Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Rr Kabel Ltd , Mumbai vs Assessee on 4 January, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES, 'D', MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARW AL (JM) AND P RAMOD KUMAR (A M)
I TA No .4 789/Mum/2009
(Assessment Year: 2005-06 )
M/s R R Kabel Ltd., Addl. Commissioner of
Ram Ratna House, Incom e Tax,
Victoria Mill Compound, Range 7(2),
Pandurang Budhkar Marg, V/s 6 t h Floor,
W orli, Aayakar Bhavan,
Mumbai-400013. M.K.Road,
PAN: AABCR3352C Mumbai-400020
APPELLAN T RESPONDENT
ITA No.5103/Mum /2009
(Assessm ent Year: 2005-06)
Addl. Commissioner of M/s R R Kabel Ltd.,
Incom e Tax, Ram Ratna House,
Range 7(2), Victoria Mill Compound,
6 t h Floor, V/s Pandurang Budhkar Marg,
Aayakar Bhavan, W orli,
M.K.Road, Mumbai-400013.
Mumbai-400020 PAN: AABCR3352C
APPELLAN T RESPONDENT
I TA No.4790/Mum/2009
(A ssessment Year: 2006-07 )
M/s R R Kabel Ltd., Dy. Commissioner of
Ram Ratna House, Incom e Tax,
Victoria Mill Compound, 7(2),
Pandurang Budhkar Marg, V/s 6 t h Floor,
W orli, Aayakar Bhavan,
Mumbai-400013. M.K.Road,
PAN: AABCR3352C Mumbai-400020
APPELLAN T RESPONDENT
I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009
2 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 )
ITA No.5104/Mum/2009
(Assessm ent Year: 2006-07)
Dy. Commissioner of M/s R R Kabel Ltd.,
Incom e Tax, Ram Ratna House,
7(2), Victoria Mill Compound,
6 t h Floor, V/s Pandurang Budhkar Marg,
Aayakar Bhavan, W orli,
M.K.Road, Mumbai-400013.
Mumbai-400020 PAN: AABCR3352C
APPELLAN T RESPONDENT
Date of Hearing : 4.1.2012
Date of Pronouncement : .1.2012
Assessee by : S/Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil Tiwari
Revenue by : Shri C.G.K.Nair
O R D E R
PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) These two cross-appeals by the assessee and Revenue are directed against the two separate orders dated 16.6.2009 passed by the ld.CIT(A) for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Since facts are identical and issues involved are common, all these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
ITA No.4789/Mum/2009(AY:2005-06) (By assessee)
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 3 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) manufacturing and sale of electrical cables, filed return declaring total inco me at Rs.Nil. However, the assessment was also completed at Rs.Nil after making an addition u/s 145 of Rs.11,08,904/-, treating the interest income of Rs.4,08,096/- as an income from other so urces and after set off of brought forward losses for assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03 of Rs.2,22,48,968/-, vide order dated 1.12.2007 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).
3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) partly allo wed the appeal of the assessee.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.
5. Ground Nos.1 to 1.3 are against the confirmation of treatment of interest income of Rs.4,08,096/- as income from other sources and in not allowing deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
6. The brief facts o f the above issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings the AO noted that the assessee has included Rs.4,08,096/- of I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 4 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) interest earned on margin money and bank guarantee received from State Bank o f India under the head income from business only. On examination of details, he observed that this income is earne d by the assessee not carrying out any business activity but by keeping the money in the bank. Acco rding to the AO, the nature of income needs to be seen at the point of its generation. In the instant case, the interest has been gene rated not because of any business activity but because the money was kept in bank. The refore, such interest income cannot be a part of the business. He further observed that the assessee is also not in the business of money lending activity. There fo re, the assessee was asked to give explanatio n as to why it should not be treated as income from other sources. It was interalia submitted by the assessee that the income has been earned from their industrial unde rtaking and is inextricably linked with and has direct nexus with the industrial undertaking and hence the income cannot be assessed as income from other sources. Ho wever, the AO did not acce pt the assessee' s explanation. The AO after relying on certain decisions held that since the funds have been I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 5 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) borrowed for the purpose of carrying out the business activities of the assessee viz manufacturing of cables, it cannot be considered that the borrowings was for the purpose of earning interest income and accordingly he assessed the intere st income of Rs.4,08,096/- under the head income from other sources. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) while agre eing with the views of the AO upheld the action of the AO.
7. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee while not pressing the intere st income as business income for the purpose of deductio n u/s 80IB further submits since the interest income has been earned from the FDRs which were made out of borrowed funds, therefore, earning of inte rest is inextricably linked with and has direct nexus, therefore, the interest on borrowed funds be reduced from the inte rest income while determining the income, the income from other sources.
8. On the othe r hand, the ld. DR while relying on the orders of the AO and the ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dresser Rand India (P.) I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 6 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) Ltd.(2011) 330 ITR 453 (Bom) for the proposition that the interest on deposit is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on reco rd. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the FDRs were made out of borrowe d funds. According to the AO since borrowal is for the purpose of assessee's manufacturing activity, therefore, there is no nexus between the borrowing activity and the interest generation. Per contra, the claim of the assessee is that the since the FDRs were made out of bo rrowed funds, interest on borrowed funds be reduced from the interest income while de te rmining the income from other so urces. Since there is no dispute that the FDRs were made out of borrowed funds, the re is a direct nexus between the borrowings and the interest generation. This being so and keeping in vie w the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Act which provides that in computing the income unde r the head income from other sources any other expenditure (not being I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 7 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of interest paid on borro wed funds and acco rdingly, the AO is directed to allow the same. The gro unds taken by the assessee are, therefore , partly allowed.
10. Ground No.2 is against the direction of the ld. CIT(A) to restrict the relief allowed to the extent of additio n of Rs.11,08,904/- made by the AO u/s 145A of the Act.
11. At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel fo r the assessee did not press the above ground which was not objecte d to by the ld. DR.
12. That being so, the ground taken by the assessee, is, therefore, rejected being not pressed. ITA No.5103/Mum/2009(A Y: 2005-06) (by Revenue)
13. All the grounds taken by the Revenue are against the deletion of additio n of Rs.11,08,904 /- made by the AO u/s 145A of the Act.
I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 8 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 )
14. The brief facts of the above issue are that the AO observed that as per the provisions o f section l45A, all the taxes and duties paid are to be included for the purpose of valuation u/s 145A. The AO has discussed this issue in detail from pages 3 to 8 of the assessment order. The AO note d that profit and gains of the business had to be incre ased or decreased as unde r:
(i) Increase due to inclusion of excise duty/VAT on sale s
(ii) Increase due to inclusion of excise duty/VAT on closing stock
(iii) Decrease due to inclusion of excise duty/VAT on purchases
(iv) Decrease due to inclusion of excise duty/VAT on o pening stock
(v) Decrease due to excise duty liability of the current assessment year in cash over and abo ve the MODVAT credit availed pertaining to the current year.
He further observed that this exercise has been made and the adjustment on account of inclusion of excise I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 9 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) duty paid on (only the excise duty compo nent), worked out as unde r:
Sales Rs. 13,21,27,703/-
Add:
Closing stock of
i) Raw Materials Rs.16,47,383/-
ii) Work in progress Rs.36,50,663/-
iii)Finished goods Rs. 56,29,701/-
Rs. 1,09,27,747/-
Total Rs.14,30,55,450/-
Less:
Opening Stock
(i) Raw Material Rs.7,23,259/-
(ii) Wo rk in progress Rs.20,54,813/-
ii) Finished goods Rs. 60,33,055/-
Rs. 88,11,127/-
Rs.13,42,44,323/-
Less:
Purchases
i) Raw materials Rs.13,31,35,419/-
Rs.11,08,904/-
I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 10 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) The AO allowed an opportunity to the assessee to explain as to why such sum of Rs.11,08,904/-be not added to the profits of the business. T he assessee furnished a written e xplanation which the AO has incorporated at pages 5 to 7 of the assessment o rde r. In the written explanation it was interalia stated that the e xcise duty payable comes to Rs.56,29,702/- which has been paid by the assessee befo re the due date of the filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, therefore, no additio n is called for. However, the AO did not accept the assessee's e xplanation. According to the AO the adjustment can be made only with regard to the values of purchases, sales and inventory. T here was no scope for further debiting any excise duty on closing stock because the excise duty in the closing stock had already bee n paid at the time of purchase of goods. Therefore, the AO noted that the excise duty collected on effecting sales over and abo ve the excise duty already debited to P&L A/c by way of adjustments to the opening stock and purchases of course, is the only liability which the assessee had to incur during the year. He nce the assessee could not have further debited any excise I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 11 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) duty paid in cash over and above the excise duty element available in the ope ning stock and purchases included by way of adjustments carried o ut as above. In the instant case it may be noted that the assessee had collected Rs.13.21 cro res of excise duty on sales which alone was payable by it and hence debitable to the P&L A/c. However, it has made use of MODVAT credit received on purchase of goods and also available in the opening stock. Thus the excise duty element already available on the debit side o f P&L A/c (by way of above adjustments) was much more than the excise duty liability for the year arising on sales. The refore no further amount can be deductible from the P&L A/c by way of excise duty payable on closing stock as claime d by the assessee and accordingly, he added Rs.11,08,904/- u/s 145A to the income of the Assessee.
15. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hawkins Cooke rs Ltd. V/s ITO since reported in (2008) 14 DTR (Mumbai) (Trib) 206 and the decision of the Ho n'ble Bombay High Co urt in CIT V/s Kolsite Maschine Fabrik Ltd, I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 12 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) dated 20.4.2009, ho wever, deleted the addition of Rs.11,08,904/- made by the AO u/s 145A of the Act.
16. At the time of hearing, the ld. DR while relying on the order of the AO submits that since the excise duty element has already be en debited by the assessee in the profit and loss account by way of adjustment, therefo re, no further amount can be deductible fro m the pro fit and loss account by way of excise duty payable on closing stock as claimed by the assessee and there fo re, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this account be reversed and that o f the AO be re stored.
17. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee while reiterating the same submissio ns as submitted before the AO and the ld. CIT(A) refers to item (vii) of Schedule-"P" of Notes to Accounts of audit repo rt appearing at page 41 of the assessee's paper book which reads as under :
"(vii) Excise Duty
a) Company is not providing fo r excise duty on uncleared excisable stock of finished goo ds at the end of the year.
I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 13 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 )
(b) Excise Duty paid on eligible capital goods has been included in the cost. Cenvat Credit availed on such eligible capital goods is credited to a separate reserve called Cenvat Credit Reserve (on capital goods). De preciation relating to Excise Duty co mponent of the cost of capital goods is reco uped from the Cenvat Credit Re serve (on capital goods)."
He further submits that the assessee is consistently following the same system of accounting and there is no change in the system of accounting in this year. He, further submits that in the assessment year 2001- 02, the AO on the similar facts has allowed the deduction of excise duty u/s 43B vide internal page 4 of the assessment order for the assessme nt year 2001-02 appearing at pages 64-67 of the assessee's paper boo k. He furthe r submits that in the subsequent assessment years also the assessee is following the same system of acco unti ng and no such addition was made by the AO. He further submits that the AO while giving effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessme nt year under conside ration after examining the issue has allowed the relief of Rs.11,08,904/- which was added in the assessment order as adjustment u/s 145 of the Act vide order dated 20.7.2009. He also placed reliance on the I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 14 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) decisions of the Tribunal in (a) Hawkins Coo kers Ltd.(supra), (b) M/s K.V.Arochem P.Ltd V/s DCIT in ITA No.129/Mum/2010 (AY :2006-07) dated 27.4.2011 and (c) ACIT V/s Kaiser Industries Ltd. in ITA No.555(Del)/2010 (AY:2006 -07) dated 18.2.2011. He further submits that the order passed by he ld. CIT(A) be upheld.
18. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on reco rd. We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed working of adjustment required u/s 145A of the Act which is reproduced as under :
"Adjustments required u/s 145A Add:
1. Excise duty on sales :Rs.13,21,27,703/-
2. Excise duty on closing stock o f Raw Materials :Rs. 16 ,47,383/-
3. Excise duty on closing stock o f WIP :Rs. 36 ,50,663/-
4. Excise duty on closing stock of Finishe d Goods :Rs. 56,29,701/-
5. Modvat Credit utilized on consumption of raw materials :Rs.13,06,15,446/-
(a) Rs.27,36,70,896/-
I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 15 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) Less:
1. Excise duty on o pening stock o f Raw Materials :Rs. 7,23,259/-
2. Excise duty on o pening stock o f WIP :Rs. 20,54,813/-
3. Excise duty on Purchase of raw materials :Rs.13,31,35,419/-
4. Excise duty on sales : Rs.13,21,27,703/-
(b) Rs.26,80,41,194/-
Total (a-b) Rs.56,29,702/-
Less. Deduction u/s 43B
since the excise duty payable
on finished goods paid before
due date of filing return of
income (to the extent required) Rs.56,29,702/-
Nil"
We further find that the ld. CIT (A) after examining
the said adjustments did not find any fault and e ven at this stage the ld. DR has not pointed out any mistake in the said adjustments made by the Assessee. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the same held that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction u/s 43B for Rs.56,29,702/- provided the AO is satisfied on the production of the evidence by the appellant. We further find that the AO in the order I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 16 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) giving e ffect to the order of the ld. CIT(A) after verification has allowed the same vide order dated 20.7.2009.
19. In Hawkins Cookers Ltd.(supra) it has been held vide paragraphs 5.6 of the order as under :
"5.6 In the case unde r consideration, the contention of the assessee is that the assessee has given effect to the s. 145A in accordance with abo ve discussion. The learned Autho rized Representative in suppo rt of that filed a chart and demonstrated accordingly. Such detailed working is also given in tax audit repo rt as required in cl. 12(b) of Form 3CD. But above submissions of learned Autho rized Represe ntative and deduction unde r s. 43B in acco rdance with above discussion are subject to verification therefore , we send the matter back to the file of the AO fo r limited purpose to ve rify the facts of the case of assessee in the light of above discussion. If the AO finds that the assessee has given effect to s. 145A and also deduction unde r s. 43B is made as per abo ve discussion, the addition of Rs. 29,39,872/- made by him under s. 145A may be deleted Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this regard are treated as allowed for statistical purposes."
20. In M/s K.V.Arochem P.Ltd (supra) it has been held in paragraph 6 of the order as unde r :
"6. We have considered the issue and examined the reco rd. The assessee in the Annual Repo rt itself stated that they are following consistent metho d of accounting of accepting the liability at the time of clearance of goods. Accordingly a Note was left clearly indicating that the re is no effect I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 17 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) on the profit. Whether the assessee is following exclusive method of accounting or inclusive metho d of accounting, necessary adjustments are to be made under section 145A. The A.O. ignoring the submissions made by the assessee made the additio n just because there was a Note to the accounts. Before the CIT(A) the assessee has submitted all the evidences which we re placed before the A.O. including further evidence s as sought by the CIT(A) to justify that no addition can be made on this issue. The CIT(A) in his brief order has given partial credit of an amount of Rs.26,30,059/- stated to be adjustment made in Form ER-I dated 10.04.2006 filed in the paper book at page No. 52 and had given credit to the CENVAT credit availed upto 10.04.2006. He, howeve r, not considered the CENVAT credit availed subsequently before filing the return and as can be seen from the record the assessee has paid more than Rs.`3.30 crores upto 30.11.2006 which includes CENVAT credit as well as payment under PLA account of Rs.73,50,000/-. Coming to the me rits of the addition, on the fact that assessee has discharged the liability unde r section 43B, the assessee is entitled for de duction of the same amount which was added by the A.O. under the provisions of section 145A. As per the first proviso to Sec.43B, if any sum is discharged on or before the due date applicable in his case fo r furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurre d as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the asse ssee along with such re turn, the amount has to be allowed. Since assessee fulfilled all the conditions, even if an amount is to be conside red as addition to the closing stock, the same is allowable as deduction under section 43B. The CIT(A) allowe d only partial CENVAT credit whereas the assessee has discharged the full amount both by CENVAT as well as by way of PLA account. We are not sure why the CIT(A) gave partial credit as the o rde r is not a speaking o rde r. Since the A.O. and the CIT (A) had ignored the submissions placed on record about the discharge I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 18 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) of tax liability and the allowance thereon under the provisions of sectio n 43B, we are of the view that there is no need to restore the matter to the file of the A.O. as suggested by the learned D.R. The refore, on the basis of the e vidence placed on reco rd, we have examined the issue and found that assessee satisfies the conditions. Accordingly the A.O. is directed to allo w the balance amount of Rs.8,09.935/- sustained by the CIT(A)."
21. In Kaiser Industries Ltd. (supra) it has been held by the Tribunal in paragraph 5.3 of the order as unde r :
"5.3 The question is-whether, adjustment of MODVAT credit towards central excise liability amounts to actual payment? The Special Bench of the Tribunal, while dealing with this issue, conside red the decisio n in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1999) 106 ELT 3 (SC). On the basis of this decision, the argument of the ld. counsel was that MODVAT credit is as good as tax paid. The Tribunal mentio ned that the observations of the Supre me Court had been made in a case where the assessee had set off the MODVAT credit against the demand of excise duty.
When the unexpired MODVAT credit is set off against the excise duty payable and thereby the liability has been extinguished or reduced, the Supreme Co urt held that se tting off of MODVAT credit is as good as duty paid. The above observation becomes operative only when the une xpired MODVAT credit has actually been set off against the central excise duty payable by the assessee. Howe ver, unexpire d MODVAT credit available in the hands of the assessee on the last date of the previous year has not been so set o ff. The two situations are distinguishable. T he time lag between two points cannot be ignored. The refore, it was held that unexpired MODVAT credit cannot be treated as tax paid before it is set I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 19 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) off against the duty payable . Coming to the facts of this case, the credit remained unexpired for the simple reason that it was actually adjusted in April-May, 2005. Further, it was adjusted in these months. T herefore, it can be said that the adjustment was as good as the duty paid and it amounts to actual payment. The payment has been made be fo re the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1). The first proviso contains a provision to the effect that nothing contained in this se ction shall be applicable in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under subsection (1) of section
139. In view thereof, the provision contained in section 43B(a) becomes inapplicable to the facts of the case of the assessee."
22. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Re venue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal and keeping in view that the assessee is following consiste nt method of accounting and there is no change in accounting system followed by the assessee in the year under consideration, we hold that the ld.CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs.11,08,904/- made by the AO u/s 145A of the Act. The grounds taken by the Revenue are therefore rejected.
I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 20 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 ) I TA No.4 790/Mum/2009(A Y: 2006-07 ) (b y assessee)
23. Ground Nos.1 to 1.3 are against the confirmation of treatment of interest income of Rs.4,30,717/-as income from other sources and in not allowing the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
24. At the time of hearing, both the parties have agreed that the facts of the pre sent issue are similar to the facts of the ground Nos.1 to 1.3 raised in the appeal for the asse ssment year 2005-06, therefore, plea taken by them in that appeal may be considered while deciding the grounds taken by the assessee.
25. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record and keeping in view of our findings recorded in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 in the paragraph 9 of this order, we hold that the assesse e is entitled to the deduction of interest paid by the assessee against the interest inco me assessed by the AO u/s 57 of the Act. We hold and order accordingly. The gro unds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed.
I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 21 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 )
26. Ground No.2 is against the direction of the ld. CIT(A) to restrict the relief allowed to the extent of additio n of Rs.88,45,996/- made by the AO u/s 145A of the Act.
27. At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel fo r the assessee did not press the above ground which was not objecte d to by the ld. DR.
28. That being so, the ground taken by the assessee, is, therefore, rejected being not pressed. ITA No.5104/Mum/2009 (AY: 2006-07) (by Revenue)
29. All the grounds taken by the Revenue are against the deletion of additio n of Rs.88,45,996 /- made by the AO u/s 145A of the Act.
30. At the time of hearing, both the parties have agreed that the facts of the pre sent issue are similar to the facts of the grounds raised in the appeal for the assessme nt year 2005-06, therefore, plea taken by them in that appeal may be conside red while deciding the grounds taken by the Revenue.
I TA N os.4789/5103 /4790/5 104/M um/ 2 009 22 (AYs: 2005 -06 -20 06 -07 )
31. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record and keeping in view of our findings re corded in the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 in the paragraphs 18 to 22 of this order, we while upholding the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this account reject the grounds taken by the Revenue.
32. In the result, the assessee's appeals are partly allowed and Re venue's appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11 t h Jan.,2 012.
Sd sd
(PRAMOD KUMAR) (D.K.AGARWAL )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 11th January,2012
SRL:
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT Co ncerned
4. CIT(A) concerned
5. DR conce rned Bench
6. Guard file.
BY ORDER
True co py
ASSTT. REGISTRAR,
ITAT, MUMBAI