Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:
This appeal is filed by Sulzer Pumps India Private Limited (the assessee/ appellant) against the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax 15(3) (2), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ he Act] on 30th October, 2019, wherein the return filed by the assessee on 30th November, 2014 at ₹88,63,34,310/- is assessed at ₹115,86,77,740/-. This assessment order was passed incorporating the adjustment proposed per order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act dated 16th October, 2018
The assessee has raised following grounds:-
“Being aggrieved by the order of the learned DCIT, Circle - 15(3)(2), Mumbai, (AO'), read with the order of the learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP'), Mumbai, the assessee begs to prefer the present appeal on the following grounds:
A. Grounds relating to additions other than Transfer Pricing Adjustments
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,54,24,353/- oil of non- deduction of tax relating to export commission paid by the assessee to its associated enterprises.
1.1. The lower authorities erred in holding that the payments made towards export sales commission are in the nature of fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
1.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT V. Toshoku Ltd.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 1,70,99,895/- relating to the commission expenditure incurred by the assessee on the export sales.
2.1. The lower authorities erred in not appreciating the fact that the commission expenditure is not an ad hoc expense recorded in the books of accounts but is assessee's actual liability computed on the basis of export sales.
2.2. The lower authorities erred in ignoring the documentation, factual and legal submissions Provided by the assessee to support its submission that the commission expenses are not its unascertained liability.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the ease, the lower authorities erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,73,10,658/- relating to provision made by the assessee towards warranty expenses.
1. The lower authorities erred in not appreciating the fact that the warranty
3.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law, in not appreciating the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Rotork Control India Private Limited v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 (SC).
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in Upholding the disallowance of Rs. 9,44,719/- on account of non- deduction of tax relating to professional fees paid by the assessee to its associated enterprises as well as to third parties.
4.1. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that the appropriate taxes had actually been withheld by the assessee while remitting the payment for professional fees.
4.2. The lower authorities erred in not appreciating the documentation, factual and legal submissions provided by the assessee to support its submission that the deduction of tax before remittance.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in treating a sum of Rs. 5,29,687/- as the income of the assessee on
B. Grounds relating to additions on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustments
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in upholding the adjustment of Rs. 7,05,39,108/- to the income of the assessee on account of payment of trademark fees to the associated enterprise.
6.1. The lower authorities erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation and the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee without any robust reasons to determine the arm's length price for the use of the trademark 'SULZER'.
6.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in determining the arm's length price of the payment of trademark fees to be Nil without following any of the prescribed methods under section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
6.3. The lower authorities erred in ignoring the documentation, factual and legal submissions provided by the assessee to substantiate the benefit, corresponding economic or commercial value derived by the use of the trademark 'SULZER'.
7.1. The lower authorities erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation and the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee without any robust reasons to determine the arm's length price of SAP related support services.
7.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in determining the arm's length price of SAP related support services to be Nil without following any of the prescribed methods under section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
7.3. The lower authorities erred in going beyond the scope of section 92CA and in questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expenses incurred by the assessee.
7.4. The lower authorities erred in ignoring the documentation, factual and legal submissions provided by the assessee to substantiate the benefit, corresponding economic or commercial value derived on receipt of SAP related support services.
8.1. The lower authorities erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation and the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee without any robust reasons to determine the arm's length price of the annual charges towards Microsoft license.
8.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in determining the arm's length price of the annual charges towards Microsoft licensing to be Nil without allowing any of the prescribed methods under section 92C(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961.
8.3. The lower authorities erred in linking the transaction of Microsoft charges paid with that of the transaction of payment for SAP related Support services and holding that since arm’s length price of SAP charges is determined at Nil, there cannot he charges for the maintenance of such software.
8.4. The lower authorities erred in ignoring the documentation, factual and legal submissions provided by the assessee to substantiate the
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in upholding the adjustment of Rs. 6,06,85,073/- to the income of the assessee on account of ASP management fees paid by the assessee to its associated enterprise.
9.1. The lower authorities erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation and the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee without any robust reasons to determine the arm's length price of management services.
9.2. The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in determining the arm's length price of ASP management services to be Nil without following any of the prescribed methods under section 92C( 1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
9.3. The lower authorities erred in going beyond the scope of section 92CA and in questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expenses incurred by the assessee.
9.4. The lower authorities erred in ignoring the documentation, factual and legal submissions provided by the assessee to substantiate the benefit corresponding economic or commercial value derived oil of management services.
10.1 The lower authorities erred in rejecting the transfer pricing documentation and the economic analysis undertaken by the assessee without any robust reasons to determine the arm’s length price for the receipt of professional services.
10.2 The lower authorities erred on facts and in law in determining the arm's length price of the professional services to be Nil without following any of the prescribed methods under section 92C(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961.
10.3. The lower authorities erred in going beyond the scope of section 92CA and in questioning the commercial rationale of the legitimate business expenses incurred by the assessee.
10.4 The lower authorities erred in ignoring the documentation, factual and legal submissions provided by the assessee to substantiate the benefit, corresponding economic or commercial value derived on receipt of professional services.
Fact shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pumps for industrial use and is a part of Sulzer group based in Switzerland. Assessee filed return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of ₹ 886,320,310/–. The return of income was picked up for scrutiny. As assessee has entered into certain international transactions, after approval from the principal Commissioner of income tax – 15, Mumbai per letter dated 22/6060 reference was made to The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) – 4 (1) – 2, Mumbai (the learned TPO) for determination of arm’s- length price of the international transactions entered into by the assessee.
The assessee has undertaken 16 types of international transactions with its associated enterprises adopting various methods as most appropriate method submitting that same are carried out at Arm’s Length Price. The international transaction carried on by the assessee are as under:-
S.NO. International Transaction Amount (In Most Appropriate INR) Method (MAM) adopted by assessee 1. Purchase of raw materials, parts, etc. 22,23,13,683 Transactional net
He found that such transactions are with respect to
[1] Payment of ASP management fees of ₹ 60,685,073/- which was in relation to administrative/management services provided by a Chinese entity affiliated entities operating in Asia-Pacific region. The cost was allocated by associated enterprise providing these services entities including assessee based on time spent in providing the said services. Assessee was charged at cost plus a markup of 5%. The nature of services were sales and marketing, information technology, finance, management support and human resources. Assessee adopted cost plus method as the most appropriate method for payment of these fees. The weighted average margins of the comparable independent companies were found in the range of 5.28% to 6.68% with an arithmetic mean of 6.75%. Therefore, the assessee stated that this international transaction is at arm’s-length. The learned transfer-pricing officer held that in assessment year 2013 – 14 and assessment year 14 – 15 the arm’s-length price of the same is determined at Rs. nil that has been confirmed by the learned DRP. Learned TPO further noted that the agreement produced by the assessee did not have any clause of the quantification of services and assessee did not produce primary evidence to show that the services were actually rendered except
[2] payment in relation to SAP related support services of ₹ 39,266,987/– which is pertaining to running the Sap server infrastructure and data centers as well as training, and implementation services which are more precisely described at paragraph number 10 of the order of the learned TPO. The assessee benchmarked the same showing the group transfer pricing policy where such services are charged at cost plus markup of 5% based on in to company agreement dated 2 August 2018. The learned TPO found that the identical service was also tested for its arm’s-length price in earlier year where it has been determined at Rs. Nil and confirmed by the learned DRP. The learned TPO therefore determined the arm’s-length price of the same at Rs. nil holding that assessee has merely submitted budget rate per user per month arrive at the cost and has not submitted any analysis on the basis of which such budget rate was arrived at. Merely a management certificate with respect to monthly cost was submitted without support of list of employees for whom such licenses were obtained. The
[3] Payment of annual charges towards software licensing of ₹ 10,180,087/– which are the services with respect to the Microsoft volume license agreements cost charged based on the agreement allocated based on licenses. This was paid to Sulzer management AG. This cost is allocated by associated enterprise to the assessee based on the number of user licenses are located. Assessee substantiated the same as per submission dated 4/10/2018 submitting the invoice stating that this amount has been charged on back-to-back basis without any markup. The learned transfer-pricing officer held that these are annual maintenance cost of Microsoft licenses, as the SAP license fees have been determined at ALP at Rs Nil, in absence of the list of employees utilizing such licenses; this cost was also benchmarked at Rs. Nil
[4] payment for professional fees of ₹ 434,858/– was made for technical services representing expenses relating to repair/rework/rectification work carried out for the purpose for to the end customers and the warranty period in respect of such forms were expired. The assessee stated that as per the group policy the associated enterprises have charged cost plus a markup of 5% the assessee for provision of the above professional services
[5] Payment of trademark fees of ₹ 70,539,108 – was incurred by the assessee for using the trademark brand name by its associated enterprise in terms of the agreement submitted on 2/8/2018. Assessee adopted comparable uncontrolled price method as most appropriate method. The comparability analysis was made based on the search conducted on Royalstate database. Assessee also explained the benefits derived by it and stated that the payment of the royalty is at arm’s-length as the royalty rate of the comparable companies was found at 2.69% where the assessee has paid royalty at
Accordingly, as per order dated 16/10/2018 u/s 92CA (3) of the act he determined the arm’s-length price of these payments at Rs. Nil and total adjustment with respect to these 5 payments of ₹ 181,034,113/– was made.
The learned Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order on 28th December, 2018, therein he made the following additions;
I. The learned Assessing Officer noted that assessee has debited ₹3,73,10,658/- on account of warranty charges that held to be a mere provision and therefore, disallowed the same.
II. He even otherwise submitted that assessee has made payment to foreign party on which tax is required to be deducted under Section 195 of the
III. He further disallowed the provision of commission expenditure to the extent of ₹1,70,99,895/- under Section 37 of the Act as these expenses are not incurred in the relevant accounting year.
IV. He also made an addition of payment made to non-resident of ₹5,38,46,290/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40a(i) of the Act. There were certain mismatches between the information available from annual information return wherein certain payments to the extent of ₹5,29,687/- are not offered as income. Therefore, same were added.
Consequently, total income of the assessee was determined at ₹117,61,65,952/-bypassing the draft assessment order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 144C (1) of the act on 28/12/2018 wherein total income of the assessee disclosed in the revised return of income of ₹ 799,172,952/– was determined at ₹ 1,176,154,952/–.
The draft assessment order was challenged by filing objections before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel who passed direction on 25th September, 2019. The learned dispute resolution panel upheld the transfer
Accordingly, the final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30th December 2019. By this order, the learned Assessing Officer retain following additions:-
I. Addition on account of Arm’s Length Price of international transaction at ₹18,10,34,113/-.
II. Disallowance of warranty expenditure of ₹3,73,10,658/-.
III. Disallowance of provision for commission of ₹1,70,99,895/-.
IV. Disallowance under Section 40a(ia) of the Act of ₹3,63,69,080/-.
Assessee aggrieved by this order has preferred this appeal.
Ground number 1 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance of commission paid to associated enterprise for procurement of export orders amounting to ₹ 35,424,361 on which the assessee did not deduct tax at source. The learned authorised representative submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee for the reason that for assessment year 2007 – 08 identical issue arose where the issue was set-aside to the file of the learned assessing officer by the coordinate bench and in set-aside proceedings the learned assessing officer passed an order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 254 of the income tax act on 29/12/17 where the learned assessing officer has deleted the addition relating to commission on account of non-deduction of tax u/s 195 of the act. Even Otherwise he submitted that issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court and honourable Bombay High Court.
The learned departmental representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.
Ground number 2 is with respect to the provision for commission incurred by the assessee to associated enterprise for procuring export orders which was disallowed by the learned assessing officer amounting to Rs 1,70,99,895/– stating that it represents a mere provision cannot and ascertained liability and therefore provisions are not deductible as an expenditure.
The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer stating that when the liabilities did not accrue, the deduction cannot be granted.
We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly, assessee exports the pumps to overseas customers. During the year, the assessee has exported of ₹ 251.91 crores, which is almost 50% of its turnover. Assessee does
Ground number 3 is against the disallowance of provision of warranty expenditure provided by the assessee at the rate of 1.25% of the pumps sold on account of between charges that firstly it is merely a provision and not an ascertained liability and secondly even if it is deductible as an expenditure, assessee has failed to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the act on the sum amounting to ₹ 37,310,658/– and therefore, it is this allowable u/s 40(a)(i) of the act.
The learned authorised representative submitted that provision of warranty is made on the basis of past history of the failure of products, the provision made is not excessive, therefore, it is an ascertained liability. Therefore he submitted that the claim of the assessee of warranty expenditure squarely covered in favour of
On the issue of non-deduction of tax at source he submitted that if a resident is carrying business outside India or earning income from a source outside India, the expenditure of fees for technical services for that, cannot be subjected to withholding tax u/s 195 of the income tax act.
The learned departmental representative heavily relied on the orders of the lower authorities submitting that provision made by the assessee for warranty expenditure is not on scientific basis and further assessee has failed to deduct tax at source on payment of warranty expenditure to its associated enterprises u/s 195 of the income tax act and therefore the disallowance is correctly made by the learned assessing officer on twin charges.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Assessee made provision for warranty expenditure on the pump and sold at the rate of 1.25% . Learned AO disallowed it stating that it is merely provision and not ascertained liability. The learned Assessing Officer further noted that
With respect to the deduction of tax at source, the learned authorised representative submitted that as the person whom the credit is given is unknown at the time of provisioning, therefore, no tax can be deducted, as the payee is not identified. We find no force in this argument because as soon as the sales are made, the assessee is aware in which geographical location such sales are made and which associated enterprises is going to perform this service over a period of 18 months. It is not the case of the assessee that there are multiple associated enterprises in a particular jurisdiction to perform this activity and assessee selects one of them to perform the same. Therefore, the payees are identified, the quantum is ascertained and the period for which the payment is required to be made is also known. Hence, we reject this argument. There is one more reason to reject the same because at the time of booking of export commission expenses without receiving the bill, the argument of the
The next argument for non-deduction of tax of the warranty expenditure raised by the learned authorised representative is that as the warranty expenditure relates to services utilized in business carried out by the assessee outside India and thereby it falls into the exclusion under Section 9(1) (vii) (b) of the Act from the definition of income of fees for technical services. He submitted that assessee export goods manufactured by it to overseas customers. To them, the warranty obligation of the assessee was fulfilled by Associated Enterprises. These Associated Enterprises then, charges the assessee for the services provided by it. He submitted that the payment for availing repair services was utilized by the assessee for the business carried on by the assessee outside India of making or earning income from source outside India. Therefore, according him these payments falls in the exclusion clause of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act not liable for taxation in India. Therefore, no tax is required to be deducted at source. To further support his arguments, that assessee should be regarded as a person carrying on business outside India, he further referred to several judicial precedents. He submitted that this judicial precedents clearly lay down that even if the person does
―5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, we notice that indisputably the assessee who provides software related services to many of its clients situated abroad, had hired services of the said M/s. Pacific Hub Corporation, Philippines. The said M/s. PHC, Philippines does not have a permanent establishment in India. It would render services for obtaining human resources and infrastructure services to the assessee for serving its foreign based clients. In this context, a question arises whether at the time of making payments for such services, deduction of tax at source was31 necessary.
In the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Limited v. CIT reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC), the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court was that mere remittance of money to a non-resident would not give rise to the requirement of deducting tax at source, unless such remittance contains wholly or partly taxable income. It is true that after such judgment was rendered, the Legislature had amended section 195 of the Act by inserting Explanation 2 by the Finance Act, 2012, but with
"It can thus be seen that while confirming the order of CIT(A), the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Page No : 183 GE India Technology Centre P. Limited v. CIT reported in [2010] 327 ITR 456 (SC). In such judgment, it was held and observed that the most important expression in
In this context, we would refer to section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 9 enlists situations under which the income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India. Clause (vii) contained therein pertains to income by way of fees for technical services payable by the Government or
"9. Income deemed to accrue or arise in India.—(1) . . . (vii) income by way of fees for technical services payable by— (a) the Government ; or (b) a person who is resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of services utilized in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India or for the purposes of making or earning any income from any source outside India ; or"35
As per sub-clause (b) thus, the income by way of fees for technical ser vices payable by a person who is a resident would be deemed to accrue or arise in India. However, this clause contains two Explanations, namely, where the fees are payable in respect of services utilized in a business or profession carried on by such person outside India, or for the purpose of making or earning any income from any source outside India. In other words, therefore, if the assessment of an assessee falls in either of these two clauses, the income by way of fees for technical services paid by the assessee would still not be covered within the deeming clause of sub-section (1) of section 9.
We are fortified in the view by a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. ITC Hotels reported in [2015] 233 Taxman 302 (Karn), in which it was held that where the recipient of income of parent company is not chargeable to tax in India, then the question of deduction of tax at source by the payer would not arise.
Learned counsel for the Revenue, however, relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Havells India Limited reported in [2013] 352 ITR 376 (Delhi). In such case, however, the court was of the opinion that the payment made by the assessee to a US based company for certification facilitating export was not in relation to the source of income which was based in India. The facts were
Above decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court has also considered the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court of CIT V Havells India Ltd 280 taxman accordingly, we agree with the assessee that no tax is required to be deducted u/s 195 of the income tax act on the said sum of warranty expenditure paid to associated enterprises. Therefore , disallowance of warranty expenditure on this account is also not warranted. Accordingly, ground number 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Ground number 4 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance of professional fees paid to associated Enterprises and non associated enterprises for the reason
Before us, assessee submitted that the assessee has made payment of the above amount and in fact has deducted tax at source on the above payment. The assessee submitted the list of 13 parties stating that to them the amount of ₹ 944,719/– is paid and tax is deducted of ₹ 194,024 . It was also stated that assessee submitted these details before the learned dispute resolution panel however, they were ignored.
We have carefully considered the rival contention, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and find that if the claim of the assessee is found to be correct that the assessee has already deducted tax at source on the above payment, no disallowance could have been made. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set-aside this ground of the appeal to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to show that on these payments the assessee has deducted tax at source u/s 195 of the income tax act, the learned assessing officer way verify the same and decide the issue in accordance with the law. Accordingly, ground number 4 of the appeal is allowed.
Ground number 5 was not pressed and therefore it is dismissed.
Ground no 6 is against adjustment of Rs. 7,05,39,108/- to the income of the assessee on account of payment of trademark fees to the associated enterprise. Ld AR submitted that the royalty payment made to the associated enterprises which at the rate of 1.5% of sale price for use of trademark is at Arm’s Length Price which is determined by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer at ₹ Nil and confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel amounting to ₹7,05,39,108/- challenged in this appeal by ground no. 6. It is squarely covered by ground no. 6 of the appeal of the assessee in order of ITAT for earlier years.
With respect to ground no. 7, he submitted that SAP license fee and Support fees paid to Associated Enterprises amounting to ₹3,92,66,987/-, whereas the learned Transfer Pricing Officer determine its Arm’s Length Price at
The ld DR Relied up on the orders of the Ld TPO and DRP. 037. We have carefully considered the rival contention and orders of lower authorities. We find that same issue arose in the case of assessee for ITA No. 1153/MUM/2017 [Assessment Year: 2012-13], ITA No. 6013/MUM/2017 [Assessment Year: 2013-14] and ITA No. 6660/MUM/2018 [ Assessment Year: 2014-15] dated 23 March, 2021 wher in coordinate bench has hled as under :-
“25. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials available on record. Having narrated at length the order of the TPO/AO and DRP, the contentions of the Ld. Counsel and the Ld. DR, we adjudicate below the above grounds appeal.
“9. Hence they are dismissed as Not Pressed. The remaining grounds give rise to the following issues:- (a) Disallowance of expenses of Royalty, technical knowhow fees and annual charges of Microsoft licencing fee by determining the ALP at NIL. (b) Disallowance of ASP Management fees (c) Addition on account of difference in income as per Form 26AS. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. The first issue relates to the disallowance of Royalty, technical knowhow fees and annual charges of Microsoft licencing fee. We have considered an identical issue in the
Therefore for Ay 08-9, 09-10 11-12, the issues are set aside to the file fo the ld AO and for Ay 2012-13 and 13- 14, the grounds of the assessee were allowed on identical facts and circumstances.
While deciding the case for AY 2012-13, 13-14 perhaps above finding of the coordinate bench did not come to the notice of the coordinate bench and therefore for those years. Transfer pricing additions were deleted without testing the benchmarking analysis of the assessee of the International Transactions.
We failed to understand that how an international transaction of two different years, particularly in the transactions where the rendition test, benefit test, etc
Further in this year assessee itself has benchmarked these transactions adopting different Most Appropriate methods. It is not the case that assessee has aggregated these transactions for benchmarking.
The Ld TPO and Ld DRP has also approached the transaction based on judicial precedents for earlier years. This is not the mandate of provision of Ch X which required to determine ALP of International Transactions every year.
Ld TPO and Ld DRP has also noted that with respect to the International Transaction assess has also not submitted certain details . In both he orders of the coordinate benches, it s categorically held that Alp of International Transaction is not determined.
As there is no determination of ALP of International Transaction but rejection of evidences of Assessee based on earlier years proceedings, Therefore , we set aside
With respect to ground no. 10, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that assessee does not want to press the same for the smallness of amount where the learned Transfer Pricing Officer determine the Arm’s Length Price of professional fees to its Associated Enterprises of ₹4,34,858/- at ₹ Nil.
He also submitted that assessee has raised additional ground of appeal for deduction of education cess, but in view of retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2022, assessee does not want to press the same.
As the Authorized Representative did not press ground ground no.10 and additional ground raised, those are dismissed as not pressed.
Accordingly, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.09.2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 16.09.2022
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai