 000/- ON ACCOUN T OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE FROM M/S. PARAMOUNT TRADING CORPORATION. 10.1 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE PROFORMA INVOICE OF M/S. PARAMOUNT TRADING CORPORATION (PTM) WAS FOUND FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS BEEN SEIZED AS PAGE 46 OF LOOSE PAPER FILE NO. A/9. HE OBSERVED THAT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 22 ND MARCH 2006 SHRI N.V. THOMAS HAS STATED THAT THIS IS PROFORMA INVOICE OF BOGUS BILLS PROPOSED TO BE RAISED IN THE NAMES OF GARRISON PHRAMA (I) LTD. (GPIL) PTC AND ASTRA EXIM PVT. LTD. (AEPL). IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED O N 22 ND MARCH 2006 THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED NON GENUINE PURCHASE BILLS FR OM GPIL. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 10 TH APRIL 2006 NON GENUINE PURCHASE BILLS FROM AEPL WEE ALSO ADMITTED. HOWEVER THE PURCHASES FRO M PTC WERE SAID TO BE GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMON U/ S. 131 OF THE ACT TO THE PARTY ON THE ADDRESS FOUND ON THE PROFORMA INVO ICE OF 22 ND MARCH 2006. HOWEVER THE SUMMON COULD NOT BE SERVED AS T HE PREMISES HAPPENED TO BE A ROOM IN HOTEL VICTORIA 255 SAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG MUMBAI-400 001. THE PARTNER OF HOTEL VICTORIA VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 17 TH M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 13 APRIL 2006 HAD INTIMATED THAT THEY HAD GIVEN THEIR PREMISES ON LEAVE AND LICENCE BASIS FOR A PERIOD OF 11 MONTHS VIDE AGREEM ENT DATED 1.4.2004 T O ONE MR. MOHD. IBRAHIM KHAN AND THE SAID PREMISES WA S USED BY MR. KHAN AND TWO OF HIS ASSOCIATES TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS O F PTC. IT WAS FURTHER INFORMED THAT MR. KHAN WAS INTRODUCED TO THEM THROU GH A BROKER AND THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION LINK WITH MR. KH AN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ABOVE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE MADE FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES DURING TH E FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. HOWEVER THE PARTY HAS LEFT T HE PLACE OF WORKING AND IS NOT TRACEABLE AT PRESENT. THE RELEVANT PORT ION OF THE BANK STATEMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. HOWEV ER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT MERE PAYMENT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUES IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. HE O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INITIALLY ADMITTED BOGUS PURCHASES FRO M THIS PARTY. HOWEVER HE RETRACTED HIS STAND LATER ON CONTENDING THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE. NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS P RODUCED BEFORE HIM TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. THEREFO RE HOLDING THE PURCHASES BEING UNVERIFIABLE HE DISALLOWED THE AMOU NT AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY D ISALLOWED THE PURCHASE AMOUNT OF RS.10 35 000/- FROM THE ABOVE PARTY AND A DDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 10.2 IN APPEAL THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10.3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THERE IS NO D ISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON IT BY EITHER PRODUCING THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER OR FURNISH OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES TO SATISFY THE ASSES SING OFFICER REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES ESPECIALLY WHEN A PROFORMA INVOICE OF THE PARTY WAS FOUND WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS NON-GENUINE. MERE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 14 CANNOT MAKE A NON-GENUINE TRANSACTION AS GENUINE. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE WITH A DIRECTION TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS EXAMINATION AND FURNISH OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDEN CES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS O F THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HERD TO THE A SSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NO. 6244/MUM/08 : 11. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UND ER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING T HAT 90% OF INTEREST RECEIPTS FROM ICDS FDS (MARGIN MONEY) AND LOAN GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE PROFITS OF BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOS E OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THESE ITEMS OF INCOME DO ES NOT HAVE AN IMMEDIATE NEXUS WITH THE EXPORT BUSINES S AND ARE COVERED BY THE EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SECTION 80HHC OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 11.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THIS GROUND I S IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 BY THE REVENUE VIDE I.T.A. NO. 6309/MUM/08. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE MATTER HA S BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJU DICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO THIS GRO UND IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION IN I.T.A. NO. 6218/MUM/08. THIS GROUND RA ISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UND ER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING T HAT 90% OF INSURANCE CLAIM SCRAP SALE AND SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 15 PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTIN G DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT RECEIPTS FROM INSURANCE CLAIM SCRAP SALES AND SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF ARE NOT OUT OF MAIN EXP ORT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARE THUS COVERED BY TH E EXPLANATION (BAA IN SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. 12.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THIS GROUND B Y THE REVENUE IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 IN I.T .A. NO. 6309/MUM/08. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUND RA ISED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO THIS GR OUND BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. I.T.A. NO. 6220/MUM/08 (A.Y. 2005-06): 13. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RE ADS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 35 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGE D BOGUS PURCHASE FROM M/S. PARAMOUNT TRADING CORPORATION. 13.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THIS GROUND I S IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 5 IN I.T.A. NO. 6219/MUM/2008 . WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. FOLLOWIN G THE SAME RATIO THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIO NS GIVEN THEREIN. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST JANUARY 2010. SD/- (V.D. RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 21 ST JANUARY 2010 M/S. ELDER PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ====================== 16 COPY TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL VI MUMBAI (4) THE CIT CENTRAL III MUMBAI (5) THE DR E BENCH ITAT MUMBAI. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI TPRAO