MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

4. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.30,85,965/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.68,81,145/- u/s 37 of the IT Act under the head Club expenses which were incurred for the business of the appellant.

6. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of excess remuneration of Rs.2,66,40,000/-paid to Managing Director, when the excess amount paid was realized in the A.Y.2018-19 and offered to tax.

7. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in double taxation of recovery of remuneration paid excess to Managing Director, in A.Υ. 2015-16 of Rs.3,75,18,000/-even though it was realized and offered to tax in the impugned assessment year.

8. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in mechanically making further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.44,07,000/- by invoking Rule 8D(2) and without establishing any approximate cause between such expenditure incurred and earning of tax-free income.

9. For that without prejudice to anything said herein above, the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts and did not appreciate that total disallowance u/s 14A as determined by AO Rs.64,35,109/-of cannot exceed the exempt income of Rs.33,59,625/-.

& 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd.

11. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and facts in not allowing the credit of TDS of Rs.10,20,11,960/-and TCS of Rs.43,630/-which was claimed in the return of income and also allowed in the draft assessment order passed on 30.06.2021.

12. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds or ground of appeal either before or at the time of appeal hearing.” (AY 2018-19)

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, impugned assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law.

2. The computation made and the pricing methodology adopted by the Learned Assessing Officer to determine the arms-length price and the purported transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1,40,38,728/-made in respect of Corporate Guarantees provided by the appellant is vitiated by an error in law and fact and is therefore liable to be deleted.

4. For that without prejudice to anything said herein above, the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts and not appreciating that total disallowance u/s 14A as assessed by AO of Rs.23,52,885/-cannot exceed exempt income of Rs.16,96,336/- 5. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and in facts in adding the disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D to the book profit computed u/s 115JB of the Act.

6. For that the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs. 61,99,971/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act for employees' contribution towards the provident fund beyond the due date prescribed in the Act, but paid before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act.

7. For that the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in adopting book profit u/s 115JB at Rs.135,57,95,708/- as per order u/s 143(1) instead of Rs.1,07,63,78,204/- by not considering adjustment of Rs. 27,94,17,504/- on account of deferred tax which has been certified by auditor.

8. For that the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in not granting relief u/s 90/90A of Rs. 83,59,942/- .

9. For that the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in computing book profit at Rs. 136,42,13,233/- and tax liability at Rs. 29,11,44,931/- 10. For that the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in computing proportionate profit/loss on purchase of green leaf at Rs (-)19,50,89,450 and business loss at Rs(-) 43,90,86,432.

11. For that the Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in computing interest u/s 234B at Rs 5,95,96,264/- and interest u/s 234C at Rs 1,02,41,996/-.

& 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds or ground of appeal either before or at the time of appeal hearing.”

3. Before us, the Ld. AR argued extensively with the help of paper books, written submissions and compendium of case laws. In light of these documents and arguments each of these appeals may be dealt with in respect to the grounds of appeals for both of the years under consideration.

ITA No. 454/Kol/2024 (AY 2017-18)

Ground No. 2

“8. The next question arose was the quantification of the fees required to be charged. On the strength of host of orders at the end of the ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Hyderabad Benches, it has been laid down that if an assessee has charged fees @0.5% on account of corporate guarantee provided by it, then such a fee would be considered at Arm's Length Price and no further adjustment is required to be made. The assessee by adopting this method has worked out the value of Arm's Length Price at Rs.24,73,927/- as against the fee of Rs.61,84,092/- determined by the TPO. The Id. 1st Appellate Authority has followed the orders of the ITAT Coordinate Benches for holding that fee is to be charged at 0.50% for providing corporate guarantee. This finding is discernible from paragraph no. 7 of the ld. CIT(Appeals)'s order extracted supra. After taking note of this finding, we do not wish to interfere in this finding because it is based on the decisions of the Coordinate Benches.” 4.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. DRP.

4.2 We have considered the rival submissions and we find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee due to the finding given for AY 2014- 15 by the ITAT (supra). Considering the order for AY 2014-15, we hold that the Corporate Guarantee has to be assessed @ 0.5% and not 1.82%. Consequently, the assessee succeeds on this ground of appeal.

