Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
आदेश / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
Out of this bunch of appeals, cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue are against order of DCIT, Circle-7, Pune, dated 29.01.2016 relating to assessment year 2011-12 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has also filed an appeal against order of DCIT, Circle – 7, Pune dated 30.01.2017 relating to assessment year 2012-13 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act.
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 3 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
We proceed to decide the present appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
First, we shall take up cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue.
The assessee in ITA No.581/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Ground No. 1 - The AO, acting under Directions issued by the DRP, erred in making an addition of Rs.15,918,919 to the Appellant's total income based on the provisions of Chapter X of the Act and inappropriately not considering the approach adopted in the Transfer Pricing Documentation. 2. Ground No. 2 - The AO, acting under Directions issued by the DRP, has erred in incorrectly holding that service revenue of Rs.42,902,028 is not attributable to the Software Distribution segment of the Appellant, and attributing it to the Software Development segment instead. 2.1. The DRP has erred in holding that no service revenue from the Associated Enterprise ('AE') of the Appellant is attributable to the Appellant's Sales & Marketing and Delivery Services cost centres. 2.2. The DRP has erred in attributing only Rs.3,926,163 of service revenue to the Client Care cost centre of the Appellant. 3. Ground No. 3 - The AO, acting under Directions issued by the DRP, has erred in attributing to the Software Development segment service revenue amounting to Rs.42,902,028 that had been apportioned by the Appellant to its Software Distribution segment, without attributing the costs relevant to this revenue to the Software Development segment. 3.1. The DRP has erred in holding that after apportioning service revenue of Rs.3,926,163 to the Software Distribution segment and apportioning to the Software Development segment the remaining service revenue of Rs.42,902,028 that the Appellant had also considered in its Software Distribution segment, that there was no need to consider apportioning any additional cost to the Software Development segment. 4. Ground No. 4 - The AO, acting under Directions issued by the DRP, has erred in considering the margins of the comparable uncontrolled enterprises for the Software Distribution segment for only one year, instead of using multiple year data. 5. Ground No. 5 - The AO, acting under Directions issued by the DRP, has erred in not considering the gross margin analysis of the Appellant's Software Distribution segment and the comparables to determine the arm's length price of the Appellant's international transactions in the said segment.
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 4 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
The above Grounds of Appeal are all independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant prays that the addition made by the AO under the Directions of the DRP be deleted.
The Revenue in ITA No.628/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Whether the DRP was right in law and on facts in including companies which is persistent loss making. 2. Whether the DRP was right in law and on facts in directing AO/TPO to re-compute the PLI of the assessee for the software development segment and the software distribution segment and make consequent changes to the transfer pricing adjustment.
The appeal filed by Revenue is time barred by nine days. The Revenue has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay of nine days in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal. In view of the said facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal late is condoned and we proceed to decide the present appeals.
Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,31,14,246/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to compute the arm's length price of international transactions entered into by the assessee with its associated enterprises. The TPO noted that the assessee was a subsidiary of Triple Point US and was engaged in providing software development services to its associated enterprises. The assessee was also engaged in sale of software license to the Indian customers, providing software implementation related services to Triple Point US in Asia region and providing help-desk
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 5 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
services and Annual Subscription Services. Various international transactions were undertaken by the assessee totaling ₹ 43,09,13,598/- are tabulated at page 1 of the TPO’s order. He further noted from the TP study report that along with revenue from software development and related services, the assessee was also having associated enterprise transactions pertaining to software distribution segment. The PLI in distribution segment was 29.04%. However, against the revenue from software distribution, the assessee had apportioned revenue of ₹ 4,68,28,191/-. The assessee pointed out that it had received cost plus markup on the entire cost incurred by it on software services as well as cost incurred on distribution segment, on the basis of cost incurred by assessee, an amount of ₹ 4,68,28,191/- was apportioned. The TPO in view thereof, re-calculated PLI of assessee in software distribution segment excluding the amount apportioned from software development segment. The assessee was asked as to why the adjustment should not be made by considering PLI at (-) 24.40%. The assessee pointed out that it was preparing its segmental Profit and Loss Account on the basis of functions performed by assessee vis-à-vis its international transactions. It was further pointed out that as per Services Agreement between the assessee and its associated enterprise, the assessee was to provide certain services to Triple Point Technology, USA, for which the assessee was to be remunerated at cost plus profit margin of 18%. The definition of ‘Services’ was referred in this regard and it was pointed out that it had received sum of ₹ 4,68,28,191/- from Triple Point Technology, USA in respect of three cost centres of assessee i.e. Sales & Marketing, Delivery Services and Client Care. The assessee thus, pointed out that Sales & Marketing, Delivery Services and Client Care cost centres of assessee were grouped with software distribution segment of assessee and
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 6 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
PLI (OP/OC) works out to 36.78% and / or PLI (OP/Sales) works out to 26.89%. Based on the same, the assessee pleaded that even if the TPO were to attribute sales of ₹ 4.68 crores made to Triple Point Technology, USA to the software development segment of assessee, no adjustment would be warranted in the arm's length price of assessee’s international transactions. The TPO vide para 7 observed that in assessee’s own case, there were two different agreements for software services and software distribution. However, the assessee has only filed reply in respect of software services agreement, wherein the services have been defined and in the said definition, there is no reference of distribution segment. Since there was no separate agreement for distribution segment, product support and maintenance words as appearing in the agreement were only with reference to software development services provided by assessee and had no connection with the distribution related activity. The TPO has referred to various clauses of said agreement and also perused the copy of invoice raised on associated enterprise and noted that copy of invoice produced only refers to software development services and in view thereof, PLI of assessee in software distribution segment was computed at (-) 24.40%. However, the main PLI of comparables on GP/Sales worked out to 1.54%. In view thereof, arm's length price of assessee in software distribution was worked out and an upward adjustment of ₹ 2,04,25,144/- was proposed by the TPO. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order, against which the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), which in turn, remitted the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer / TPO for re- computing the adjustment considering correct average margins of comparable companies. The TO re-computed the TP adjustment on the basis of DRP
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 7 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
directions and arrived the TP adjustment at ₹ 1,59,18,919/-. The Assessing Officer in final assessment order made the aforesaid addition of ₹ 1,59,18,919/-
The assessee is in appeal against the order/s of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP.
The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was engaged in two fields i.e. it was providing Software Development Services to its associated enterprises and was also providing Software Distribution Services to its associated enterprises. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee contended that the assessee was preparing segmental Profit and Loss Account on the basis of functions performed by the assessee vis-à-vis international transactions. The margins of OP/Sales with regard to Software Distribution Segment was 24.67%, whereas comparables selected by assessee showed margin of 6.37% as against which, after the order of DRP, the margins of assessee were (-) 30.53% and the mean margins of comparable companies worked out to 8.16%. He pointed out that the TPO had re-allocated and made an upward adjustment of ₹ 2.04 crores, which was scaled down by the DRP by giving partial relief and re-allocated the related party income from Software Distribution Segment to the Software Development Segment and the adjustment was reduced in Software Distribution Segment. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the TPO had not disturbed second segment i.e. Software Development Segment. It was further pointed out that where the assessee was being remunerated at cost plus basis while providing services to associated enterprises, there is no basis in not accepting arm's length price of international
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 8 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
transactions undertaken by the assessee. He stressed that the assessee was following a particular methodology, wherein income from four cost centres i.e. Sales & Marketing, Delivery Services, Client Care and other Overheads were considered under Software Distribution Segment. The expenses pertaining to Sales & Marketing, Delivery Services and Client Care cost centres as well as relevant Overheads of assessee were grouped with Software Distribution Segment of assessee since the services provided by personnel of assessee company were specifically included in the Services Agreement between assessee and its associated enterprise. Correspondingly, sales to associated enterprises comprising of cost of above mentioned cost centres plus 18% markup thereon were attributed to Software Distribution Segment. The assessee had prepared segmental analysis and had apportioned revenue in Row B i.e. the total of the cost of the Client Care, Delivery Services and Sales & Marketing cost centres pertaining to Software Distribution Segment, along with 18% markup as provided in the Services Agreement. The assessee has furnished tabulated details in this regard and has taken us through the said details. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the DRP had held that entirety of the cost incurred in Sales & Marketing and Delivery Services cost centres and 80% of cost in Client Care centre were attributable to assessee’s obligation under its License Agreement and therefore, not entitled to cost plus markup. The DRP held that only 20% of cost of Client Care cost centre was attributable to its obligation under the License Agreement and then only that portion was to be remunerated on the basis of cost plus 18% markup. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee first referred to the definition of ‘Services’ and also pointed out that the assessee and its associated enterprise were interpreting the Services
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 9 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Agreement to require the recharging of cost of Sales & Marketing, Client Care and Delivery Services cost centres to associated enterprises with 18% markup in the same way in assessment year 2006-07. The segmental analysis was also being drawn up in the same way since assessment year 2006-07. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the said segmental analysis has been accepted in assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. He further pointed out that in subsequent years i.e. in assessment year 2013-14, the detailed description of services were provided to the TPO and it was also pointed out that the assessee was being remunerated by its associated enterprises on cost plus 18% basis and the issue was examined in detail but even though the position of assessee was not accepted in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 but the TPO did not disturb the arm's length price for assessment year 2013-14. It was further stressed by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee that TPO’s order for assessment year 2013-14 was issued after examining the assessee’s policy of recharging its cost related to three captioned cost centres with mark up, even though the earlier order was available with him. The copy of said order has been filed on record. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard stressed that in view of rule of consistency, no TP adjustment is warranted in the hands of assessee as it has consistently followed the said method of charging cost of three centres with mark up to its associated enterprises, year after year and consequently, this cost plus revenue would have to be removed from the Software Development Segment and included in the Software Distribution Segment. Since the cost incurred on Sales & Marketing, Delivery Services and Client Care cost centres were attributable to Distribution Segment and the assessee had recovered these costs with 18%
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 10 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
mark up to its associated enterprises then the cost plus revenue related to the said cost should also be attributed to Distribution Segment.
Another point which was raised by learned Authorized Representative for the assessee was that the TPO had accepted assessee’s segmental bifurcation to arrive at the TP adjustment and the cost allocated to Software Distribution Segment have neither been challenged nor been disturbed by TPO. Accordingly, it was pointed out that international transactions pertaining to Software Distribution Segment of assessee was consistent with arm's length standards and the same merits to be accepted.
The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue in this regard placing reliance on the order of DRP with special reference to paras 2.11 to 2.28 pointed out that controversy in this regard was vis-à-vis allotment of revenue to Distribution Segment totaling ₹ 4.68 crores.
The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in rejoinder pointed out that DRP in para 2.15 at page 15 agrees that Sales & Marketing, Delivery Services and Client Care cost centres had some link with distribution. He further placed reliance on the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in Haworth (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.281/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009-10, order dated 30.10.2017.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee was engaged in providing software development services to its associated enterprises and was also providing software distribution services to
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 11 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
its associated enterprises. The TPO has accepted the margins of software development services. However, in respect of software distribution services, wherein the assessee was providing services to its associated enterprises on account of sales and marketing, delivery services, client care and other overheads; the segmental analysis was filed by the assessee and the expenses pertaining to four cost centers were grouped under the head ‘software distribution segment’. It may be pointed out herein itself that the said services of software distribution segment were provided consequent to the Services Agreement between the assessee and its associated enterprises. The assessee was charging cost plus 18% markup to its associated enterprises under the said software distribution segment. The TPO re-allocated the cost and made an upward adjustment of ₹ 2.04 crores, which was scaled down to ₹ 1.59 crores consequent to the directions of DRP after considering the correct average margins of comparable companies. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has taken us through the segmental details provided by the assessee and pointed out that there is no merit in the order of TPO in re-allocating the cost of four centres under the umbrella of software distribution segment. The main plea of assessee before us was that where the assessee was remunerated at cost plus basis for providing the services to its associated enterprises, then there is no merit in making any adjustment in the hands of assessee. The methodology followed by the assessee in re-allocating the cost in different heads has consistently been followed by the Department in earlier years and the same should have been applied for the year under consideration. In this regard, reference was made to assessment years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, wherein the segmental analysis provided by assessee has been accepted by the TPO/Assessing Officer. He also pointed out that in the
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 12 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
subsequent year i.e. in assessment year 2013-14 despite the order of Assessing Officer / TPO in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, re- allocation of cost has been carried out and the analysis filed by the assessee has been accepted as such. This was the position in assessment year 2013-14 despite the fact that in earlier years i.e. assessment years 2011-12 and 2012- 13, margins of assessee were re-allocated and upward adjustment on account of international transactions was proposed in the hands of assessee. So, following the principle of consistency, cost allocation method which has been regularly followed by the assessee in allocating the cost to the software distribution segment need not be disturbed and the margins declared by assessee in its transactions with its associated enterprises should be accepted as the said margins are higher than the margins of selected comparables.
Before parting, we may also refer to the order of Tribunal in Haworth (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), wherein also similar cost allocation was made and there was segregation of activities and the assessee was being remunerated at cost plus markup of 10%. In the facts of the said case, earlier the assessee was remunerated by way of commission @ 15%. However, the said methodology had undergone change, wherein the assessee was receiving cost plus margins from its associated enterprises. So, the question was whether merely because the assessee was receiving cost plus markup as against commission being received, it would not change the nature of activities/services carried on by the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that where the assessee had consistently from year to year followed a methodology of segregating cost of centres of sales & marketing, delivery services and client care and clubbing the same under the head ‘software distribution segment’,
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 13 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
which in turn, were re-charged by the assessee from its associated enterprises with markup, then such a methodology adopted merits to be accepted and the cost plus revenue would have to be removed from the software development segment. The assessee in this regard has furnished complete details in the written submissions, wherein as against revenue from services segment of ₹ 36,71,07,368/-, software distribution expenses totaling ₹ 26,66,10,844/- and after markup are ₹ 31,07,44,072/-; hence the assessee has earned margin of ₹ 5,63,63,296/- which works out to 18.14%. Where the TPO himself has considered the cost incurred on sales & marketing, delivery services and client care cost centres to be attributable to distribution segment and where the assessee had re-charged cost with 18% markup to its associated enterprises, then cost plus revenue related to the aforesaid cost should also be attributed to the distribution segment. It is not disputed that the TPO had accepted the assessee’s segmental bifurcation to arrive at TP adjustments. The cost allocated to software distribution segment had neither been challenged nor been disturbed by TPO, wherein the operating cost used by the TPO for margin computation of software distribution segment matches the total expenses in Row AA, column 2, matches operating cost used by TPO for margin computation of software distribution segment. Accordingly, no adjustment is warranted in the hands of assessee under the head ‘software distribution segment’. The arm's length price of software development segment is thus accepted to be at arm's length price. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer / TPO / DRP is deleted in the hands of assessee.
Now, coming to Revenue’s appeal relating to assessment year 2009-10, wherein the first issue raised is against order of DRP in including the concern
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 14 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
which was persistent loss making. The second issue which is raised by the Revenue is against re-computation of PLI of assessee for the software development segment and the software distribution segment and to make consequent changes to transfer pricing adjustments.
We have already decided the issue of transfer pricing adjustment, if any, to be made in the hands of assessee in the case of software distribution segment in appeal filed by assessee and have held that no such adjustment is to be made. Accordingly, the ground of appeal No.2 raised by Revenue does not survive.
Now, coming to the issue raised vide ground of appeal No.1. The perusal of order of DRP vis-à-vis objection No.3 i.e. rejection of Nouveau Global Ventures was that the TPO had rejected the said concern as it was loss making company. The findings of DRP in para 3.3 at page 20 had held that the finding of Tribunal is that the concern could not be rejected merely on account of having loss situation in the current year. Hence, the DRP directed the Assessing Officer / TPO to include the company Nouveau Global Ventures in the set of final comparable companies. This is the only direction given by DRP in respect of any of the comparables. The concern was excluded as it had losses in the said year but it was not persistent loss making concern and hence, we find no error in the directions of DRP to include the said concern in final set of comparables. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by Revenue is thus, dismissed.
Now, coming to the appeal of assessee in assessment year 2012-13.
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 15 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
The ground of appeal No.1 in assessment year 2012-13 raised by assessee is general in nature and hence, the same is dismissed.
Now, coming to the issue raised vide ground of appeal No.2 which is against transfer pricing adjustment made in software distribution segment of ₹ 2,76,14,492/-. The issue raised in grounds of appeal No.2.1 to 2.4 is similar to the issue raised by assessee in its appeal relating to assessment year 2011- 12 and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that our decision in assessment year 2011-12 would apply mutatis mutandis to assessment year 2012-13.
Another issue raised is against rejection of use of multiple years’ data which is decided by various decisions of Tribunal against the assessee. The data for the contemporaneous period is to be used and hence, there is no merit in the aforesaid ground of appeal raised by assessee.
Now, coming to ground of appeal No.3 which is against transfer pricing adjustment made in respect of software development expenses, which has two aspects; one is in respect of selection of comparables and the second is the treatment of Forex exchange fluctuations.
We first deal with second objection i.e. treatment of Forex exchange fluctuations. The Tribunal in Approva Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1788/PN/2013, relating to assessment year 2009-10, order dated 13.01.2015 had held that Forex exchange fluctuation should be treated as operating income for transfer pricing purposes. Accordingly, we hold that Forex
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 16 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
exchange fluctuation is to be held as operating in nature and to be included in the margins of software development segment for computing PLI of assessee.
Now, second question is with regard to selection of comparables. The TPO had finally selected 11 comparables as functionally comparable to the assessee and whose mean margin worked out to 24.52%; but in respect of four concerns i.e. Infobeans Systems Pvt. Ltd., Persistent Systems Ltd., Cybercom Datamatics Information Solution Ltd. and Cybermate Infotek Ltd., the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the said concerns were not functionally comparable being product companies. He relied on different decisions of the Pune Bench of Tribunal, wherein the said concerns have been excluded being functionally not comparable. The first reliance is placed on the decision in PubMatic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.655/PUN/2017, relating to assessment year 2012-13, order dated 09.03.2018, wherein Infobeans Systems Pvt. Ltd. has been rejected as being functionally not comparable. Another issue is that there is an extraordinary event during the year. Accordingly, we hold that Infobeans Systems Pvt. Ltd. is to be excluded from final set of comparables while benchmarking arm's length price of software development services undertaken by the assessee.
Now, coming to the next concern Persistent Systems Ltd. The said concern was also engaged in outsource software product development, wherein in the annual report itself it has been provided that revenue licensing of product is recognized on delivery of products.
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 17 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
The Bangalore Bench of Tribunal in 3DPLM Software Solutions Ltd. Vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No.1303/Bang/2012, relating to assessment year 2008-09, order dated 28.11.2013 have held that the concern Persistent Systems Ltd. company is to be omitted from final set of comparables as it was engaged in product development and product design, whereas the assessee was in software development services. Following the same, we direct exclusion of Persistent Systems Ltd. from final set of comparables.
The next concern is Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions Ltd., which is also not functionally comparable to the assessee, wherein it is engaged in providing consultancy and advisory services on information / internet systems and was also carrying on the business of development, testing, implementation, migration of home grown and other applications.
The Pune Bench of Tribunal in PubMatic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) had held the said company to be not comparable to a concern providing software development services. Similarly, Cybermate Infotek Ltd. has also been held to be not comparable to a concern providing software development services as it was product company, by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in PubMatic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra). Following the same parity of reasoning, we find merit in the plea of assessee and four concerns are to be excluded from final set of comparables. The Assessing Officer / TPO is directed to give consequential effect to the directions of Tribunal and delete adjustment made in respect of software development segment. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, partly allowed.
ITA Nos.581 & 628/PUN/2016 18 ITA No.786/PUN/2017 Triple Point Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is allowed, appeal of Revenue in assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal of assessee in assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 1st day of January, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 1st January, 2019. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : The Appellant; 1. The Respondent; 2. The DRP, Pune; 3. The DIT (TP/IT), Pune; 4. The DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune; 5. Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यापऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सचिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अचधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune