Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
These cross appeals have been filed against order dated 30th December 2016 (the date of order being 30th December 2016, is by virtue of Corrigendum dated 22nd February 2017, issued by the CIT(A)–57, Mumbai, for mentioning wrong date as “30/12/2017”, a copy of which is placed on record) passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by the learned CIT(A)–57, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2011–12.
IT(TP)A no.2468/Mum./2017 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2011–12
The assessee has raised this appeal on the following grounds:–
“1.1 That the CIT(A) as well as the TPO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in concluding that the service provided by your petitioners are high end service akin to Knowledge Process Outsourcing ('KPO') without appreciating that your petitioners are in fact providing low end services. 1.2 That the CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts in setting aside the order of the TPO with a direction asking your petitioners to select at least 5 companies having same nature of business. 1.3 The order passed by the CIT(A) has completely disregarded the findings in your petitioners own case by the ITAT for AY 2008.09, CIT(A) for AY 2009.10 and AY 2010.11 and the orders passed by the TPO for AY 2012.13 and AY 2013.14 wherein the fact that your petitioners are rendering services akin to a BPO services is duly accepted. Accordingly, the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no change in your petitioners functional profile during the year under review and hence treating your petitioner as falling under the category of KPO is unjustified and bad in law.
3 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
1.4 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a KPO would require advanced analytical abilities and deep domain expertise. Whereas the services rendered by your petitioners clearly falls within the ambit of data processing, updating legal data bases squarely falling within the ambit of ITES services. The staff employed by your petitioners are not required to apply their mind or to analyse, comment or give opinion on the case law. They are in a mechanical manner merely required to pick up the relevant five words, namely Cited // Discussed // criticized // distinguished // followed, as appearing in the judgment and put them in different treatment values which are provided as drop down in client tool. 1.5 The TPC in his order has given employee profile and observed that there are 400 lawyers (professionals) and 60 under graduates. However, the CIT(A) and the TPO has completely disregarded the functions performed by these employees including the fact that they are fresh Law graduates having very limited work experience and the function performed by them is in the nature of data processing work falling under the ambit of BPO/ITES services. 2.1 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the ITAT in your petitioners own case for AY 2008.09 had examined the functional profile of your petitioners and after examining the same had held that your petitioners are rendering low end services. The CIT(A) ought to have also appreciated that said order of the ITAT has been accepted by the tax department and not challenged before higher authorities. 2.2 That the CIT(A) ought to have confirmed the comparable selected by your petitioners in its transfer pricing study, particularly as these were also accepted by the TPO in his show cause notice dated 15th December 2014 including comparable namely Microland Ltd which was proposed to be rejected in the show cause on the false ground that it is a persistent loss making company.
3. That the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the petitioner has earned an operating profit to operating cost of 12.50 percent during the year under review whereas the associated enterprise to which the petitioners provide services has earned an operating profit to operating cost margin of -3.58 percent. Therefore, in- spite of the fact that the associated enterprise has made a loss your petitioners has made a profit following cost plus model which is indicative of the fact that the transaction is at arm's length price.
4 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
4. That the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the petitioners has complied with all the conditions stated in Section 92C(3) of the Income Tax Act and therefore the action of the CIT(A) / TPO to proceed to determine the arm's length price and make Transfer pricing adjustment is not warranted.
5. That the CIT(A) as well as the TPO erred in law as well as on the facts by not allowing adjustments for difference in risk undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10B of the Rules to account for difference in International transactions and the alleged comparable uncontrolled transactions. 6. That the CIT(A) as well as the TPO ought to have appreciated that your petitioners do not bear any marketing risk, exchange risk, quality risk, technology risk, credit risk, research and development risk, political risk etc. and accordingly ought to have been given the benefit of the risk adjustment. 7. That the CIT(A) as well as the TPO failed to appreciate that your petitioners are an STPI unit eligible for deduction under section 10A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the Assessing officer as well as the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there was no incentive for your assessee to shift profits outside India as the income of the assessee was eligible for exemption in India u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”
At the outset, learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that from the aforesaid grounds of appeal, following three issues arose for adjudication of this Bench:–
(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the services as provided by the assessee to its A.E. viz. Mindcrest Inc. ought to be regarded as low end services? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Acropetel Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. could be regarded as a comparable for the purposes of benchmarking the international transaction relating to provision of services? (c) If the Tribunal’s view with respect to issue (b) referred to above is negative, then, which are the comparables to be used for the purpose of benchmarking the said international transaction?
5 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
Insofar as the first issue is concerned, the same relates to the services as provided by the assessee to its A.E. viz. Mindcrest Inc., ought to have been regarded as low end services. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted as under:– “The Assessee is rendering services to Mindcrest Inc. in accordance with service agreement dated 01.04.2006 (see pages 116 to 128 of the paper book). The scope of services in the agreement is as per clause 3 at page 120 and 121 of the paper book. Though the scope of services as contemplated by this agreement is wide, the actual services rendered during the year are detailed later in this note. As per clause 5.1 of the said agreement the Assessee is entitled to mark-up of 12.50% on its operating cost. (see page 122 of the paper book). Mindcrest Inc. has entered into a Service agreement dated 12.09.2006 with Bloomberg L. P. (see pages 106 to 115 of the paper book). The services to be rendered under this agreement are referred to in Exhibit 'A' thereof, at page 113 of the paper book. The consideration, in so far as relevant for the current year is fixed at USD 12.60 per hour as per Exhibit-'B' to the said agreement (see page 114 of the paper book). Though, the scope of services as per the service agreement between the Assessee and Mindcrest Inc. is wide, it has actually provided services to Mindcrest Inc. in respect of the Bloomberg contract. The said services have been described in the Transfer Pricing Study Report at pages 49 and 50 of the paper book, wherein, it has explained that the necessary infrastructure required for this purpose is provided by Mindcrest Inc. Further, the Assessee’s task is restricted to giving treatment values to the case laws of the US Courts with respect to 'cited / discussed / criticized / distinguished / followed'. The assets employed and the risk profile thereof are also explained at pages 50 to 52 of the paper book. Apart from this, in the course of hearing before the TPO, the Assessee has explained the nature of services at pages 411 and then, at pages 412 to 426 of the paper book. At pages 416 and 417 it has explained its functions by way of a flow chart. At pages 418 to 426 it has given screenshot of the actual task to be performed by it. Therefore, the actual services which have been rendered do not involve any analytical skill. This is also shown by the fact that Bloomberg is paying Mindcreast Inc at the rate of USD
6 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
12.60 per hour. Further, the 400 law graduates engaged by it for that year are mostly freshers whose average salary is Rs. 28,000 per month. This arrangement has continued from assessment year 2007-08, the factual position with respect to characterisation of the services in each of the years is as under: For AY 2007-08, No transfer prising adjustment has been made in respect of these services; For AY 2008-09, though the TPO had held the services to be in the nature of knowledge process outsourcing or high end services, the Tribunal by its order dated 12.12.2014 (see pages 482 to 494 of the paper book) has upheld the Assessee’s contention that the services to be considered are those which are actually provided during the year under consideration and, considering the fees/consideration payable by Bloomberg the nature of services has been held to be low end services (see page 489 of the paper book). During the year under consideration as well the CIT(A) has accepted that the assessee has provided services only for the Bloomberg contract. Refer page 469 of the paper book. The order of the Tribunal has become final as no appeal against the same has been filed by the Revenue before the High Court. For AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, though the TPO continued with his stand as taken for AY 2008-09 the CIT(A) has following the Tribunal's order for the said year has held that the nature of services provided by the Assessee is low end. For AY 2009-10, the CIT(A)'s order is at pages 507 to 566 of the paper book, where the findings on the functional profile of the Assessee is at pages 558 and 559. Similarly, the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2010-11 is at pages 578 to 622 of the paper book, where the findings with respect to functional profile is at pages 617 and 618. The appellate order passed by the CIT(A) has become final as no appeal against the same has been filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal. AY 2011-12 is the current year under consideration for which the present appeal is involved. For AY 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 the TPO has himself accepted the Assessee’s scope of services as low end services, as no TP adjustment has been made in respect thereof. The said finding has been given by the TPO after thorough consideration. The relevant reference of page numbers from the paper book for each of the years are as summarised hereunder:
7 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
TP study Notice issued Assessee’s TPO’s A.Y. report by TPO response order Para–11 and Pages–641 to Page–716 to Page– 2012–13 12 at Page– 646 718 809 711 Para–3,4,5 Pages–830 to and 7 at Page–891 & Page– 2013–14 834 Page–888 & 892 926 889 Page–947 to Page–1006 to Page– 2014–15 Page–1003 951 1009 1013
Therefore, in all the earlier as well as later years, it is an accepted position that the Assessee is rendering low end services to Mindcrest Inc. For the year under consideration also there is no change in the factual scenario.” [Emphasis Supplied]
The learned Departmental Representative in the course of hearing has referred to a three-page document, which he has downloaded from the assessee’s website to urge that the services rendered by it are high end in nature. He brought to our notice the findings of the learned CIT(A) at Page–28 and 29 of the order. He 0su0bmitted that the compensation alone cannot be the sole criteria in determining the kind of services offered by the assessee, the services offered by the assessee involves application of mind. He vehemently argued that the findings of the Transfer Pricing Officer are proper and just.
In the rejoinder, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the downloaded document and the services described therein are those rendered by Mindcrest Inc. i.e., the 8 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
Assessee’s associated enterprise to third parties. The only customer of the Assessee is Mindcrest Inc. The related party transaction with Mindcrest Inc. in the Annual Accounts is referred to at page 19 of the paper book which exactly matches with the Gross Revenue reflected in the Profit and loss account at page 5 of the paper book. The only services rendered by the Assessee to Mindcrest Inc. are with respect to the Bloomberg contract. Further the present snap shot from the website describing the scope of service to be performed by Mindcrest Inc. has no relevance to the actual services rendered by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 which is more than 8 years ago.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We noticed that the service agreement entered by the assessee with its A.E. and providing services in respect of Bloomberg Contract. It involves and restricted to giving treatment values to the case law of the U.S. Courts with respect to “cited / discussed / criticized / distinguished / followed”. It is submitted that the service agreement contains lot of services but what is relevant is what is the actual services provided. The above agreement does not involve any analytical skill and this agreement is continued from the assessment year 2007–08. It is brought to our notice that in the assessment year 2008–09, the Transfer Pricing Officer treated these services as high end services and in appeal, the Co–ordinate Bench has decided in 9 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
favour of the assessee and adjudicated that it is low end based the type of services provided to Bloomberg and the Compensation received are of low end. In the assessment year 2009–10 and 2010– 11, the Transfer Pricing Officer continued with the treatment that these services are of high end, the learned CIT(A) in appeal adjudicated by relying on the findings of the Tribunal in assessment year 2008–09. The Revenue has not preferred any appeal before the ITAT. Further, it is brought to our notice that from the assessment year 2012–13 onwards, the Transfer Pricing Officer himself treated the services as low end. Considering the above facts on record and the issue under consideration is settled in favour of the assessee. Hence, we are inclined to accept the type of services provided by the assessee is low end. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
8. With regard to second issue whether Acropetel Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. could be regarded as a comparable for the purposes of benchmarking the international transaction relating to provision of services. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted as under:–
“If it is held that the services as rendered by the Assessee to Mindcrest Inc. are low end services, then, Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services cannot be regarded as functionally comparable to it. Apart from the year under consideration, TPO has adopted Acropetal Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. as its comparable only for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. In each of these years, the appellate authorities
10 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd. i.e., the Tribunal for AY 2008-09 and the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 have found the said two entities to be not comparable with it. The relevant references in the paper book are as under: In the current year also, the CIT(A) has found that the said two entities are not comparable with the Assessee which is at page 30 of the CIT(A)'s order (page 471 of the paper book). Apart from the above, Acropetal Technologies Ltd. is not functionally comparable to the assessee (see pages 380 to 382A of the paper book). It is also engaged in development of software as is clear from the work-in-progress reflected at page 383 and software development explained at pages 384 to 386 and onsite development explained at pages 387 to 390 of the paper book. It also does not satisfy employee cost filter as explained on page 391 to 393. The Tribunal for AY 2008.09 in assessees own case eliminated Acropetal Technologies Ltd on the above grounds of functionality including on software development work, onsite development, and inventories appearing as work in progress. Refer page 490 of the paper book. Similarly, Eclerx Services Ltd. is also functionally not comparable as shown by pages 405, 407, 409 and 410 of the paper book. It also does not satisfy the related party filter for which the working is provided at pages 397 to 401 of the paper book. The Tribunal for AY 2008.09 in assessees own case has eliminated Eclerx Services Ltd. Lastly Eclerx does not satisfy turnover criteria as, against the Assessee’s turnover of Rs.26 crores, the turnover of Eclerx Services Ltd. is Rs. 341.90 crore which is greater than the 10 times turnover of the assessee. There are various court rulings wherein 10 times turnover criteria is considered for eliminating comparables.”
The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer.
11 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that this issue has been decided by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Mindcrest (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.7289/Mum./2012, order dated 12th December 2014, for A.Y. 2008– 09, wherein the Bench held as under:–
“7.1. Let us now consider the company's used as comparables by the TPO to see whether they can be accepted or not:
1.
M/s. Acropetal Technologies (Seg.) A perusal of the Annual report of this company shows that it is engaged in the development of Computer Software. The company has also shown inventories as work-in-progress in its balance sheet and there is also increase/decrease in inventories in its profit and loss account and under the head employees related onsite development charges, there are onsite development expenses amounting to Rs. 31.45 crores. Considering these facts, it can be safely concluded that this company has totally different business model. It is also seen that this company does not pass the test of 75% export turnover which is used as a filter by the TPO himself. This company was also rejected by the Tribunal in wherein the Tribunal has held that the ratio of onsite to total employee related expenses of this company comes to 86.2%k, thus failing the onsite filter. The Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No. 1316/Bang/2010 in the case of Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. has observed that the functions performed by the Engineering Design Services segment of this company cannot be considered as comparable to the ITES/BPO functions performed by the assessee. Considering all these facts in totality, we direct for the exclusion of this company from the final list of comparables.
3. M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. A perusal of the business view of this company shows that this company is a leading Indian provider of Knowledge Process Outsourcing using a mix of custom designed processes and delivery teams. This company is providing services to the banking, finance, manufacturing, retail, travel and hospitality verticals. This company has dedicated knowledge management team which is responsible for overseeing training and process documentation systems, structures and policies. The Chairman in his message to 12 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd. the shareholders has observed that this company is a very different company with industries specialized services for meeting complex client needs. The Chairman admitted that sometimes this company is compared to a BPO or a IT offshoring company which infact this company is not. We further find that this company has acquired UK based Igentic Travel Solutions Ltd. on July 27th 2007 which is considered as an abnormal feature for the purpose accepting any company as comparable. The Tribunal, Special Bench, Mumbai in the case of Maersk Global Centres (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in has obsderved that this company is mainly engaged in providing high-end services involving specialized knowledge and domain expertise in the field and the same cannot be compared with companies which are mainly engaged in providing low-end services to the group concerns. The Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in ITA No. 1316/Bang/2010 in the case of Symphony Marketing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. has observed that this company has acquired a UK based company which has significantly contributed to the increase in the customer and revenue base of the company and finally held that this company cannot be regarded as a comparable for the reason that it was functionally different. Considering the abnormal features which exist during the year under consideration in this company, in the light of the fact and the decisions discussed hereinabove, we direct for the exclusion of this company from the list of comparables.
Having said all that and after rejecting the comparables used by the TPO/DRP, we find that the only comparable surviving is that of M/s. Allsec Technology Ltd. with OP/OC - 12.25%. Here we would like to mention that looking to the nature of the services provided by the assessee, no direct comparables are available. In such a situation, in our considered view, the undisputed comparables adopted by the TPO and accepted by the assessee in subsequent years should also be considered during the under consideration including M/s. Allsec Technology Ltd. only for the limited purpose of determining ALP for the year under consideration. 8.1. We accordingly direct the TPO to determine the arm's length price adopting the comparables used by him in the subsequent assessment years for the determination of the arm's length price of the international transaction entered into by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the matter to the file of the AO/TPO with the above direction.”
13 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd.
Since the issue arising out of the issue no.“b”, is covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A).
Insofar as third issue is concerned, it relates to if the Tribunal’s view with respect to second issue as referred to above is negative, then, which are the comparables to be used for the purpose of benchmarking the said international transaction. In this regard, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted various alternatives which are as under:–
“The comparables as taken by the Assessee in its TP study are referred to in paragraph 5.4 at page 3 of the TPO's order. Out of the six comparables referred to therein, in the show-cause notice dated 15.12.2014, the TPO sought to reject Microland Ltd., while accepting the others (see paragraph 5.5 at page 4 of the TPO's order). Also refer to show cause notice on page 133 of the paper book. Without complying with the principles of natural justice, and without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard the TPO has thereafter rejected all the six comparables in the TP order finally taking only Acropetel Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. Out of the said six comparables Jindal Intellicom Ltd., Micro Land Ltd., E4E Health Care Business Services Pvt. Ltd and Iris Business Services Ltd. have been accepted as comparables by the TPO for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 (see the list of the common comparables at page 1015 of the paper book). In fact, Microland Ltd. was accepted as comparables by the TPO in his order for AY 2009-10 (refer paper book page 506 for TPO's order). Similarly, Microland Ltd. and E4E Health Care Business Services Pvt. Ltd. were accepted as comparables by the TPO in his order for AY 2010-11 (refer paper book page 576 for TPO's order). These two comparables were accepted despite characterising the 14 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd. services rendered by the Assessee to Mindcrest Inc. as knowledge process outsourcing or high end services. For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal had set aside the issue relating to identification of comparables based on undisputed comparables adopted by the TPO and accepted by the assessee for subsequent assessment years (see paragraph 8 and 8.1 at page 494 of the paper book). In the order, giving effect to the Tribunal's order the final set of comparables as taken by the TPO is at page 1017 of the paper book. In the said order, the TPO himself has accepted Microland Ltd. and E4E Health Care Services Pvt. Ltd. as valid comparables. For AY 2008-09, though Microland Ltd. had disclosed negative margin, for AY 2010.11 Microland has positive margin of 0.32% and is therefore not a persistent loss maker (refer page 576 of paper book). Apart from the above, at page 1015 of the paper book the Assessee has identified common comparables for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Tribunal may be pleased to adopt either of the aforesaid list of comparables or a mix thereof for benchmarking the Assessee’s transaction relating to rendering of services to Mindcrest Inc.
The learned Departmental Representative agreed that the fresh Transfer Pricing has to be finalized and arm's length price to be determined.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In Para–7 above, we have deleted the comparables selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer. By deleting the comparability selected by the Transfer Pricing Officer, arm's length price adjustment needs to be determined for the transactions carried on by the assessee for this assessment year. Hence it needs fresh benchmarking. We noticed that the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the transactions of the assessee as low end in the subsequent assessment years and started benchmarking based on the relevant comparables. Accordingly, we
15 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd. direct the Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer to follow the benchmark pattern adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer in the assessment year 2012–13 onwards. Before benchmarking, we direct the Transfer Pricing Officer / Assessing Officer to give opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. ./2017 Revenue’s Appeal – A.Y. 2011–12
The Revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that TPO has acted without application of mind and total disregard for his past action in the matter and without examining the nature of business carried out by the assessee vis-à-vis the nature of the business carried out by the comparable companies though he has himself upheld the view of TPO that nature of service rendered by the assessee are akin to that of KPO.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO/ TPO to determine the ALP on the basis of average margin of five comparable to be furnished by the assessee without examining their suitability..
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the id. CIT(A) is not empowered to give direction to the AO/TPO u/s 251 of the I.T. Act 1961. The ld. CIT(A) has to only confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment.”
Gruond no.1, as aforesaid is the same issue which has been decided in assessee’s appeal being IT(TP)A no.2468/Mum./2017, vide
16 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd. issue no.(b), decided in Para–10 above wherein for the reasons stated there, the issue has been allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue.
The issue arising out of grounds no.2 and 3, relates to determination of arm's length price, we have already considered this issue in Para–9 of this order in which we have remitted the issue of determination of arm's length price to the Transfer Pricing Officer with the direction. Therefore, ground no.2, raised by the Revenue also allowed for statistical purpose.
With regard to ground no.3, the Revenue has raised this ground to question the power of the learned CIT(A) and as per section 251(1) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) has only power to confirm / reduce / enhance or annul the assessment and he does not have power to give direction. The direction given by the learned CIT(A) is to determine the arm's length price. The determination of arm's length price will not fall under the direction rather it will fall under confirmation of the assessment. We know that the set aside power of the learned CIT(A) is curtailed by the amendment in Finance Act, 2001. The direction given in the above order to the Transfer Pricing Officer will not fall under the category of direction to the Assessing Officer. As far as determination
17 M/s. Mindcrest (India) Ltd. of arm's length price, it can fall any of the category like reduce or enhancement power depending upon the final determination of arm's length price. Therefore, in our considered view, the power of the learned CIT(A) in arm's length price are similar to the power granted to the DRP and cannot be equated with regular assessment. Accordingly, ground no.3, raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Grounds no.4 and 5, being general in nature hence no separate adjudication is required.
In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.9.21