ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANIES LTD, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "K" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 400001 ……………… Appellant [PAN:AAACT3957G] Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, ……………. Respondent M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Room No. 545, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 ……………… Appellant M/s The Indian Hotels Company Limited, Vs Mandlik House, 3rd Floor, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Mumbai - 400001 ……………. Respondent [PAN:AAACT3957G] Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. Pratik Shah & Pinaal Chandramaniya For the Respondent/Department : Dr. Yogesh Kamat Date of conclusion of hearing : 28.06.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 26.09.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. These cross appeals are directed against the final Assessment Order dated, 26.02.2015 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 referred to as „the Act‟] for the Assessment Year 2010-11, as per directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 29.12.2014. 2. The Assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of running hotels and resorts. The Assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 07.10.2010 declaring total income of INR 117,47,85,218/- which was revised on 27.03.2012 declaring the same total income after claiming additional credit for tax deducted at source. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had entered into International Transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, a reference under Section 92CA(3) of the Act was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of the International Transactions. The TPO, vide order dated 30.01.2014, passed under Section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed aggregate transfer pricing adjustments of INR 106,67,93,791/- which was incorporated by the Assessing Officer in the Draft Assessment Order dated 31.03.2014 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also proposed (a) disallowance of INR 7,67,10,046/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟) in addition to suo-moto disallowance of INR 8,70,89,954/- offered by the Assessee, (b) a disallowance of INR 42,38,39,399/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and (c) a disallowance of credit card commission expenses of INR 3.87 Crores claimed by the Assessee for failure to deduct tax invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessee 2

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

filed objections before Dispute Resolution Panel-II, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as „the DRP‟) against the aforesaid Draft Assessment Order which were disposed off vide order, dated 29.12.2014 passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act. In conformity with the directions issued by the DRP, the Assessing Officer passed the Final Assessment Order on 29.01.2014 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act making transfer pricing adjustment of INR 42,25,22,481/- as against transfer pricing adjustment of INR 106,67,93,791/- proposed in Draft Assessment Order. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance/addition of INR 7,67,10,046/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules as proposed in the Draft Assessment Order. The DRP, however, deleted the disallowance of INR 42,38,39,399/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the disallowance of credit card commission expenses of INR 3.87 Crores proposed by the Assessing Officer in the Draft Assessment Order. DRP also directed deletion of the proposed secondary adjustment on account of interest by re- characterizing capital infused by the Assessee as interest free loan. Being aggrieved the Revenue has challenged the deletion of the aforesaid disallowance of INR 42,38,39,399/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, disallowance of INR 3.87 Crores under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as deletion of secondary transfer pricing adjustment in appeal before the Tribunal. Since the Appellant was not satisfied by the relief granted by the DRP, the Assessee has also preferred appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Final Assessment Order, dated 26.02.2015, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act.

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 3. The Assessee has raised 14 grounds of appeal. Ground No. 1 is general in nature. Ground No. 2 to 6 are directed against the transfer pricing adjustments whereas Ground No. 7 to 12 are directed against the corporate tax additions/disallowances. Ground No. 13 pertains to computation of Dividend Distribution Tax. Ground No. 14 pertains to levy of excess interest under Section 234D of the Act. In addition to the above, vide letter, dated 06.06.2022, the Assessee has also raised the following additional grounds of appeal: “Additional Ground No. 1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 30 January 2014 passed by the Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Ld. TPO) under section 92CA of the Act is beyond the time limit prescribed under section 92CA(3A) r.ws 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) thus making the transfer pricing order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.w.s 153 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the draft assessment order dated 31 March 2014 by invoking section 144C of the Act is without jurisdiction and thus all proceedings consequent to the draft assessment order are also illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed. Additional Ground No. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the transfer pricing order being illegal and void on account of being barred by limitation in terms of section 92CA(3A) r.ws 153 of the Act, consequently, the final assessment order dated

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 26 February 2015 is also barred by limitation as prescribed under section 153 of the Act, thus making the final assessment order illegal, bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. It is humble prayer of the Appellant that the transfer pricing order, draft assessment order and the final assessment order are bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed.

The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 the case of (a) ECL Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT: ITA No. 899/M/2018, dated 22.09.2021, and (b) M/s Emerson Electric (Company) India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT: ITA No. 933/M/2021, dated 18.05.2022. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that as per the aforesaid judicial precedents 31.03.2014 is to be excluded and therefore, the period of 60 days is to be computed by taking 30 days of March, 28 days of February and 2 days of January since TPO was under obligation to pass order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to in Section 153/153B for making the order of assessment/reassessment expires. Accordingly, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 92CA(3A) of the Act expired on 29.01.2014. Therefore, the order passed by the TPO is barred by limitation.

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

“11. In order to determine if the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by the Ld. TPO is barred by limitation as contended by the Ld. AR for the assessee, we would advert to the provisions contained under section 92CA(3) read with section 153 of the Act.

"30. Now, coming to the question of how the 60 day period is to be computed, the critical question would be whether the period of 60 days would be computed including the 31st of December or excluding it. Section 153 states that no order of assessment shall be made at any time after time expiry of 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The submission of the revenue is to the effect that limitation expires only on 12 am of 01.01.2020. However, this would mean that an order of assessment can be passed at 12 am on 01.01.2020, whereas, in my view, such an order would be held to be barred by limitation as proceedings for assessment should be ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 completed before 11.59.59 of 31.12.2019. The period of 21 months therefore, expires on 31.12.2019 that must stand excluded since Section 92CA(3A) states 'before 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred to Section 153 expires'. Excluding 31.12.2019, the period of 60 days would expire on 01.11.2019 and the transfer pricing orders thus ought to have been passed on 31.10.2019 or any date prior thereto. Incidentally, the Board, in the Central Action Plan also indicates the date by which the Transfer Pricing orders are to be passed as 31.10.2019. The impugned orders are thus, held to be barred by limitation." 15. Identical issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of ECL Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.899/M/2018 order dated 22.09.2021 and in case of Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.2381/Del/2014 order dated 11.03.2021 in favour of the assessee by following M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) case rendered by Hon'ble Madras High Court.

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 jurisdiction and as such is not order in the eyes of law hence quashed. Keeping in view the findings returned by the Bench on legal issue we deem it not necessary to go into grounds raised by the assessee on merit. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Ground No. 2 is allowed.” (Emphasis Supplied)

Ground No. 7 9. “7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO, under the directions issued by the Hon'ble DRP, erred in making disallowance of Rs. 16,38,00,000 under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').

It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to compute the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per law.”

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 while computing the average value of investment for the purpose of computing disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules the investments which did not yield any exempt income should be excluded as per the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs Vireet investments Private Limited: 58 ITR(T) 313 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB). Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the Final Assessment Order as well as the directions issued by the DRP.

Ground No. 8

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 14. The Assessee had claimed deduction for Foreign Exchange Loss of INR 11.63 Crores in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 even though the same was changed to Profit & Loss Account only in the Assessment Year 2010-11 which is under consideration. Accordingly, the same was suo moto added back to the income and offered to tax in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 15. The Learned Authorised Representative for Assessee submitted that since during the assessment proceedings of Assessment Year 2009-10, the deduction for said foreign exchange loss was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on account of such foreign exchange loss not being debited to Profit & Loss Account, the Assessee made an alternate claim during the assessment proceedings of the Assessment Year 2010-11 and claimed deduction for the aforesaid Foreign Exchange Loss of INR 11.63 Crores. Rejection of the alterative claim resulted in double disallowance in the hands of the Assessee – first disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2009-10 and second the suo moto disallowance made in return for Assessment Year 2010-11 by the Assessee. However, in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2009-10 has been quashed by the Tribunal on jurisdictional issue. As a consequence therefore, the return filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10 stands accepted. The alternative claim of the Assessee has, therefore, become infructuous. However, the Learned Authorised Representative for Assessee submitted that the Assessee wishes to reserves the right to contest the alternative plea in ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 case the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is restored in appeal.

Ground No. 9

It is prayed that the learned AO be directed not to tax the foreign exchange gain of Rs.4,09,00,000.”

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 20. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. It is the stand of the Assessee that the Foreign Exchange Gain was earned during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. However, the same has been deferred in the books of accounts. The Assessee has, in our view, correctly offered the same to tax in the computation of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11. We do not find any infirmity in the directions issued by the DRP and the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer on this issue. Ground No. 9 raised by the Assessee is dismissed.

Ground No. 10

It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to allow the deduction for foreign exchange loss of Rs. 52,43,00,000 on revaluation of shareholders' deposit.”

Ground No. 11

Ground No. 12

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 demand of INR 17,83,810/- has been determined. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the aforesaid contention raised by the Assessee while computing demand at the time of giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal in the present appeal.

Ground No. 14 30. “14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in levying excess interest under Section 234D of the Act. It is prayed that the learned AO be directed to compute interest under Section 234D of the Act as per law and after considering credit for TDS and TCS as prayed in Ground No. 11 above and after reducing the demand as prayed in Ground No. 12 above.” 31. Ground No. 14 pertains to levying of excess interest under Section 234D of the Act and is therefore disposed off as being consequential in nature.

Ground No. 13, and Additional Ground No. 2&3

Ground No. 1&2

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 petition No. 871 of 2014 not appreciating the facts of this case are different in as much as that the investment in the instant case is out- bound as compared to the inbound investment in the cited case as such would have an impact on the cost of acquisition of the shares.

Ground No. 3

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 proportionate interest amounting to INR 42.38 Crores in the Draft Assessment Order invoking provision of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessee filed objections before DRP against the proposed disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. After considering the details submissions filed by the Assessee the DRP granted relief to the Assessee by directing deletion of the proposed disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and concluded as under:

“10.5 Direction of DRP:- The submissions has been considered. The assessee being in the business of owning and operating hotels such investments are made for various commercial reasons during the course of business and for the business. The assessee earns management fees and dividend from investments. Similar claim have been allowed in earlier years by DRP. The disallowance is hence deleted.”

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 could have established branches outside India and in that case, profit of branches would have been taxable in India and deduction for the entire interest cost would have been allowed to the Assessee.

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Communication Infrastructure Ltd.: [2013] 260 CTR 159 (Bombay), the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that the fact that borrowed funds were utilzised for making the investments would not disentitled the Assessee from claiming deduction for interest so long as the investment has been made on account of business expediency.

“18. In the present case, the assessee has elaborately explained that on account of restrictions on investment in its hands to buy shares of other public limited companies from whom the assessee was receiving operation fees, the subsidiary company was used to buy above shares and for that purpose loan was advanced to the subsidiary. It was a measure of business

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 prudency. The loan advanced helped the assessee to earn substantial amount of operating fees. In fact, it was more than 60% of total receipts. This was besides dividend to be received from the subsidiary. Having regard to all the circumstances and benefits to the parties, it was agreed that interest on advance be charged 6% per annum. This advance was made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and to earn income. I find lot of force in the above submissions. In fact the revenue authorities did not challenge above facts/background which clearly showed that advance was made for purpose of business. It was a measure of business prudency.

"So far as the disallowance of part of inerest is concerned it was submitted that when funds were available, the assessee without any reason permitted it to be continued with the CDL and paid interest to the financial institutions without charging anything from the CDL. The Tribunal did not accept the stand and held that the conclusions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were in order. On being moved for reference, the questions as set out above have been referred for the opinion of this court." Their Lordships observed as under: "An expenditure to which one cannot apply an empirical or subjective standard is to be judged from the point of view of a businessman and it is relevant to consider how the businessman himself treats a particular item of expenditure. The term "commercial expediency" is not a term of art. It means everything that serves to promote commerce and includes every means suitable to that end. In applying the test of commercial expediency, for 21

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business the reasonableness of the expenditure has to be judged from the point of view of the businessman and not the Revenue [See CIT v. Walchand and Co. (P) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC); J.K. Woollen Manufacturers u. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 622 (SC); Aluminimum Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 TTR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen and General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC)]."

Above principles are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Further there is nothing to show that agreement to advance loan was not bona fide entered into or was intended to divert income belonged to the assessee. The Assessing Officer while disallowing and making the addition in dispute, did not keep above legal principles in mind and applied subjective standards. The disallowance made is unjustified. I agree with the learned Accountant Member and uphold the deletion of the disallowance."

“We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the similar disallowance on account of interest attributable to the advances given by the assessee to its subsidiary company was made in the case of the assessee for the earlier years. In assessment year 1989-90, this issue was referred to a Third Member and vide the Third Member decision reported as DCIT vs. Indian Hotel Co. Ltd. in 92 ITD 97 (Mum) (TM), the same was decided in favour of the assessee by a majority view holding that the relevant advances having been made by the assessee to its subsidiary company wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 business, the disallowance of interest attributable to the said advance was not justified. Following the said Third Member decision for assessment year 1989-90, the Tribunal has consistently decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee in the subsequent years upto assessment year 1997-98. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of the earlier years, we respectfully follow the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for the earlier years and uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made by the AO on this issue. The relevant grounds of the Revenue‟s appeal for all the six years under consideration are accordingly dismissed.”

“3. With the assistance of Mr. Suresh Kumar, we have perused the questions of law in Income Tax Appeal No.1325 of 2013 at pages 3 & 4 of the paper-book. In the case of same assessee, on similar question Nos.1 & 2, the Tribunal found that loans and advances given by the assessee company to its subsidiary company was raised for the assessment year 1989 90 and it was decided in favour of the assessee. In the present case, we are concerned with the assessment years 1998-99 to 2002-03. The Tribunal has consistently applied the ratio of its decision

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 rendered for assessment years 1989-90 and assessment year 1997-98. We do not find that there is any change in the factual position. The revenue may have preferred an appeal in this Court against the Tribunal's order for those assessment years, but no record of any appeal having been admitted on the questions of law proposed in the present appeal has been produced before us.” 45. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the directions issued by the DRP under Section 144C(5) of the Act on 29.12.2014 and the Final Assessment Order, dated 26.02.2015, on this issue. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the Assessee, we dismiss Ground No. 3 raised by the Revenue.

Ground No. 4

“5. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited decision of the Tribunal and also the relevant material placed before us. On perusal of the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) dated 1.5.2015, we find, on identical issue, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue‟s appeal and upheld the decision of the CIT (A) vide para 2.1 of its order. Considering the significance of the said para 2.1 of the Tribunal‟s order (supra) for the sake of completeness of this order, the same is extracted as under:

“2.1. We have considered the submissions of Ld DR and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief are that the assessee is in the business of retails in electronic goods, kitchen appliances, computers, laptops and related accessories through dedicated outlets called “Croma”. The assessee declared loss of Rs. 85,33,61,594/- in its return filed on 29.9.2009. The Ld AO during the assessment proceedings asked the assessee to show cause as to why the payments of charges to banks in 25

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 respect of sales effected through card mechanism should not be subjected to TDS u/s 194H of the Act. The assessee vide communication dated 15.12.2011 explained that the provisions of section 194H of the Act will be attracted only when one person acts on behalf of another, thereby, creating a principle and agent relationship and further in the instant case, the sale is conducted by the assessee on its own and not through the bank and further the transaction may termed as credit card MSF charges but in charges, cheque book request charges, etc. The Ld AO completed the assessment disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 5,02,36,000/- incurred on account of payment of processing charges to HDFC bank on total amount swiped through customer credit card and expenditure of Rs. 49,02,000/- on account of various other bank charges (Cash Management Services) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According to the Ld AO, tax should have been deducted at source u/s 194 of the Act. On appeal, Ld CIT (A) examined the facts and following the decision in the case of Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association vs. UOI (257 ITR 202) and Tata Tele Services Ltd vs. DCIT (TDS) a decision from Bangalore Bench (ITA Nos.308 to 310 and 393 to 396) order dated 27/11/2012, wherein, it was held that there is no requirement of making TDS on the commission retained by Card Companies, opined that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 194H of the Act are not applicable, deleted the addition. We find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld CIT (A) under the facts available on record. His stand is affirmed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 6. We have also perused the cited judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of JDS Apparels (P) Ltd (supra) and find the same is relevant for the proposition that “Commission to bank on payments received from customers who had made purchases through credit cards is not liable to TDS under section 194H of the Act‟. Considering the above settled nature of the issue and respectfully following the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court (supra) and the decision of the Tribunal (supra) for the AY 2009-2011, we are of the opinion, the decision taken by the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 7. Since, the issues raised in other appeal ITA No.5420/M/2014 (AY 2011-2012) are identical, therefore, our decision given in 26

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 appeal ITA No.5419/M/2014, in the above paragraphs of this order, squarely applies to the present appeal too. Considering the same, we upheld the decision of the CIT (A) and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 49. Further, Notification No. 56 of 2012, dated 31.12.2012, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes clearly provides that no deduction of tax shall be made on the payments made to a bank (excluding foreign banks) which are in the nature of credit card or debit card commission for transaction between the merchant establishment and acquirer bank.

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Order pronounced on 26.09.2022. (B.R. Baskaran) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 26.09.2022 Alindra, PS

ITA. No. 2348 & 2408/Mum/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file.

आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt.