Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI PAWAN SINGH
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year 2009-10) M/s S C Brothers, ACIT Circle-24(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 PAN: AARFS6197F Appellant Respondent (Assessment Year 2010-11) M/s S C Brothers, ACIT Circle-24(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 PAN: AARFS6197F Appellant Respondent ITA No.6030/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) M/s S C Brothers, ACIT Circle-31(3) C.T.S No. 201, Raheja Mumbai. Titanium Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Vs. Mumbai-400063 PAN: AARFS6197F Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivram Sr Advocate with Ms. Neelam Jadhav Advocate Respondent by : Shri V. Justin (DR) Date of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 13.07.2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
This group of three appeals by the assessee under section 253 of Income- tax Act are directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers (Appeals)-38, Mumbai dated 25.02.2014, for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 and dated 30.06.2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13. In all appeals the assessee has raised some common grounds of appal, therefore, all grounds of appeal were clubbed, heard and are decided by a consolidated order for sake of brevity. For appreciation of facts, first we are referring the fact for assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals.
I. Interest Income received of Rs.29,32,494/- treated as "Income from Other Source' Instead of "Business Income"
1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.29,32,494/- as "Income From Other Source" instead of "Business Income", without appreciating that the one of object was to financing / advancing money to carry out the business activity from time to time. Hence, the interests' income received by the appellant may treated as Business Income.
2. Without prejudice to above, if interest income of RSs.29,32,494/- is treated as income from other sources then the interest expenditure of Rs.8,40,249/- may be allowed to be set off against Interest income claimed by the Appellant. II. Disallowance of Expenses of Rs.9,43,512/- 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.9,43,5.12/- like Office Maintenance & Taxes of Rs.2,84,894/-, Salary and Administrative Charges of Rs.3,28,318/- and Legal & Professional Fees of Rs.3,30,300/- without appreciating that the said expenditure incurred for appellant business and runs business activities. The business of the appellant was already setup. Hence, the same may be allowed as Business Expenditure u/s.37 of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee a Partnership firm, engaged in the business of trading in share in security and earning rental income, field its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 29.07.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 6,46,74,270/-. The assessment was completed on & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers 17.11.2011 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (the Act). The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order treated the interest income of Rs. 29,32,494/- under the head “Income from Other Sources” instead of “Business Income” claimed by assessee and disallowed the expenses of Rs. 9,43,515/-. On appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), action of Assessing Officer was confirmed. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee has filed present appeal before us.
We have heard learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and learned Departmental Representative (DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. Ground No. I relates to treating the interest income under the head ‘income from other sources’ against ‘business income’. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the year the assessee earned interest income of Rs. 29,32,333/- on account of interest on FDR and loans given by assessee and the assessee paid interest on bank loan. The assessee has claimed has shown net interest income of Rs. 25,92,946/- and same has been claimed as Business Income. The Assessing Officer treated the interest income of Rs. 29,32,333/- from Income from Other Sources. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee’s one of the objects is of financing and such other business as partner may decide to carry out from time to time. The ld. AR of the assessee brought our attention to the deed of partnership, 3 ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers wherein clause (5) of Partnership Deed the business activities are mentioned viz; “financing or such other business as the partners may decide to carry out from time to time”. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee borrowed loan from the Bank and was advanced for business purpose. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Tribunal in Shalimar Infonet (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2013)
144 ITD 513 (Chandigarh Trib.). The ld. AR further submits that in Assessment Year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer/Department has accepted the interest income of assessee as Business Income. The ld. AR further submits that interest paid by assessee may be allowed or in alternative netting of interest may be allowed as there is direct nexus with loan and interest earned.
On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR further submits that the interest income earned by assessee was rightly assessed under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. During the assessment, the assessee failed to establish that expenses claimed were actually used for earning interest income.
Moreover, the assessee has no license of money lending nor the assessee was engaged in any such activities which can be termed as money lending business. In support of his submission, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers v. Amritaben R. Shah (238 ITR 777) (Bom), decision of Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers vs. CIT (227 ITR 172 (SC).
We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer while framing assessment noted that the assessee claimed interest income as ‘Business Income’ instead of ‘ Income from Other Sources’. The interest income consist of interest on Fixed Deposits of Rs.21,00,811/-, interest received from K. Raheja Rs. 2,23,350/- and interest received on loan of Rs. 6,08,333/-. The Assessing Officer on his observation that the assessee has no money lending licence or not engaged in such activities which may called as money lending activity. The assessing officer further held that the assessee has simply invested surplus to earn interest and there was no venture in the nature of trade. Therefore, the interest income was treated as “Income from Other Sources”. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the action of Assessing Officer with similar observation. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the expenditure of Rs. 8,40,249/- which is allowable under section 57(iii).
We have noted that the assessee has claimed that similar interest income was treated by revenue as ‘business income’ in assessment year 2012-13, however, the copy of such assessment order is not placed on record.
Therefore, there is not material before us to accept or discard the contention of ld. AR for the assessee. In the alternative submission the ld 5 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers AR for the submits that the assessee may be allowed netting of interest as there is direct nexus with loan and interest earned. The coordinate bench of Chandigarh Tribunal in Shalimar Infonet (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (supra) held where the assessee borrowed a sum and made an FDR against which OD (over draft facility) was obtained to repay borrowed amount and interest earned on FDR was offered to tax, interest expenditure to be netted off with interest income. Therefore, we accept the alternative contention of the assessee and direct the assessing officer to allow netting of interest against the interest income offered by assessee. In the result, ground no.1 & 2 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purpose.
Ground No. II relates to disallowance of expenses of Rs. 9,43,512/-. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the Assessing officer made disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 9,43,512/-, which consist of maintenance of tax of Rs. 2,84,894/-, salary and administrative charge of Rs. 3,28,318/-, legal and professional fees of Rs. 3,30,300/-. The assessee incurred expenditure in normal course of its business. The expenditure is allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Act. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that Mumbai Tribunal in Premiums Investments Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 4879/M/2012 dated 13.05.2015 held that even if no business is carried out, the expenses incurred to maintain corporate entity has to be allowed as deduction. On ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has raised specific ground of appeal vide ground no. 2.4 about the office expenses, salary and administrative and legal and professional fees. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding except expenditure allowable under section 57(iii) of the Act. Therefore, this ground of appeal is restored to the file of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide it afresh. Needless to order that before deciding the issue the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall grant opportunity to the assessee to explain and substantiate the contention. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
ITA No. 2993/M/2014 for AY 2010-11.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
I. Denial of Deduction Claimed u/s. 23(1)(b) of Rs.13,53,699/- as Common Area Maintenance Charges against the Income from House Property 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Addition of Rs.13,53,699/- as Common Area Maintenance Charges claimed as deduction u/s.23(l)(b) against the Income from House Property, without appreciating that the said charges were paid to the society against the property let out and rental income received. Hence the same is allowable u/s. 23(1)(b).
& 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers
2. Without prejudice to the above, notional deduction @ 30% may be allowed u/s.24(a) on Rs.13,53,699/- as Rental income of the Appellant. II. Business Income of Rs.5, 05, 660/- treated as Short Term Capital Gain 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the income of Rs.5,05,660/- as Short Term Capital Gain instead of Business Income, without appreciating that the appellant had carryout systematic trading activity during the year and turnover of share trading activity was Rs.48,07,882/-, and the appellant had shown shares in Balance sheet under the head stock in trade as Current Assets. Hence, the share trading Transaction maybe directed to be treated as Business Income. III. Interest Income received of Rs.25,92,946/- treated as "Income from Other Source' Instead of "Business Income" 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,92,946/- as "Income From Other Source" instead of "Business Income", without appreciating that the one of object was to financing / advancing money to carry out the business activity from time to time. Hence, the interests' income received by the appellant may treated as Business Income. 5. Without prejudice to above, if interest income of Rs. 25,92,946/- is treated as income from other sources then the interest expenditure of Rs.2,23,569/- may be allowed to be set off against Interest income claimed by the Appellant. IV. Disallowance of Expenses of Rs.21.62.911/- 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.21,62,911/- like Office Maintenance & Taxes Rs.12,08,900/-, Salary and Administrative Charges Rs.7,91,011/- and Legal & Professional Fees of Rs.1,63,000/- without appreciating that the said expenditure incurred for appellant business and runs business activities. The business of the appellant was already setup. Hence, the same may be allowed as Business Expenditure u/s.37 of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Ground No.I relates to denial of deduction under section 23(1)(b) of the Act on account of common area maintenance charges against Income from House Property. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that during the year assessee received rent of Rs. 3,72,40,200/- from Barclays. The assessee claimed standard deduction under section 24(a). The assessee also claimed Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges for Rs. 13,53,699/-. The assessee claimed deduction of such maintenance charges 8 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers after deducting maintenance and Municipal charges. The Assessing Officer made addition on his observation that Society Maintenance Charges in respect of leased property is not allowable deduction under section 23 or 24 of the Act. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that the common maintenance charges are paid to the Society. The ld. AR submits that common area maintenance charges should be excluded from gross amount of rent received for the purpose of calculating Annual Letting Value (ALV) as ALV is to be taken on the basis of rent received by owner. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Tribunal of Sharmila Tagore vs. JCIT 93 TTJ 483 (Mum), Realty Finance & Leasing P. Ltd. vs. ITO 5 SOT 348 (Mum) and Ultima Search vs. ACIT [2016] 75 taxman.com 205 and DCIT vs. Yogen D. Sanghavi ITA No. 466 Mum 2014 dated 01.11.2017. In alternative submission the ld AR for the assessee submits that notional deduction @30% allowable under section 24(a) has to be allowed on addition of Rs. 13,52,699/- in the receipt of rent.
On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the authorities below. The ld. DR for the revenue further submits that the assessee has received Rs. 13,52,699/- , which is basically maintenance charges, the assessee has already claimed maintenance charges in the standard deduction and therefore, no further deductions are allowable on account such common area maintenance charges. In support of his 9 ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers submission the ld DR for the revenue relied on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Peepul Tree Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2016] 71 taxman.com 332 (Mum Trib.).
We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the order of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer added the receipt of CAM charges of Rs. 13,53,669/- on the basis of decision of Tribunal in ITO vs. Barodawala Properties Ltd. 83 ITD 467 wherein it was held that Society Maintenance charges payable by the assessee in respect of leased property is not allowable deduction either under section 23 & 24. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the addition on his observation that the assessee has already claimed standard deduction, therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly disallowed CAM charges of Rs. 13,55,699/-, as it does not come under purview of section 23(1). We have noted that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Ultima search Vs ACIT (supra) while on relying earlier decision in case of Sharmila Tagore (supra) held that charges paid to the society has the 'depressing effect' on the ALV in the hands of the landlord. For the sake of completeness of this order relevant para 17 is extracted below;
“17. We have heard both the parties on this issue. Assessee owns a property at Worli and earns rental income. Firm incurred an amount of Rs. 76,116/- towards Municipal Taxes and maintenance charges and claimed deduction. AO denied the claim and CIT (A) confirmed the same. Therefore, the assessee is before us. We find, the claim of the assessee is allowable in view of the above cited & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers binding coordinate Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sharmila Tagore (supra). As such, no adverse judgment is brought to our notice by the Revenue. For the sake of completeness of this order relevant para 4 from the said Tribunal's order (supra) is extracted as under:—
4. As regards the non-occupancy charges, the claim is that the rent received cannot take the character of rental income till the obligation of the assessee on account of non-occupancy charges is discharged. A certified copy of the resolution passed at the AGM of the members of the housing society, held on 8th Aug., 1995, has been filed. The resolution says that the non-occupancy charges shall be charged to the members whose flats are not self-occupied or who have given their premises on leave and licence or similar other basis. . We find force in the assessee's contention. Though there is no provision in Section 24 for deduction of the non-occupancy charges, we are of the opinion that the non-occupancy charges will have a depressing effect upon the annual letting value of the property. Once we attempt to estimate the annual letting value of the property which is the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year, there is no way we can ignore the non-occupancy charges because payment of non-occupancy charges arises only when the property is not self- occupied but is let out. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the non-occupancy charges levied by the society will have to be considered under Section 23 even while arriving at the estimate of the annual letting value of the property. We accept the assessee's contention and direct the AO to recompute the annual letting value.
Further, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in Yogen D Sanghvi (supra) while relying on the decision of Sharmila Tagore (supra) held that the non-occupancy charges are deductable expenses from the rental income. Therefore, considering various decision of the Tribunal the assessing officer is directed to allow the maintenance charges of Rs. Rs. 13,55,699/-, from the annual letting values of the property. The case law relied by ld DR in Peepul Tree Properties (P.) Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In the said case the assessee requested the assessing officer to allow the deduction of maintenance charges by treating the rental income as income from other 11 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers sources without filing revised return of income. Therefore, the facts of this case are entirely different. In the result this ground of appeal
is allowed.
14. Ground No.II relates to treating the business income of Rs. 5,05,660/- as ‘Capital Gain’. The learned AR of the assessee submits that during the year, for the first time, the assessee carried out transactions in shares. The total turnover in the share trading is of Rs. 48,07,882/-. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for tax Audit under section 44AB of the income tax Act. The assessee claimed share trading as income from business activities and claims the set off of expenses against the business income.
The details of sale transaction were furnished to the assessing officer.
During the assessment the assessing officer observed that frequency and volume of the transaction are not significant, purchases are more than sales and major part of share purchased remained invested as on 31 March 2010. The activities are in nature of investment and not trading.
Therefore, the assessing officer treated the income received from share transaction as Capital Gain instead of business income. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of assessing officer without any special reasons. The learned AR of the assessee submits that the one of the object of assessee firm is dealing and traders in various goods, shares and also derivatives business, as per the partnership deed.
The assessee earned income from share trading activities of Rs. 12 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers 5,83,909/-. The turnover of assessee firm is of Rs. 48,07,882/- which was duly credited to the profit and loss account. The activities in share market are business activities and holding all the stock as stock in trade under the head current asset. From the statement of share transaction, it is seen that frequency and volume of the transaction are significant. The transactions share carried out by the assessee was in the nature of stock-in-trade and not investment. The intention of the assessee was has to be seen while making trading in the share and not the investment in the share. In subsequent year in assessment year 2013-14, 2014-2015, the transaction of share trading income is accepted as business income by the Department. Therefore following the rule of consistency, the income of share trading maybe directed to be accepted as business income.
On the other hand the learned AR for the revenue supported the order of authorities below.
We have considered the rival submission of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have also perused the details of the script wise purchase and sale of the shares during the relevant financial year. The assessee has shown all the share as stock in trade/current asset in its balance sheet. We have noted that the assessee has claimed that in subsequent assessment years the revenue has accepted the capital gain on similar transaction i.e. in assessment year 2013-14 and in again 2014-15.
This fact is not disputed by revenue. Therefore, considering the facts of 13 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers the year under consideration, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed in principle, but subject to the verification at the end of assessing officer, if the similar income is treated as business income in assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, the assessing officer shall allow the relief to the assessee. The assessing officer is allowed to verify facts as copy of assessment orders for 2013-14 and 2014-15 are not placed on record. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed.
17. Ground No.III relates treatment of ‘interest income’ as income from ‘other sources’ against the claim of business income.
18. We have noted that this issue if identical to the Ground No.1 of appeal for assessment year 2009-10, wherein we have accepted the alternative submission of ld AR for the assessee and directed the assessing officer to accept the interest income as business income and to allow the netting of interest expenses. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed with similar directions.
19. Ground No. IV relates to disallowance of expenses of Rs. 21,62,911/-.
The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessing officer and CIT(A), the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.21,62,911/- which consist of office maintenance and taxes of Rs. 12,08,900/-, salary and administrative charges of Rs.7,91,011/-and legal and professional fees of Rs. 1,63,000/- without considering that the said expenditure incurred for the purpose of business activities. The expenditure being normal business expenditure, 14 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers the expenditure is allowable as business expenditure. The business of assessee has already set up in earlier years and the same is allowable for deduction. The learned AR of the assessee submits that similar business expenditure was allowed in assessment year 2012-13. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of CIT Versus Excel Industries (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC) and the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Premium Investment and Finance Ltd Versus DCIT in ITA No. 4879/M/2012 dated13/05/2015.
On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below and the material placed before us.
We have noted that the ld Commissioner (Appeals) disallow the claim of expenses on his observation that the assessee failed to prove that the interest income is business income. As we have already allowed the interest income of assessee as business income and have further allowed income from share transaction as business income in preceding paras, therefore, the assessee is also entitled for expenses related to earning such business income. We have further noted that there is no claim wise discussion on disallowance of all the expanses by the lower authorities, therefore, we restore this ground of appeal to the file of assessing officer and take the decision on expenses i.e. office maintenance and taxes of Rs. 15 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers 12,08,900/-, salary and administrative charges of Rs.7,91,011/-and legal and professional fees of Rs. 1,63,000/- and pass the order in accordance with law. Needless to say that before passing the order the assessing officer shall grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
ITA No. 6030/M/2017 for AY 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
I. Denial of Deduction Claimed u/s.23(1)(b) of Rs.13,53,699/- as Common Area Maintenance Charges against the Income from House Property 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Addition of Rs.10,96,214/- as Common Area Maintenance Charges claimed as deduction u/s.23(1)(b) against the Income from House Property, without appreciating that the said charges were paid to the society against the property let out and rental income received. Hence the same is allowable u/s. 23(1)(b).
2. Without prejudice to the above, notional deduction @ 30% may be allowed u/s.24(a) on Rs.10,96,214/- as Rental income of the Appellant. II. Business Income of Rs.3,38,231/- treated as Short Term Capital Loss 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the income of Rs.3,38,231/- as Short Term Capital Loss instead of Business Income, without appreciating that the appellant had carryout systematic trading activity during the year and turnover of share trading activity was Rs. 33,06,797/-, and the appellant had shown shares in Balance sheet under the head stock in trade as Current Assets. Hence, the share trading Transaction may be directed to be treat as Business Income relying on CBDT circular dated 29/02/2016 no .6/2016. III. Business loss of Rs.8,20,505/- 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in due to the above wrong treatment the said assessing officer did not allow any expenses and hence business loss Rs. 8,20,505/- claimed is also not allowed.
Ground No. I relates to disallowance of common area maintenance charges. We have noted that this ground of appeal
is identical to the ground No. I in in appeal for assessment year ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers 2011-11, which we have already allowed, therefore, following the rule of consistency this ground of appeal is also allowed with similar directions.
25. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed.
26. Ground No. II of the appeal relates to treatment of business income as short-term capital gain. We have noted that this ground of appeal is identical to the ground No. II in ITA No. 2993/M/2014 in appeal for assessment year 2011-11, which we have already allowed, therefore, following the rule of consistency this ground of appeal is also allowed with similar directions.
27. In the result this ground of appeal is allowed.
28. Ground No.III relates to disallowance of business loss. We have noted that this ground is consequential due to the treatment of business income as short-term capital gain. Since we have allowed the share trading as business income of the assessee therefore the assessee is entitled for set off of business loss against the capital gain. In the result this ground of appeal is also allowed.
29. In the result the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is also allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July 2018. Sd/- Sd/- B.R. BASKARAN PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 13.07.2018 SK 17 ITA No. 2992 & 2993 Mum 14 & 6030 Mum 2017 - M/s S C Brothers