M/S. WORKPLACE OPTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Workplace Options India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant 6th Floor, No. 1 and 2, Commissioner of C2 601, Tower C, Income Tax, The Millenia, Murphy Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Ulsoor, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 008. PAN: AABCW5081H APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Sripada .M, CA & Assessee by Shri Ashish Jain, CA : Shri Praveen Karanth CIT- Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 21-11-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22-12-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the Ld.ACIT, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore for A.Y. 2018-19 on following revised grounds of appeal:

Page 2 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 3 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 4 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 5 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

2.1 At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that in Ground no. 4, the assessee do not wish to press two companies being Fuzen Software Pvt. Ltd. and Vitae International Accounting Services Pvt. Ltd. as these were not part of the original grounds of appeal. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has also not filed application for admission of these two comparables for adjudication.

Page 6 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 Accordingly, the two comparables are dismissed as not pressed.

2.2 The Ld.AR further submitted that Ground no. 6 also, the assessee has challenged two comparables on functionality being Lycatel BPO Pvt. Ltd. and Cheers Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. which did not form part of the original ground of appeal. It is an admitted position that the assessee did not file application for admission of these comparables at the time of hearing. Accordingly, the two comparables are dismissed as not pressed.

Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. Assessee, a private limited company, having its registered office in Bangalore, was incorporated on 25th February 2014. WPO India is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s Workplace Options Finance S.A.R.L.

3.1 The assessee is an independent provider of integrated employee wellbeing solutions to Workplace Benefits LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Associated Enterprise"). It is submitted that the assessee carries on business as service provider to help employees balance their work, family and personal life, to participate in the affiliation, accreditation, examination and certification, create and enhance web based applications to bring new solutions to human resource departments of clients and work with global consultants, sector associations as well as experts from national and international

Page 7 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 agencies associated with research and development, training, skill development, course accreditation or other required specializations in various sectors.

3.2 The return was selected for scrutiny assessment vide notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Ld. AO noted that there was international transaction between the assessee and the AE. Accordingly, the case was thereafter transferred to National e- assessment center, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "NEAC") for being referred to the Ld.TPO to determine the arm's length price.

3.3 On receipt of the reference, the Ld.TPO called upon the assessee to furnish the economic details of the international transactions. From the details filed, it was noted that assessee had following international transactions with its AE.

3.4 The Ld.TPO noted that, the assessee had computed its margin at 19.99%. The Ld.TPO issued show cause notice to assessee proposing certain additions for which no reply was furnished. The Ld.TPO thus passed an ex-parte order and determined the net cost + margin of assessee at 4.95% based on fresh set of comparables, proposing an adjustment of Rs.3,35,05,814/- under the ITeS segment.

Page 8 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 3.5 The Ld.AO received the order u/s. 92CA and passed the draft assessment order on 14.09.2021 by incorporating the adjustment proposed by the Ld.TPO. The Ld.AO also initiated the penalty proceedings for not furnishing the documents u/s. 271G.

3.6 On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the DRP.

Before the DRP, the assessee contended that segmental details provided by the assessee was not considered in arriving the net cost + margin of assessee. The DRP thus remanded back for recomputation of NCP based on the segmental financials and to consider the submissions of the assessee for acceptance and rejection of the comparables.

3.7 It is submitted that the Ld.TPO originally had proposed 17 comparables, out of which, the DRP upheld inclusion of 16 which had a median of 24.94%, the details are as under: NCP as per Sl.No. Comparable Appellant’s argument TPO 1 Jindal Intellicom Ltd. Accepted 7.41 To be rejected for High 2 Microland Ltd. 8.58 turnover; Fails FAR Analysis Datamatics Business Solutions 3 Accepted 12.22 Ltd. 4 Fuzen Software Pvt. Ltd Fails FAR Analysis 15.75 Tech Mahindra Business To be rejected for High 5 18.52 Services turnover To be rejected for High 6 Infosys B P M Services Pvt. Ltd. turnover; Fails RPT Filter; 20.95 Fails FAR Analysis 7 CES Ltd (Seg.) Accepted 21.77

Page 9 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Fails FAR Analysis; Fails FAR 8 23.54 Ltd. Analysis 9 Domex E Data Pvt Ltd Accepted 26.34 Vitae International Accounting 10 Fails FAR Analysis 27.35 Services Pvt Ltd To be rejected for High 11 A G S Health Pvt. Ltd. 27.64 turnover; Fails FAR Analysis Access Healthcare Services Pvt. To be rejected for High 12 39.03 Ltd turnover; Fails FAR Analysis 13 Inteq B P 0 Services Pvt. Ltd. Accepted 39.15 To be rejected for High 14 Motif India Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 45.72 turnover To be rejected for High 15 Eclerx Services Limited turnover; Fails RPT Filter; 46.85 Fails FAR Analysis To be rejected for High 16 MPS Ltd 61.83 turnover; Fails FAR Analysis 35th Percentile 20.95 Median 24.94 65th Percentile 27.64

In the remand proceedings by the DRP, the Ld.TPO after considering the segmental details reduced the adjustment to Rs.2,50,60,205/- thereby determined the net cost + margin of assessee t 12.10%. The same was upheld by the DRP.

3.8 On receipt of the DRP directions, the Ld.AO while giving effect to the same, computed the margin of assessee at 4.95%. Rectification application u/s. 154 was filed by the assessee, as a consequent to which, the Ld.TPO passed the rectification order thereby further reducing the adjustment to Rs.1,65,69,223/- by arriving at a net cost + margin at 12.10%. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Page 10 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

4.1 Ground no. 2 raised by assessee is challenging the impugned order passed by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has not in compliance with the provisions of section 144B of the Act thereby making the impugned order void.

4.1.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer erred in law in passing the final order as the case was transferred to NFAC and the draft assessment order was also passed by NFAC. It is the submission of the Ld.AR that the Ld.AO did not have the jurisdiction or validity to pass the same as the impugned order should have been passed by NFAC. Referring to clause 8 of 144B, the Ld.AR submitted that, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer could have passed the final assessment order only if same is transferred by the Principal Chief Commissioner with prior approval of the Board.

4.1.2 This Tribunal on this issue directed the Ld.DR to file necessary communication. In response to the same, the Ld.DR filed covering letter dated 02.08.2023 submitted a letter dated 01.08.2023 from the office of DCIT, Circle – 7(1)(1), that reads as under:

Page 11 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 12 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 13 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 4.1.3 She also relied on Circular dated 06.09.2021 issued by the CBDT that reads as under:

4.1.4 In the rejoinder, the Ld.AR submitted that, ITBA order sheet is internal document containing comments which does not

Page 14 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 satisfy the requirements of section 144B(8) as it does not contain any approval from the Board.

4.1.5 The Ld.DR then on 07.11.2023 furnished a letter dated 16.10.2023 issued by the office of the DCIT, Circle – 7(1)(1) that reads as under:

Page 15 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

4.1.6 The Ld.DR submitted that the DCIT in the said letter has relied on the circular dated 06.09.2021 wherein, in para 3 has identified the technical reason for which the pendency of an assessment order in certain cases could not have been created for various reasons as the case may be, and therefore, said case

Page 16 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 was transferred by DCIT in charge of NFAC which is as per the procedure specified in letter no. F.No. 225/97/2021/ITA-II dated 06.09.2021 (supra).

4.1.7 We have perused the above submissions of both sides. Apparently there was technical glitches faced by the revenue to which the transfer by PCIT to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer could not have been reflected on the ITBA portal. It is categorically clear from the circular dated 06.09.2021 reproduced hereinabove. We further note that in the letter dated 01.08.2023 issued by the DCIT, Circle – 7(1)(1) reproduced hereinabove, in para 4, the order sheet entry transferring the case to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has been recorded which was with the approval of CBDT. We therefore do not find any merit in Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee and the same is dismissed.

5.1 Before we undertake the comparability analysis, it is sinequa non to understand the FAR analysis of the assessee under the ITeS segment. The transfer pricing study report placed at pages 23-79 of paper book Vol. 1 reveals the FAR of assessee as under:

Page 17 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 18 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 19 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 20 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

Page 21 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022

5.2 Thus from the above, the assessee has been characterised as to be undertaking minimum risk under the ITeS segment.

5.3 The Ld.AR submitted that turnover criteria is a widely accepted filter that has a direct impact on the profit margins, economies of scale, brand value, maket share etc. It is submitted that following comparables that has more than 200 crores turnover are as not comparable with that of assessee. a) Microland Ltd. b) Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd. c) Infosys BPM Services Pvt. Ltd. d) AGS Health Pvt. Ltd. e) Access Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd. f) Motif India Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Page 22 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 g) Eclerx Services Ltd. h) MPS Ltd.

5.4 In support, he placed reliance on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No. 1025/Bang/2022 vide order dated 09.01.2023 for A.Y. 2018-19 and Sapa Extrusion India Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No. 791/Bang/2022 for A.Y. 2018-19.

5.5 He also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pentair Water India Ltd. in ITA No. 18/2015 by order dated 16.09.2015, wherein, it has been held that turnover is relevant criteria for choosing comparable companies for determination of ALP.

5.6 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.

5.7 We note that the above issue has been considered in great detail by the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) as under: “18. On the issue of application of turnover filter, we have heard the rival submissions. The parties relied on several decisions rendered on the above issue by the various decisions of the ITAT Bangalore Benches in favour of the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue, respectively. The ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Dell International Services India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 44 (Bang-Trib) order dated 13.10.2017, took note of the decision of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of

Page 23 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 Sysarris Software Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 243 (Bangalore-Trib) wherein the Tribunal after noticing the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital (supra) and the decision to the contrary in the case of CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt.Ltd., Tax Appeal No.18 of 2015 dated 16.9.2015 wherein it was held that high turnover is a ground to exclude a company from the list of comparable companies in determining ALP, held that there were contrary views on the issue and hence the view favourable to the Assessee laid down in the case of Pentair Water (supra) should be adopted. The following were the conclusions of the Tribunal in the case of Dell International (supra): “41. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Genesis Integrating Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, ITA No.1231/Bang/2010, relying on Dun and Bradstreet’s analysis, held grouping of companies having turnover of Rs. 1 crore to Rs.200 crores as comparable with each other was held to be proper. The following relevant observations were brought to our notice:- “9. Having heard both the parties and having considered the rival contentions and also the judicial precedents on the issue, we find that the TPO himself has rejected the companies which .ire (sic) making losses as comparables. This shows that there is a limit for the lower end for identifying the comparables. In such a situation, we are unable to understand as to why there should not be an upper limit also. What should be upper limit is another factor to be considered. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the size matters in business. A big company would be in a position to bargain the price and also attract more customers. It would also have a broad base of skilled employees who are able to give better output. A small company may not have these benefits and therefore, the turnover also would come down reducing profit margin. Thus, as held by the various benches of the Tribunal, when companies which arc loss making are excluded from comparables, then the super profit making companies should also be excluded. For the purpose of classification of companies on the basis of net sales or turnover, we find that a reasonable classification has to be made. Dun & Bradstreet & Bradstreet and NASSCOM have given different ranges. Taking the Indian scenario into consideration,

Page 24 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 we feel that the classification made by Dun & Bradstreet is more suitable and reasonable. In view of the same, we hold that the turnover filter is very important and the companies having a turnover of Rs.1.00 crore to 200 crores have to be taken as a particular range and the assessee being in that range having turnover of 8.15 crores, the companies which also have turnover of 1.00 to 200.00 crores only should be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study.” 42. The Assessee’s turnover was around Rs.110 Crores. Therefore the action of the CIT(A) in directing TPO to exclude companies having turnover of more than Rs.200 crores as not comparable with the Assessee was justified. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Assessee, there are two views expressed by two Hon’ble High Courts of Bombay and Delhi and both are non-jurisdictional High Courts. The view expressed by the Bombay High Court is in favour of the Assessee and therefore following the said view, the action of the CIT(A) excluding companies with turnover of above Rs.200 crores from the list of comparable companies is held to correct and such action does not call for any interference.” 19. The Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 263 (Bangalore-Tribunal), took note of all the conflicting decision on the issue and rendered its decision and in paragraph 17.7. of the decision held as that high turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover. The following were the relevant observations: “17.7. We have considered the rival submissions. The substantial question of law (Question No.1 to 3) which was framed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chryscapital Investment Advisors (India) Pvt.Ltd., (supra) was as to whether comparable can be rejected on the ground that they have exceptionally high profit margins or fluctuation profit margins, as compared to the Assessee in transfer pricing analysis. Therefore as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, in so far as it refers to turnover, were in the nature of obiter dictum. Judicial discipline requires that the Tribunal should follow the decision of a non-jurisdiction High Court, even though the said decision is of a non- jurisdictional High Court. We however find that the

Page 25 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pentair Water India Pvt.Ltd. Tax Appeal No.18 of 2015 judgment dated 16.9.2015 has taken the view that turnover is a relevant criterion for choosing companies as comparable companies in determination of ALP in transfer pricing cases. There is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court on this issue. In the circumstances, following the principle that where two views are available on an issue, the view favourable to the Assessee has to be adopted, we respectfully follow the view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the issue. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we uphold the order of the DRP excluding 5 companies from the list of comparable companies chosen by the TPO on the basis that the 5 companies turnover was much higher compared to that the Assessee. 17.8. In view of the above conclusion, there may not be any necessity to examine as to whether the decision rendered in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra) by the ITAT Bangalore Bench should continue to be followed. Since arguments were advanced on the correctness of the decisions rendered by the ITAT Mumbai and Bangalore Benches taking a view contrary to that taken in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra), we proceed to examine the said issue also. On this issue, the first aspect which we notice is that the decision rendered in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra) was the earliest decision rendered on the issue of comparability of companies on the basis of turnover in Transfer Pricing cases. The decision was rendered as early as 5.8.2011. The decisions rendered by the ITAT Mumbai Benches cited by the learned DR before us in the case of Willis Processing Services (supra) and Capegemini India Pvt.Ltd. (supra) are to be regarded as per incurium as these decisions ignore a binding co- ordinate bench decision. In this regard the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the Assessee supports the plea of the learned counsel for the Assessee. The decisions rendered in the case of M/S.NTT Data (supra), Societe Generale Global Solutions (supra) and LSI Technologies (supra) were rendered later in point of time. Those decisions follow the ratio laid down in Willis Processing Services (supra) and have to be regarded as per incurium. These three decisions also place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chriscapital Investment (supra). We have already held that the

Page 26 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 decision rendered in the case of Chriscapital Investment (supra) is obiter dicta and that the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pentair (supra) which is favourable to the Assessee has to be followed. Therefore, the decisions cited by the learned DR before us cannot be the basis to hold that high turnover is not relevant criteria for deciding on comparability of companies in determination of ALP under the Transfer Pricing regulations under the Act. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on the issue of application of turnover filter and his action in excluding companies by following the ratio laid down in the case of Genisys Integrating (supra).” 20. In view of the aforesaid decision, we hold that companies listed in Ground No.10.5.1 of the original grounds of appeal whose turnover in the current year is admittedly more than Rs.200 Crores should be excluded from the list of comparable companies.” 5.8 In view of the above discussions, we hold that the companies alleged by assessee in ground no. 3 deserves to be excluded as their turnover for the year under consideration is admittedly more than 200 crores. Accordingly, ground no. 3 raised by assessee stands allowed.

Page 27 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 7) MPS Ltd.

6.1 We have already excluded Microland Ltd., AGS Health Pvt. Ltd., Infosys BPM Services Pvt. Ltd., Access Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., Eclerx Services Ltd. and MPS Ltd. for failing turnover filter while considering Ground no. 3 hereinabove. 6.2 The only comparable that is to be analysed on functionality therefore is Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. 6.3 The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.TPO considered this comparable by stating that it derives revenue from ITeS services. The DRP while upholding the view of the Ld.TPO. The Ld.AR submitted that as per the annual report of this comparable at page 505 of the paper book vol. 1, the main business software the assessee is to provide pre-press activities mainly to overseas as well as domestic customers. This company also undertakes pre- media work & e-book distribution services for domestic customers. 6.4 On the contrary, the assessee is only into pure ITeS services to its associated enterprises and therefore this company is not comparable to assessee. 6.5 On the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by authorities below. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 6.6 The Ld.AR in support of exclusion of this comparable has placed reliance on following decisions of this Tribunal. i) Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in IT(TP)A No. 1025/Bang/2022 by order dated 09.01.2023

Page 28 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 ii) Nortel Networks India P. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 4765/Del/2011 & 427/Del/2013 for A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2008-09 iii) M/s. Bobst India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1380/Del/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07 iv) Verient Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 5927/Del/2010 We note that under similar circumstances, Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) has rejected this comparable as there are no segmental details available in respect of the various services rendered. Nothing contrary has been filed by the Ld.DR. Respectfully following the above view, we also direct the Ld.AO/TPO to exclude this comparable from the final list. Accordingly, ground no. 4 raised by assessee stands partly allowed. 7. Ground no. 5 raised by assessee is seeking inclusion of following comparables. a) Digicall Global Pvt. Ltd. b) I G T Solutions Pvt. Ltd. c) Sundaram Business Services Ltd. d) Suprawin Technologies Ltd. e) Unicita Consulting Pvt. Ltd.

7.1 It is submitted that the DRP has not considered this comparable even though the objections were raised and various judicial precedence were relied seeking inclusion. In the interest of justice, we remand these comparables back to the Ld.AO/TPO to carry out necessary verification in accordance with the

Page 29 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 principles of transfer pricing provisions. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Accordingly, ground no. 5 raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Page 30 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 have to be treated as not comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules, which provides as follows:- “(3) an uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if – (i) None of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged to paid in, or the profit arising from, such transactions in the open market; or (ii) Reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences.” 18. In such a scenario there would remain no comparable uncontrolled transactions for the purpose of comparison. The transfer pricing exercise would therefore fail. Therefore, in keeping with the OECD guidelines, endeavor should be made to bring in comparable companies for the purpose of broad comparison. Therefore the working capital adjustment as claimed by the assessee should be allowed. We hold and direct accordingly. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 8.2 In view of the above order of the Tribunal, we inclined to remit the issue to the file of AO/TPO to determine the correct working capital adjustment. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Page 31 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 9.1 The Ld. AO accordingly in his draft assessment order, made an adjustment of the said amount and after setting off the bought forward losses arrived at a gross total income of Rs. 71,72,072/-. As stated above, the said adjustment was further reduced to Rs.1,65,69,223/-.

9.2 However, the Ld. AO in his final assessment order dated July 19, 2022 and rectification order dated September 12, 2022 has erred in law by not setting off the bought forward losses with the income/adjustments proposed to the income.

9.3 We therefore direct the Ld.AO/TPO to grant the set off of brought forward losses to the assessee against the final adjustment. Accordingly, this ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 22nd December, 2023. /MS /

Page 32 of 32 IT(TP)A No. 845/Bang/2022 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore