Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Reliance Capital Asset Manage Ment Ltd, ... vs Assessee on 17 October, 2014
ुं ई यायपीठ "डी" मब
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ुं ई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE HON'BLE S/SHRI D. MANMOHAN , VICE-PRESIDENT
AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM)
सव ी , डी. म मोहन, उपा य एवं बी.आर.बा करन, लेखा सद य
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8625/Mum/2010
( नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08)
Reliance Capital Asset बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
Management Ltd. Circle 3(3), Aayakar Bhavan, M K
Vs.
One Indiabulls Center, Tower-1, Road, Churchgate,
th
12 floor, Mumbai-400020.
Jupiter Mills Compound,
841, Senapati Bapat road,
Elphinstone road,
Mumbai-400013
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4459/Mum/2012
( नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2008-09)
Reliance Capital Asset बनाम/ Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax
Management Ltd. Circle 3(3),
Vs.
One Indiabulls Center, Tower-1, Room No.609,
12th floor, 6th floor,
Jupiter Mills Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road,
841, Senapati Bapat road, Mumbai-400020.
Elphinstone road,
Mumbai-400013
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4795/Mum/2012
( नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2008-09)
Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax बनाम/ Reliance Capital Asset
Circle 3(3), Management Ltd.
Vs.
Room No.609, One Indiabulls Center, Tower-1,
th
6 floor, 11 and 12th floor,
Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Jupiter Mills Compound,
Mumbai-400020 841, Senapati Bapat road,
Elphinstone road,
Mumbai-400013
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /P AN/GIRNo.: AAACR2668G
2 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010
ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Jitendra B Sanghavi
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Akhilendra P Yadav
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 7.10.2014
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2014
आदे श / O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:
The Assessee has filed the appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and the Revenue has filed the appeal for assessment year 2008-09. All these appeals were heard together and hence they are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
2.0 Following two issues are contested in the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 :
a) disallowance of software expense; and
b) disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act.
3.0 The facts relating to the above said issue are stated in brief. The assessee
is the asset manager of the Reliance mutual fund. The AO noticed that the Assessee has purchased softwares and claimed the same as revenue expenditure. The details of the same are given below:-
Name of the Vendor Amount Nature of payment Name of the Date of product acquisition Ideatake information 11,31,136 Website development Website 2nd half of Technologies P Ltd. charges the year Applied Software P Ltd 10,18,532 Software/support for Wealth spectrum 2nd half of PMS application the year Credence Analytics 4,12,217 Software/support for i-deal 2nd half of (India) P.Ltd. i-deal application the year Cubic Computing (P) Ltd 2,79,000 Software licence Chart FX 1st half of the year Swan Solutions and 1,71,587 Software licence Windows 1st half of Services (P) Ltd server/2003 the year Capital Market 1,20,833 Subscription to Capital line 2nd half of Publishers India P Ltd. database the year LDS Infotech P Ltd. 1,12,463 Software licence Adobe 1st half of photshop, the year Illustrator, flash 3 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010 ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 The Assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the above expenditure includes website development charges, annual maintenance charges, subscription of database and software license and they relate to functional software/utility software which only render supportive function to the business activity of the assessee. Accordingly it was contended that software expenditure should be allowed as revenue expenditure. However, the AO held that the Depreciation schedule provides for allowing depreciation on software @ 60% and since the 'Software' is included in the Depreciation Schedule, it constitutes Capital Expenditure. Accordingly the AO disallowed the claim made by assessee and allowed depreciation thereon. The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the software named "Capitaline" is a payment made on annual basis. Accordingly he deleted the disallowance relating to the same. In respect of the balance items, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO.
3.1 The AO further noticed that the Assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.3,70,16,331/- and "Long Term Capital Gain" (LTCG) of Rs.3,51,99,942/- and claimed both of them as exempt from taxation. However, the Assessee did not disallow any expenditure in terms of sec. 14A of the Act on the plea that it did not incur any expenditure for earning the above said exempted income. However, the AO took the view that the provisions of section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) are applicable for this year also and accordingly, he held that part of administrative expenses has to be disallowed. Accordingly, by applying Rule 8D, the assessing officer disallowed 0.5% on average value of investment, which worked out to Rs.25,26,129/-.
3.2 In the appellate proceedings before Ld CIT(A), the Assessee submitted that the dividend was received only on two occasions and the said dividend were also directly credited to the Bank account. The Long term capital gains consisted of 8 transactions only. Further, it was submitted that the provisions of Rule 8D cannot be applied to the year under consideration in view of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd Vs DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that the provisions of Rule 8D shall be applicable prospectively from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) in AY 2004-05, wherein the disallowance had been made on a 4 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010 ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 reasonable basis. According to Ld A.R, the Ld CIT(A) asked the assessee to furnish a working of the disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the Act and the assessee furnished a worksheet showing expenditure that could be attributable towards exempt income, according to which the amount to be disallowed was worked out at Rs.86,805/-. The ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the contentions of the assessee and hence, by following the decision of his predecessor rendered for assessment year 2004-05 in the Assessee's own case, confirmed the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of Rs.86,805/-. The assessee is still aggrieved by the said decision rendered by the ld. CIT(A).
4. We heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The first issue relates to the software expenses claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. The Ld Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Indian Visit.Com (P) Ltd (2009)(176 Taxman 164) to submit the that expenditure incurred on website development is not capital in nature. On going through the above said case law, we notice that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the website development charges has to be regarded as revenue expenditure. Hence, we find merit in the said contention of the assessee. Accordingly, respectfully following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court (referred supra), we direct the assessing officer to allow expenditure relating to website development charges as revenue expenditure. The order of Ld CIT(A) in respect of this addition is set aside accordingly.
4.1 With regard to software expenses, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the software expenses are revenue in nature, if it is not shown that they were of enduring nature and would not become outdated. It was further held that since technology is fast changing and day-by-day systems are being developed in a new way, software may be needed like a raw material. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that software expenses are revenue in nature on the ground that it was a possible view. The Ld Counsel submitted that the software purchased by the assessee were functional softwares and they only help the smooth functioning of its activities. He 5 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010 ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 submitted that they cannot be categorized as Profit making tools, as the assessee does not carry on its business by solely depending upon these softwares. He also submitted that the life of these softwares is short due to continuous up-gradation and hence they do not have enduring benefit. The ld A.R also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Special bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Amway India Enterprises Ltd (111 ITD 112) to submit that the expenses incurred on purchase of software is revenue in nature. In the case of Amway India Enterprises Ltd, the following observations made by the Delhi Special bench of ITAT are relevant here:-
"For ascertaining as to whether expenditure on computer software gives an enduring benefit to an assessee, the duration of time for which the assessee acquires right to use the software becomes relevant. Having regard to the fact that software becomes obsolete with technological innovation and advancement within a short span of time, it can be said that where the life of the computer software is shorter (say less than two years), it may be treated as revenue expenditure. It is also evident from the amendment to the law w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 granting 60 per cent depreciation on computer software that even the legislature considers the life of computer software as about two years by providing the higher rate of depreciation @ 60 per cent thereon so as to enable assessee to write off the same to the extent of 84 per cent even when treated as capital asset within a period of two years. An assessee may own a software outright or be a licensee but the same may operate to confer benefit only in the revenue field and therefore it may have to be regarded as revenue expenditure. What is material to consider is the nature of the advantage in a commercial sense and it is only where the advantage is in the capital field that the expenditure would be disallowable on an application of this test. If the advantage consists merely in facilitating the assessee's trading operations or enabling the management and conduct of the assessee's business to be carried on more efficiently or more profitably while leaving the fixed capital untouched, the expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future. In other words, the functional test would become material and if on application of the same it is found that the expenditure operates to confer benefit in the revenue field, then the same would be revenue, irrespective of the duration of time for which the assessee acquires rights in a software. The period of advantage in the context of computer software should not be viewed from the point of view of different assets or advantages like tenancy or use of know-how because software is a business tool enabling a businessman's ability to run his business.--Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 17 CTR (SC) 113 : (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC) relied on.
The following factors would be relevant to determine whether the advantage operates in the capital field or revenue field--(i) Nature of business of the assessee : It is necessary to obtain an understanding of the business function or effect of a concern's software. Software normally 6 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010 ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 functions as a tool enabling business to be carried on more efficiently. The scope, power, longevity of such a tool and its centrality to the functions of the business will all bear on its treatment. One of the assessees in the cases referred to the Special Bench is engaged in the business of software development as well as running a training center to impart specialized training to the students in software technology. If the software were used in such business to impart training to the students, then the same would be part of the profit making apparatus of the assessee and consequently expenditure on software, capital. Similarly, example of a travel agent can be cited here as an illustration wherein the expenditure incurred on acquisition of a software for the purpose of enabling the assessee to make booking of air tickets would be a capital expenditure because such a software certainly forms part of the profit making apparatus of the travel agency business inasmuch as the business of air ticket booking is done with the help of that software. Another example which can be considered here is that of acquisition of Turbo Gold software for Rs. 17.61 lakhs by one of the assessees in the present case. The said software helps in compression of size of e-mails sent through the Lotus Notes Mailing System and it includes licenses for 150 users who are using Lotus Notes Mailing System and software license for running on its server. If use of this software in the business of the assessee is limited to facilitate merely an effective and fast communication in order to increase its organizational efficiency, the same cannot be treated as forming part of the profit making apparatus of the assessee. On the other hand, if such software is being used by an assessee engaged in the business of placement agency where the applications from persons seeking jobs are invited through e-mail and are also forwarded to the concerned clients through e-mail, the same may form part of profit making apparatus of the assessee's business of placement agency and can be treated as a capital asset. (ii) As a general rule it may be stated that the more expensive the computer software, the more it is likely to be a central tool of the business and the more enduring is likely to be its effect adding to the profit earning apparatus. If there are associated capital expenditure like purchase of new computer equipment for running the software developed under a project, then it can be considered as capital expenditure. This is especially the case where the new hardware is not merely desirable but necessary for this purpose. (iii) Degree of associated organizational change : Similarly the degree of change intended in the way operations are carried out as a result of the computer software, for example, savings in the number, and changes in the location, of staff used to provide services to customers will have a bearing. The more radical the changes, the more likely the expenditure will be capital. These changes are likely to be most radical when operations previously carried on manually are computerized. (iv) It has to be borne in mind that computer software industry is of a fast changing nature. Therefore whatever software purchased by an assessee would become outdated much earlier than expected. The assessee has therefore to upgrade his software. An element of upgrading does not automatically make the expenditure capital. The presence of an element of upgrading, therefore, will not necessarily cause the expenditure in question to be capital....
7 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 The conclusions on the issue under consideration thus can be summarized as under : (i) When the assessee acquires a computer software or for that matter the license to use such software, he acquires a tangible asset and becomes owner thereof. (ii) Having regard to the fact that software becomes obsolete with technological innovation and advancement within a short span of time, it can be said that where the life of the computer software is shorter (say less than two years), it may be treated as revenue expenditure. Any software having its utility to the assessee for a period beyond two years can be considered as accrual of benefit of enduring nature. However, that by itself will not make the expenditure incurred on software as capital in nature and the functional test as discussed above also needs to be satisfied. (iii) Once the tests of ownership and enduring benefit are satisfied, the question whether expenditure incurred on computer software is capital or revenue has to be seen from the point of view of its utility to a businessman and how important an economic or functional role it plays in his business. In other words, the functional test becomes more important and relevant because of the peculiar nature of the computer software and its possible use in different areas of business touching either capital or revenue field or its utility to a businessman which may touch either capital or revenue field."
We have noticed earlier that the Ld Counsel has submitted before us that the softwares purchased by the assessee were used to carry on the business more efficiently and they do not fall in the category of profit making apparatus of the assessee's business. He further submitted that the softwares purchased viz., Wealth spectrum, i-deal, Chart FX are functional softwares having short duration of life due to technological obsolescence and continuous up-gradation. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that they fall in the category of Revenue expenditure as per the tests laid down by the Special Bench in the case of Amway India Enterprises Ltd (supra) and also by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Varinder Agro Chemicals Ltd (supra).
4.2 On a perusal of the narration given explaining the nature of software specified in the table extracted above, we notice that the software named "Wealth spectrum" is supportive software for PMS application. Similarly the software named "i-deal" is also supportive software for i-deal application. The nature of software named "Chart FX" is not stated. The description given for the said software supports the submission of Ld A.R that they are not the primary software, on which the business of the assessee is run, but they perform supporting role. Further, the Ld A.R has also submitted that they are having short life due to continuous upgrading. All these submissions have not been controverted by the revenue. Hence, we find merit in the contentions of the 8 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010 ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 assessee that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of the above said three softwares are revenue in nature. Accordingly, we set aside the order of of Ld CIT(A) in respect of the above said three softwares and direct the assessing officer to allow the claim.
4.3 The remaining two softwares are Windows Server, 2003 and Abode Photoshop etc. We notice that the first one is an operating system and the second one is application software. Both the softwares are also having fairly long utility life. Hence, in our view, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred in acquisition of the above said softwares is capital in nature. Accordingly, we uphold his order on the above said two softwares.
5. The next issue relates to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The contentions of Ld A.R are that the assessee has received dividend in two occasions and further the said dividends were also directly credited to the Bank account. The Long term capital gains consisted of 8 transactions only. Accordingly, it was submitted that the disallowance of Rs.86,805/- confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) is also on the higher side. We have already noticed that the assessee itself has worked out the disallowance to be made u/s 14A at Rs.86,805/- and furnished the same before Ld CIT(A). Though it is submitted that the assessee has received dividends only on two occasions by way of direct credit into the bank account of the assessee and further long term capital gains were earned on eight transactions, yet, in our view, the disallowance to be made u/s 14A is not dependent upon the actual receipt of dividends. What is required to be disallowed is the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income. In the instant case, the assessee itself has worked out the amount of expenditure relatable to the exempt income at Rs.86,805/- and furnished the same to Ld CIT(A). It was submitted that the said workings were furnished at the request of the first appellate authority. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee stands by its claim that it did not incur any expenditure. However, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of Rs.86,805/-, since the workings furnished by the assessee would show that the assessee has allocated 20% of salary of an executive and some minor portion of conveyance 9 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010 ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 and communication expenses to work out the total cost incurred in relation to the exempt income. Accordingly, we confirm the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue.
6. We shall now take up the appeals filed by both the parties for AY 2008-09. The grounds raised by both the parties relate to the decision taken by Ld CIT(A) in respect of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act.
7. The facts relating to the same are discussed in brief. During this year, the assessee disclosed dividend income of Rs.8,33,46,239/- and Long term Capital gains of Rs.68,88,582/- and claimed both the income as exempt. In its return of income, the assessee disallowed a sum of Rs.1,25,605/- as expenditure incurred in earning the above said incomes. However, the assessing officer took the view that the disallowance u/s 14A should be worked out as per the provisions of rule 8D of the I.T Rules. The AO accepted that there was no requirement of making any disallowance out of interest expenditure. However, the AO disallowed part of indirect expenses calculated at 0.5% of the average value of investments, which worked out to Rs.1,46,78,090/-, which was in terms of Rule 8D. Accordingly, the AO enhanced the disallowance made by the assessee to the above said figure.
7.1 Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under:-
"In this regard it will be necessary to consider whether the working of the appellant in respect of the expense at Rs.1,25,605/- is correct or not. It can be seen that the working of expense includes salary, conveyance and communication expenses. The appellant has substantiated the reasonableness of the working of expenses in para 2.5 of their submission dated 19.3.2010.
It can be seen that out of 27 total entries of dividend, all are by way of credit and no receipts are by cheque. 8 receipts are by way of direct credit, balance 19 entries were received in the form of dividend reinvestment. The total number of entries in the nature of transactions in respect of Long term Capital gains STT paid are 4 in number.
Considering the smallness of activities of investments as narrated above, the appellant submits that the working of Assessing officer in accordance with Rule 8D is unreasonable and excessive and on the contrary the working of the appellant is most reasonable."
The assessee also submitted before Ld CIT(A) that the assessing officer can proceed to compute the disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D only if he is not satisfied about the correctness of the appellant's claim. The assessee also 10 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010 ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 pointed out the similar type of disallowance worked out by the assessee in AY 2007-08 was accepted by Ld CIT(A) in that year and the department did not challenge the same. The assessee also placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd and also the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd Vs. CIT (203 Taxman 364). Accordingly, the assessee pleaded that the disallowance worked out by the assessee should be sustained.
7.2 The Ld CIT(A), however, did not accept the workings furnished by the assessee with regard to the disallowance made by it in its return of income. The Ld CIT(A) expressed the view that it is not acceptable that a junior level executive was employed to look after the investment made by the assessee company. He also held that the decision to make investment in shares or mutual funds or in any other investment products is not a simple decision and the same requires lot of care and study by a team of experts in the field of capital market. However, the Ld CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that only those investments which has resulted in earning income should only be considered to compute disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T Rules. In this regard, the ld CIT(A) took support of the decision rendered by Chennai bench of ITAT in the case of Siva Industries and holding Ltd (59 DTR 182). Accordingly, the ld CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs.1,25,66,793/- as against the amount of Rs.1,45,52,785/- disallowed by the AO. Aggrieved, both the parties are in appeal before us.
8. We have heard the rival contentions on this issue and perused the record. A perusal of the total investments held by the assessee would show that the assessee had held investment of Rs.70.62 crores as on 1.4.2007 and it has come down to Rs.68.26 crores as on 31.3.2008. A perusal of details of investments would show that the assessee has invested mainly in various schemes of Reliance mutual fund and its subsidiaries. Investments made in other companies are viz,m Shares of Citicorp Financial Ltd (Rs.2.00 crores), Clearing Corporation Ltd (Rs.5.00 crores), ICICI Bank Ltd (0.50 crore) and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd (0.50 crore). Thus, out of aggregate investments of Rs.68.25 crores, the investment made in other companies was only Rs.8.00 crores. The 11 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010 ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012 remaining investments are mainly in various schemes of Reliance mutual fund only and also in other group concerns. There should not be any dispute that the investments made in the various schemes of Reliance mutual fund and also in other group concerns are usually made out of business policy and the same does not require complex analysis by technical experts, as assumed by Ld CIT(A).
8.1 According to the assessee, it has received dividends from 27 transactions, out of which 8 receipts were by way of direct credit to its bank account and 19 receipts were in the form of reinvestment of dividend, i.e., the dividend amount was reinvested and it did not physically received the dividend amount. Capital gains were earned out of four transactions. Thus, it is seen that the transactions relating to earning of dividend income as well as Long term Capital gains are limited. From the Investment Schedule of the Balance Sheet, we notice that the assessee, in total, has carried out 23 transactions in its investment portfolio, i.e., purchased new investments 15, sold five investments and made modification in 3 investments. As stated earlier, all these transactions mainly restricted within the group companies/schemes.
8.2 From the foregoing analysis of transactions and also from the nature of investment made by the assessee, i.e., mainly in the schemes of Reliance mutual fund and group concerns, we are of the view that there is no necessity to apply the formula prescribed in Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income tax Rules. At the same time, the disallowance of Rs.1,25,605/- worked out by the assessee also, in our view, appears to be on a lower side. As pointed out by the Ld CIT(A), the assessee has allocated salary of a junior executive in the workings. Though the investments made in the schemes of Reliance mutual fund and group concerns do not require technical analysis, yet the decision to make investment is normally taken at a higher level. Hence, on a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that this matter would meet the ends of justice, if the disallowance to be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is determined at Rs.3,50,000/-. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to restrict the disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the Act to Rs.3,50,000/-.
12 I.T.A. Nos. 8625/ M/2010ITA Nos.4459 & 4795 /Mum/2012
9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2007-08 and the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2008-09 are partly allowed and the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2008-09 is dismissed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 17th Oct, 2014.
घोषणा खल
ु े यायालय म दनांकः 17th Oct, 2014 को क गई ।
Sd sd
(डी. म मोहन/D. MANMOHAN) (बी.आर. बा करन,/ B.R. BASKARAN)
उपा य /VICE- PRESIDENT लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai: 17th Oct,2014.
व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. आयकर आयु त / CIT concerned
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब
ु ई/
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6.
गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,
True copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब
ु ई /ITAT, Mumbai