5. Ground No. 3 pertains to the downward adjustment of purchase of goods at Rs. 2,98,142/-. On this issue, the Ld. AR pointed out that in para 3.2 at page 5 of the Ld. DRP’s order, it has been clearly mentioned that no claim u/s 80IE of the Act was presented in the computation of income. The Ld. AR pointed out that the claim under Chapter VIA is shown as zero. Furthermore, the Ld. DRP has discussed this issue on page 5 at para 3.2 in its order and stated that no deduction u/s 80IE of the Act has been claimed by the assessee and hence the Ld. DRP merely directed to verify this fact from the records and delete any adjustments made thereon. The Ld. AR has taken pains to point out the factual situation in this regard to demonstrate that no claim u/s 80IE of the Act has been tendered.

5.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

5.2 We have carefully considered the submissions and gone through the records. It is seen that, prima facie, no claim u/s 80IE of the Act has been tendered by the assessee and hence there should be no downward adjustment regarding the same. We find no fault with the directions given by the Ld. DRP. We merely reiterate the same for the Ld.AO to follow. Accordingly, the Ld. AO will verify the facts from the record and in case no claim u/s 80IE of the Act has been tendered, there will be no downward adjustment of Rs. 2,98,142/-. With these directions this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground No. 4

& 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd. 6.1 We have considered the submissions and we find that this issue has to be decided against the assessee following the judgment in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, this ground is dismissed.

Ground No. 5

7.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that the Ld. AO has recorded a finding to the extent that the assessee did not submit the copies of bills/invoices pertaining to the said expense and thereafter out of the claimed amount of Rs. 84,01,820/-, he found that only an amount of Rs. 15,20,675/- was found to be in the assessee’s name. It was only after this exercise that he disallowed Rs. 68,81,145/- u/s 37 of the Act.

7.2 We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. DRP in this regard. We find that the Ld. DRP has given the following directions:

“The AO is accordingly directed to allow the said expenditure after due verification that the membership of the club is in the name of the company. The ground is disposed of as above”

We find no fault in principle with these directions and consequently direct the Ld. AO to verify the expenses and allow all expenses which are billed to the assessee company. The assessee would do well to present the requisite details before the Ld. AO in this regard. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

“5.6 After considering the submissions of the appellant the Hon'ble DRP directed the Assessing Officer as follows:- "The submissions have been perused. The AO has referred to purported violation of order of Department of Corporate Affairs which is not relevant in determining the taxation of the relevant amount under the IT Act. The assessee has stated that the addition of the said sum amounts to double taxation of the same amount since the said sum has been offered to tax by it in FY 2017-18. The AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee from the financial statements, return of income and additional documents filed during remand proceedings, with specific reference to the claim of credit of the same under the head 'Key managerial personnel compensation'. If the claim is found correct, the addition shall be deleted. It shall be ensured that there is no double taxation of the same amount. The Grounds are disposed of as above. [Refer Page 11 Para 6.5 of DRP's Order dated 24.06.2022] 5.7 In the assessment order passed pursuant to the Hon'ble DRP's order the Assessing Officer observed as follows:- "On the basis of direction of Hon'ble DRP, the details furnished by the assessee in course of assessment proceedings and remand proceedings are verified. As the assessee has made excess payment of remuneration of Rs.266.40 lakhs to the Directors as stipulated under section 197 of the companies Act, 2013 and the assessee company has not provided any evidences such as application made to Central Gout for regularization of the said excess payment and/or proof of Central Government has regularized the excess payment made by the assessee. Since, the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of the excess payment made to Directors, therefore, an amount of Rs.2,66,40,000/- are disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the IT Act for under reporting of the income by misreporting the fact of the income is separately initiated. 5.8 The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by stating in the order that "the assessee company has not provided any evidence such as application made to Central Govt. for regularization of the said excess payment and/or proof of Central Govt. has regularized the excess payment made by the assessee" in spite of the direction of the Hon'ble DRP in Para 5 at Page 11 of the order that violation of order of the Department of Corporate Affairs is not relevant in determining the taxation of the relevant amount under the IT Act. It is prayed that in view of the submissions made above the addition be deleted in full.” 8.1 The Ld. DR relied on the order of Ld. AO.

& 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd. 8.2 We have carefully considered the submissions (as per extract supra) and also gone through the order of Ld. AO at pages 10-11 of his order. We find that the Ld. DRP’s directions have been mis-construed by the Ld. AO as he was to simply confine himself to the language of the said directions (para 6.5 at page 11 of the DRP’s order). Thus, we direct that the Ld. AO would confine himself to the claim of the assessee with respect to the treatment meted out to the impugned amount in the computation of income and the audited accounts. In case, the claim of the assessee is verified from these then there can be no addition on this account. In result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground No. 7

9.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP.

9.2 We have carefully considered the contention of both the Ld. AR/DR and have also gone through the orders of authorities below. It is seen that in para 7.4 at page 13 of the Ld. DRP’s order there is a clear direction that the fact of recovery as reflected in Notes 43(e)(i) to the audited accounts should be verified and in case the recovery is reflected in the said audited accounts then there can be no addition. Here also we find that the Ld. AO has travelled beyond the mandate given to him as per para 7.4 at page 13 of the Ld. DRP’s order. However, to make issues clear, we direct that in & 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd. case the said recovery is reflected in the audited accounts then the assessee would get relief with respect to the impugned amount as per the ground of appeal. The Ld. AO is directed accordingly. In result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground Nos. 8 & 9

10. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 pertain to disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 44,09,000/-. On this issue, the Ld. AR pointed out that the Ld. AO had actually made the disallowance of Rs. 64,35,109/- and had given the benefit of an amount of Rs. 20,28,109/- suo-moto disallowed by the assessee. The Ld. AR took us through the relevant findings of Ld. DRP on pages 13 to 18, mentioned in paras 8 to 8.6. The Ld. AR argued with the help of written submissions, relevant extracts from which deserve to be mentioned for reference:

“7.3 After considering the submissions of the appellant the Hon'ble DRP observed as follows:- The submissions have been examined. On the matter of recording of satisfaction or otherwise by the AO as contended by the assessee, in terms of the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 114C of the Act, the DRP can only confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed in the draft order. It cannot set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. The DRP does not have the power to give any direction on matters such as non-recording of satisfaction and consequent annulment/quashing of the variation proposed. It is also noted that at Para 5.7.3 of the draft assessment order, the AO has discussed the reasons for invoking Rule 8D. In view of the above, the objections of the assessee in this regard are rejected. 7.4 The Hon'ble DRP observed that CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 provides that for disallowance u/s 14A all expenditures relatable to exempt income, regardless of the intention with which the investments have been made or whether any such exempt income has been declared by the assessee in its relevant year. In the present case, the assessee has made investments which are capable of generating dividend income which is not includible (even if not included in the current year) in the total income, thus attracting the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Consequently, the computation under 115JB of the Act is also in order. The AO's action is not interfered with Grounds 9 and 10 are dismissed. 7.5 In the assessment order dated 29.07.2022 passed in pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble DRP the AO disallowed Rs.64,35,109/- u/s 14A and after deducting the disallowance made by the appellant itself in the return of income of Rs.20,28,109/- made a further disallowance of Rs.44,07,000/-. Similar addition of Rs.44,07,000/- was also made to the income computed u/s 115JB.

& 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd. 7.6 The Appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd (C. A 9606/2011 dated 09.09.2021] held that revenue's failure to prove nexus makes proportionate disallowance u/s 14A unsustainable. Therefore, without showing nexus of expenditure with the exempt income no disallowance can be made u/s 14A. In the alternate it is the submission that because of various judicial decisions, the total disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the exempt income of Rs.33,59,625/-. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Moderate Leasing and Capital Services Pvt. Ltd (ITA NO. 102/2018) against this judgment the SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. SLP (Civil) Diary No(s) 38584/2018 dated 19.11.2018. Recently on 27.07.2022, Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs TV Today Network Ltd in ITA 227/2022 has held relying on the decisions in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT) (2015) 61 taxmann.com 118 (Del.) and PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9893, that disallowance to be made under Section 14A cannot be in excess of the exempt income earned by the assessee.” 10.1 The Ld. DR relied on the findings given in the DRP’s and AO’s order.

10.2 The contention of Ld. AR/DR have been considered and we have also gone through the orders of authorities below in this regard. We have also carefully gone through the case laws relied on by the Ld. AR, copies of which have been filed in the compendium of case laws. It deserves to be held that the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D would apply in principle to the facts in this case. However, we are conscious of the fact that the exempt income is only to the tune of Rs. 33,59,625/- and in that respect any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot be more than the actual exempt income earned. Thus, following the case of TV Today Network Ltd. (supra) and other decisions mentioned in the submissions extracted (supra), we hold that the disallowance u/s 14A, read with Rule 8D, cannot be more than Rs. 33,59,625/-. Also, this disallowance would take into consideration, the amount that has already been disallowed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 20,28,109/-. We direct the Ld. AO to compute the disallowance accordingly. In light of this discussion, these grounds of the assessee are partly allowed.

Ground No. 10

& 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd. Right at the outset, the Ld. AR pointed out that there were several cases in favour of the assessee, wherein disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot be considered for working out books profits u/s 115JB of the Act. She relied on the case of Monsoon Star Securities reported in TMI 667 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and some others.

11.1 The Ld. DR relied on the finding given by the Ld. DRP on pages 17- 18 of the said order.

11.2 We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the documents before us, including the case laws relied on by the assessee. It has been brought to our notice that in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd, & CO No. 04/Kol/2024, dated 24.12.2024, where one of us was the author, that this issue has been decided in the following manner:

“5. Regarding the upward adjustment of disallowance computed under Section 14A of the Act for computing “book profit” under Section 115JB of the Act. It is seen that for A.Y. 2015-16 the matter has been decided against the assessee by the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order in (supra) as under: “32. The ld. counsel for the assessee, in this respect, has submitted that the provisions of section 115JB are complete code in itself and therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot tinker with the book profits. However, we do not find force in the aforesaid contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee in this respect. It is to be pointed out that as per Explanation 1(f), the book profit means the profit shown in the statement of profit and loss account as increased by the amount of expenditure relatable to the exempt income. The said amount of expenditure has already been ordered to be determined as per our observations made above while adjudicating the issue relating to the disallowance u/s 14A vide Ground No.10 of the revenue’s appeal. It has to be further noted that section 115JB in itself does not prescribe any procedure to calculate the expenditure relatable to exempt income earned by the assessee. The said provision has been separately and specifically placed in the Act u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, the book profits of the assessee are liable to be increased by the expenditure as Clause (f) of section 115JB of the Act. In view of this, it is directed that the book profits will be increased u/s 115JB of the Act by the disallowance calculated as per our directions given while adjudicating Ground No.10 of the revenue’s appeal. This ground of the revenue’s appeal is hereby allowed.” 5.1 It is seen that while coming to the conclusion as extracted above, the Hon'ble Bench was presumably not made aware of the ITAT Special Bench decision in the & 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd. case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported in 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi- Trib-SB). In this case it has been held that the computation u/s 115JB of the Act is to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Furthermore, a review of literature on this issue reveals that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. J.J. Glastronics Pvt. Ltd. reported in 446 ITR 712 (Kar) has specifically directed that the amount disallowed under Section 14A could not be added to net profit while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT (Central)-1, Vs. Moon Star Securities Trade and Finance Co. (P) Ltd. reported in 161 taxmann.com 158 as also directed that disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act could not be considered while computing MAT under Section 115JB of the Act. These authorities are merely cited as illustrations since there are other judicial pronouncements also on the subject, including an unreported judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court: CIT vs Jayshree Tea Limited [ITAT 47 of 2014 and GA 1501 of 2014, order dated 19.11.2014]. Respectfully following these judgements, and differing from the order of ITAT for AY 2015-16 (supra), the issue of computing for book profits after including additions made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, cannot be supported and thus, the action of Ld. CIT(A) as per his findings on page 45 of the impugned order is upheld and the specific ground of the revenue is dismissed.” Considering the finding given in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. (supra) we hold that this issue needs to be decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In result, this ground of the assessee is allowed.

Ground No. 11

12.1 The Ld. AR requested that suitable directions may be given to the Ld. AO for allowing credit of TDS/TCS to the assessee.

12.2 The Ld. DR had no objection in case this matter was to be remanded to the Ld.AO for verification.

12.3 We have considered the facts of this matter and we direct that the Ld.AO must allow credit of taxes collected or deducted at source which should be available in Form 26AS etc. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.

14. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 challenge the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules at Rs. 5,17,964/-. For this year, the AO is seen to have made a disallowance of Rs. 23,52,885/-. The Ld. DR has pointed out that the assessee made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 18,34,921/-. She also pointed out that the total exempt income was only to the tune of Rs. 16,96,336/-. Since on this issue also a finding has been given in para 10 to 10.2 (supra) through which it has been held that the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income. We find that in this case, the exempt income is Rs. 16,96,336/- and the assessee has already made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 18,34,921/- hence, we direct that the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules should be restricted to the amount disallowed by the assessee on its own, being Rs. 18,34,921/-. In result, the assessee succeeds with respect to these two grounds.

17. Ground No. 7 challenges computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs. 135,57,95,708/-, in place of Rs. 107,63,78,204/-, after adjustment of deferred tax Rs. 27,94,17,594/-. In this case, it has been pointed out by the Ld. AR that the adjustment of deferred tax of Rs. 27,94,17,594/- has not been allowed while working out the tax liability. The Ld. AR has requested that directions may be issued to the Ld. AO for recomputing the books profits, in line with the directions contained for section 14A disallowance and thereafter, working out the tax on the same. The Ld. DR did not have any objections in case suitable directions were to be issued to the Ld. AO in this regard.

17.1 We have considered the submissions in this regard and documents before us. We find that this matter deserves to be disposed of with the direction to the Ld.AO for correctly computing the book profit and in this regard, we expect that the assessee would file a computation from their side also, keeping in view the directions contained in this order and thereafter, the Ld. AO would work out the book profit and the taxes

“Details of the income earned, tax paid outside India, tax payable in India and tax relief sought was provided in the Schedule FSI of 1.T Return. (Copy enclosed). Since the Tax payable on this income in India is higher, the assessee had claimed tax relief u/s 90, however in the intimation u/s 143(1), without giving any reason, no deduction for taxes paid abroad was allowed to the Appellant. The DRP dismissed the objection of the appellant by observing that a conjoint reading sub-section 2 of Section 144C and sub Section (5) of the provisions shows that the DRP can issue direction only in respect of a variation the Assessing Officer has proposed to make in the draft assessment order. The adjustments made u/s 143(1) involves adjustments made by the Centralised Processing Cell while processing the return under the scheme for Centralised processing of returns. Such adjustment do not constitute variation within the meaning and scope of Sec. 144C of the Act as they have not been made by the Assessing Officer u/s 1343(3) of the Act by way of assessment. For this the assessee can file an application u/s 154 for amendment of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and dismissed the grounds of the appellant. The appellant submits that the observation of the DRP are not sustainable in law. The proceedings u/s 143(3) as well as u/s 144 before the DRP are continuation of assessment proceedings. The endeavor should be to assess the correct income of the appellant. If a mistake is pointed out by the appellant during the proceedings either u/s 143(3) or 144C it is the duty of the appropriate authority to rectify the mistake at the earliest point of time to save the appellant from unnecessary litigation and cost. Therefore, the appellant submits that the DRP miserably failed to address the genuine grievance of the appellant.” 18.1 The Ld. DR supported the findings given in the Ld. DRP’s order.

18.2 We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and we find considerable strength in the submission of Ld. AR to the extent that the benefit of relief u/s 90 of the Act is allowable to the assessee and should be granted by the Ld. AO, as claimed by the assessee, at the time of giving effect to this appellate order. In result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.

& 458/Kol/2022 Mecleod Russel India Ltd.

19.1 We have considered the documents before us and the averments of Ld. AR/DR. We direct the Ld. AO to adopt the correct figure of book profit and thereby compute the taxable income. In result, this ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

20.1 Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the documents before us, we direct the AO to compute the loss/profit accurately and adopt the figures arising after appeal effect is given to this adjudication order. In result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 17.06.2025