Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in Airline Entertainment Business, challenged final assessment orders for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, which involved Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustments for transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS on export commission paid to foreign agents. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) had upheld these adjustments and disallowance.
Held
The Tribunal ruled that export commission paid to foreign agents for sales, marketing, and customer support services rendered outside India is not taxable in India and thus not subject to TDS under section 40(a)(i). It directed the TPO to include three specific companies (Isummation Technologies, Sagar Soft, Yudiz Solution) as comparables for product development services and to exclude Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd. as a comparable for sales and marketing services for both assessment years. The issue of considering a belatedly filed revised return and granting credit for advance tax/TDS was remanded to the AO, contingent on the CBDT condoning the delay.
Key Issues
1. Whether export commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India is taxable in India and subject to TDS under section 40(a)(i). 2. Correctness of comparables chosen by the TPO for Arm's Length Price (ALP) determination for product development and sales & marketing services. 3. Consideration of belatedly filed revised return and credit for advance tax/TDS after a merger.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144C(13), 40(a)(i), 234A, 234B, 234C, 270A, 244A, 139(5), 119, 9(1)(vi), 94
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM I.T.A. No. 2461/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 2474/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)
Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. The ACIT—16(1), Ltd. 506, CTS No. 699, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ETC Plot No. A-8, Veera Desai Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058. PAN : AAACF5588K
Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol Mahajan & Ms. Hinal Shah, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR. Date of Hearing : 10.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 : O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These appeals were against the final order of assessment passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144(C)(13) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) by the ACIT Circle-16(1), Mumbai dated 29.07.2022 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 and by Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department dated
2 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. 26.07.2022 for AY 2018-19. The issues contended in both the appeals were common and therefore, these appeal were heard together and disposed of through this common order.
The assessee is a company engaged in Airline Entertainment Business. It acquires the license of Indian & Foreign Movies and songs for specified period and sells it to different airlines including foreign airlines for specified period. The issues contended by the assessee for both the AYs are tabulated as under: Issue AY 2017-18 AY 2018-19 The draft assessment order passed is Ground No.1 (1.1 - barred by limitation and 1.2) Disallowance of export commission for Ground No.2 (2.1 - non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 40(a)(i) & 2.2) T.P. Adjustment towards provision of Ground No. 3 ( 3.1 Ground No.1 product development and other IT Services & 3.2) T.P. Adjustment towards provision of sales Ground No.4 (4.1 Ground No.2 and marketing supporting services. & 4.2) & 3 Non-grant of credit for foreign tax credit Ground No.4 Levy of interest under section 234A, 234B Ground No.5 & 234C Initiating penalty proceedings under Ground No.5 Ground No.6 section 270A of the Act. Non scrutinizing the revised return of Ground No. 6 (6.1 income & 6.2) Non granting credit for advance tax and Ground No. 7 & 8 TDS Not granting interest under section 244A Ground No.9 on refund due
ITA.No. 2461/Mum/2022 –AY 2017-18
The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 declaring an income of Nil after setting off the brought forward
3 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. losses to the tune of Rs. 2,82,60,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee has international transaction with its Associated Enterprises (AE) a reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to compute the Arms Length Price (ALP) of such transaction. The TPO vide order dated 29.01.2021 proposed adjustments towards product development and IT services to the tune of Rs. 24,14,138/- and towards provision of sale and marketing services amounting to Rs. 6,62,392/-. The AO passed a draft assessment order incorporating the T.P. Adjustment. The AO also made a disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source on the Export Commission paid by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 80,79,581/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) who upheld the T.P. Adjustment as well as the disallowance made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP.
Ground No.1 is with regard to the legal issue that draft assessment order being time barred. The ld AR in this regard submitted that if the issues are considered on merits and held in favour of the assessee, this ground may be treated as not pressed.
Disallowance of export commission for non-deduction of tax at source u/s. 40(a)(i)
The assessee in its line of business appoints foreign agents to solicit business from foreign airlines. The assessee pays commission to the foreign agents on export orders procured by the agents and such commission is directly remitted to the Overseas Bank Account of the foreign agent. The
4 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. AO during the course of assessment called on the assessee to furnish the details of export commission paid during the year under consideration. The AO out of the total commission paid by the assessee held that the commission paid to foreign agents in Korea and Indonesia are to be disallowed for the reason that the assessee has not deducted tax at source on the export commission which as per the DTAA between India and these countries is to be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS). The AO held that as per the terms and condition of the agreement entered into by the assessee with the foreign agent in Korea and Indonesia, the agents are providing consultancy services which as per Article-12 of the DTAA is to be treated as FTS. The AO accordingly held that the export commission is taxable in India on which the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source and since the assessee has not deducted the tax the AO made a disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on the export commission paid to the foreign agents in Korea and Indonesia. The DRP confirmed the disallowance made by the AO.
The ld. AR submitted that the foreign agents of the assessee do not render any consultancy services to the assessee and are rendering sales, marketing and customer support services only. The ld. AR in this regard drew our attention to the recitals in the agreement entered into with the foreign agents as extracted in AO's order. The ld. AR further submitted that the income earned by the foreign agents by way of export commission are Business Income in the hands of the foreign agents and since these agents do not have any Permanent Establishment (PE) in India they are not taxable in India warranting any tax deduction at source. The ld. AR also submitted that the AO has treated the payment as consultancy services merely for the
5 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. reason that it is stated in the job description of the agreement without appreciating the actual nature of services rendered by the foreign agents to the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 (ITA No. 5262/Mum/2016 dated 20.06.2018). The ld. AR drew our attention to the facts that the AO in AY 2013-14 has made similar disallowance to the same commission agents namely Daniwirastri Gondowarsieo from Indonesia and Lim Gill Jaa from Korea and that the Tribunal has held that the commission paid to these two agents are not liable for tax deduction at source. The ld. AR accordingly prayed that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench for AY 2013-14.
The ld. DR on the other hand argued that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the assessee with the foreign agents consultancy services are part of the services rendered by the foreign agents. The ld. DR further submitted that as per the DTAA between India and Korea/Indonesia the definition of FTS includes consultancy services and therefore, the AO has correctly made the disallowance under section 40(a) (i) for non-deduction of TDS by the assessee.
We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. The AO treated the export commission paid to foreign agents in Korea and Indonesia as FTS for the reason that the terms of the agreement has mentioned consultancy services are part of the services rendered by the foreign agents and that the definition of FTS as per the DTAA between India and Korea / Indonesia includes consultancy services. On perusal of the agreement entered into by the assessee with these foreign agents we notice that these
6 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. foreign agents have been hired as agents for sales, marketing and customer support. Therefore, we see merit in the contention of the ld. AR that merely inclusion of consultancy services in the job description of the agreement cannot be the sole reason for holding that the foreign agents are rendering consultancy services to the assessee without examining the actual nature of services rendered by these foreign agents. We notice that the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2013-14 has considered the issue of taxability of export commission paid to the foreign agents and held that
“6. We have heard the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that both the issues have been considered by the the ITAT, Mumbai Bench "G" for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 in ITA Nos.247 & 248/Mum/2016 in order dated 26-02-2018 and decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue with the following observations:- "6. It is clear from the order of the CIT(A) that after applying various judicial pronouncements, he reached to the conclusion that payment to M/s. Columbus Travel Media Ltd., and Zagat Survey LLC cannot be treated as royalty u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act. Hence, assesses was not required to deduct tax u/s.94 of the Act, accordingly, no disallowance can be made u/s.40(a)(i)of the Act. 7. With regard to export commission paid to the foreign agents, the CIT(A) recorded a clear finding that commission has been paid for procuring export order and payment was made outside India. After relying on the CBDT Circular No.23 of 1969, 786 of 2000 and 7 of 2009, the CIT(A) held that no tax is deductible in respect of such export commission. The CIT(A) also relied on the decisions of ITAT Delhi in case of Welspring Universal, Madras High Court in case of Faizen Shoes (P) Ltd., which has been accepted by the Department and no SLP has been filed. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance made in respect of export commission paid to the foreign agents. 8. Nothing was brought on record by learned DR to persuade us to deviate from the findings and conclusion recorded by CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance made by the AO.
7 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd.
All the facts and circumstances in the A.Y.2012-13 are parimateria, following reasoning given hereinabove, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance made on account of payment made to foreign parties without deduction of tax at source." Consistent with the earlier decision of the Tribunal, we reject the grounds raised by the revenue.” 9. The Tribunal has given the finding that the export commission is not liable for tax deduction at source since the same is paid for procuring export order and payment was made outside India and therefore, there cannot be any disallowance under section 40(a)(i). The nature of export commission paid by the assessee for the year under consideration is similar and we also notice that the AO has made the disallowance of export commission to the same parties in Korea and Indonasia. Therefore in our view the ratio that the export commission for services rendered outside India is not taxable India is applicable for the year under consideration also. Further the revenue has not brought in any new material on record to deviate from the above view taken by the coordinate bench except that the job description in the agreement includes consultancy services. Accordingly, we hold that the export commission paid by the assessee towards sales, marketing and customer support services rendered outside India by the foreign agents cannot be treated as FTS and therefore no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is warranted for the reason that no tax is deducted at source. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
T.P. Adjustment towards provision of product development and other IT Services
8 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. 10. During the FY 2016-17 the assessee has provided product development and other I.T. Services to various AEs. The assessee considered operating profit / operating cost as the PLI and Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appreciate method for completing the ALP. In the T.P. Study report (TPSR) the assessee has chosen 14 comparables the average margin of each is in the range of 4.08% to 19%. Since the margin of the assessee is at 15% the assessee treated the price charge to be at Arm’s Length. The TPO rejected 7 comparables chosen by the assessee for the reason that the comparables are functionally not comparable to that of the assessee. Accordingly the AO recomputed the average margin of the balance 7 comparables to arrive at a median of 17.34% and made a T.P. Adjustments of Rs. 24,14,138/-. Though the assessee raised grounds pertaining to the exclusion of the 6 comparables of those excluded by TPO, during the course of hearing the ld AR presented arguments only with respect to inclusion of the following 3 comparables and submitted that if these comparables are included, the inclusion of the rest of the comparables will not be pressed.
(i) Isummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ii) Sagar Soft (India) Ltd. (iii) Yudiz Solution Pvt. Ltd.
The ld. AR submitted that the above three comparables are functionally similar to the functions of the assessee and therefore the TPO should not have excluded these comparables on the ground that they are functionally dissimilar. The ld. AR drew our attention to the financial statement of the comparables to submit that they are rendering services
9 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. similar to that of the assessee. The relevant extract from the submissions of the ld. AR are extracted below: Isummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Functionally Similar: • It is submitted that the comparable company is engaged in the business of software development (Page 566 of PB). The same can also be evidenced from the below extracts of the Annual report of the company: "Performance of the Company: …… The main operation of the Company is software development and there are no diversification in the business activities of the company during the financial year, further, the Directors of the Company are hopeful to achieve better results in the coming years." (Page 551 of PB) • It is further submitted that the Appellant has only a single primary business segment development (Page 573 of PB) software • Based on the above it is submitted that the company is functionally comparable to the Appellant and therefore be included in the list of comparables. Sagarsoft (India) Ltd. Functionally Similar: • It is submitted that the comparable company is engaged in the business of software development. As per Note-16 to Notes to the financial statements, the company has earned revenue from Software development only (Page 627 of PB). • Further, as per the National Industrial Classification (NIC) code also, the company is engaged in Software Development and Consultancy Services (Page 601 of PB). • Revenue from Software services consists primarily of revenue earned from services performed on a time and material basis. The related revenue is recognized as and when the services are performed (Page 618 of PB) • It is further submitted that the Appellant has only a single primary business segment development (Page 623 of PB)
10 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. • Based on the above it is submitted that the company is functionally comparable to the Appellant and therefore be included in the list of comparables. Yudiz Solution Pvt. Ltd. Functionally Similar: • It is submitted that the comparable company is engaged in the business of software development (Page 639-640 of PB). • Further, as per the Revenue from operations also, it is submitted that the Appellant has derived the same from IT services only. (Page 649 and 659 of PB) • Based on the above it is submitted that the company is functionally comparable to the Appellant and therefore be included in the list of comparables.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the TPO.
We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that Isummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of software development and from the perusal of the financial statement it is clear that there is only one business segment from which the company is deriving income i.e. software development. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the findings given by the TPO that the said company is not functionally comparable to the assessee. We also notice that the TPO while rejecting the comparable has relied on the data from website of the company and has not given any other material finding as to why the comparables is excluded. Therefore, we are not inclined to agree with the view of the TPO that Isummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd is to be excluded on functional dissimilarity ground.
11 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. 14. The TPO while excluding Sagar Soft India Ltd. has relied on the company website to hold that it is functionally dissimilar compared to the assessee. However, from the perusal of the annual accounts of a company we notice that the company is into software development and consultancy services and the revenue is primarily derived from rendering software services. Therefore, in our considered view the TPO is not correct in excluding the company without recording any other reason except functional dissimilarity.
While excluding Yudiz Solution Pvt. Ltd. the TPO once again relied on the company website and did not examine any other details before holding that the company is functionally dissimilar compared to the assessee. From the perusal of statement of accounts, we notice that the company is engaged in the business of software development and the revenue from operations is mainly derived from software development services. Therefore, we see no reason for excluding the company from the list of comparable.
According, we direct the TPO to include Isummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Sagar Soft (India) Ltd. & Yudiz Solution Pvt. Ltd. to the list of comparable and recomputed the ALP of the provision of product development and other IT Services accordingly.
Though the assessee raised grounds pertaining to the exclusion of the 6 comparables of those excluded by TPO, during the course of hearing the ld AR presented arguments only with respect to inclusion of the above 3 comparables and submitted that if these comparables are included, the inclusion of the rest of the comparables will not be pressed. Since we have
12 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. already directed the TPO to include these 3 comparables, the inclusion of the rest are dismissed as not pressed.
T.P. Adjustment towards provision of sales and marketing supporting services. 18. The assessee provided sales and marketing support services to its AEs and reported a margin of 10.49% as per the TPSR. The assessee has chosen five comparables with an average margin of 12% and accordingly the assessee considered that the transaction of providing sales and marketing support services is at Arms Length. The TPO out of five comparables excluded three comparables and recomputed the arithmetic mean margin of the balance to comparables at 25.18%. Accordingly, the TPO arrived at an adjustment of Rs. 6,62,392/-.
Out of the 2 comparables retained by the TPO, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to exclusion of Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd. from the final list of comparable chosen by the TPO. The ld. AR argued that –
“Functionally different • The Company is engaged in market research, advertising research, brand research and consumer research and other research services etc. (Page 2310 of PB) • The Company provides a host of services like Eye tracking, Mobile Analytics, Facial Recognition, Digital-Tracking Automated Audience measurement, Online Communities, Virtual Reality etc. The company offers a wide spectrum of innovative research tools and end-to-end research service offerings. (Page 2311, 2312, 2355 and 2314 of PB)
13 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. • These services are in the nature of research services and therefore considered as High-end services and functionally different from the marketing support services provided by the Appellant
Diversified Business operations and no segmental data available: • Further, the comparable operates in a single segment namely, market research services and therefore there are segmental details available which can be compared to the Appellant's MSS segment (Note 28 on Page 2375 of PB) • Thus, it is submitted that Majestic is engaged in providing high-end research and a diversified bucket of services wherein segmental data is not available.” 20. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee itself has included the above comparable in the TPSR and therefore, the assessee is not correct in now seeking exclusion on the ground that the said company is functionally dissimilar.
We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice from the perusal of the annual accounts of the company that the company is mainly into Research Services which are high-end services. Therefore, we see merit in the argument in the ld. AR that the company is not functionally comparable with the marketing and support services provided by the assessee to the AE. We therefore, direct the TPO to exclude Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd. from the list of comparable and recomputed the ALP accordingly.
The assessee in the grounds has contended the inclusion of all three comparables excluded by the TPO. However during the course of hearing
14 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. the Ld. AR did not press for the inclusions and therefore they are dismissed as not pressed.
Ground No.5 with regard to initiation of penalty proceedings is pre- mature and does not warrant a separate adjudication.
Ground No. 6 pertains to the AO not considering the revised return filed by the assessee while arriving at the assessed income of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee company has merged with Fairdeal Multi Media Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 22.09.2017 and therefore, filed their revised return on 17.02.2021 of the merged entity. The ld. AR submitted that the petition for condonation of delay in filing the revised return is made before the CBDT under section 119 and the same is pending.
The ld. DR submitted that since the assessee has filed the revised return beyond the time limit specified under section 139(5) the AO has not considered the income declared in the revised return for the purpose of assessment. The ld. DR submitted the report from the AO stating that the condonation petition filed by the assessee is yet to be decided by the CBDT and therefore the AO has correctly not considered the revised return. The ld. DR further submitted that until the delay is condoned by CBDT the revised return is not effective and therefore there is no infirmity in the order of the AO.
We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. From the report of the AO, we notice that the assessee has made an application for condonation of delay before CBDT for filing the revised return belatedly and that the assessee is yet to receive order from the CBDT condoning the delay.
15 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. Therefore we see merit in the contention of the Ld DR that the revised return cannot be considered until the delay is condoned. Accordingly we remit the issue back to the AO with a direction to consider the income declared in revised return of income once the order condoning the delay received from CBDT while re-computing the income as per the directions in this order.
Ground No. 7 & 8 pertain to non-granting of credit for advance tax and TDS. We notice that the AO has not given the credit for the reason that the advance tax and the TDS are paid in the name of merged entity. Since the belated return filed by the assessee including the income and taxes of the merged entity is pending for condonation of delay by CBDT, we direct the AO to consider the advance tax and TDS paid in the name of merged entity post the delay being condoned by CBDT whereby the revised return in which such claim is made effective. It is ordered accordingly.
Ground No.9 with regard to interest under section 244A is consequential not warranting any separate adjudication.
ITA.No.2474/Mum/2022 – AY 2018-19
For AY 2018-19, out of the exclusions done by the TPO in the adjustment done towards provision of product development and other IT Services, ld AR during the course hearing pressed for Inclusion of Isummation Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Sagar Soft (India) Ltd and Yudiz Solution Pvt. Ltd. In this regard we notice that the TPO has excluded these comparables on the ground that they are functionally dissimilar compared to assessee. We have while adjudicating the inclusion of the same comparables for AY 2017-18, have held that the TPO is not correct in excluding these
16 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. companies based on a website data and stating that these are functionally dissimilar. Since the basis on which these comparables are excluded are identical and given that there is no change in the functions of the assessee as well as the comparables for the year AY 2018-19, in our considered view, our decision with regard to these comparables in AY 2017-18 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2018-19 also. Accordingly we direct the TPO to include these 3 comparables and re-compute the ALP of provision of product development and other IT Services. It is ordered accordingly.
For AY 2018-19, the TPO while making adjustment towards provision of sales and marketing supporting services retained Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd as a comparable. The ld AR raised contentions with regard to the exclusion of the said comparable and submitted that if the same is excluded the rest of the inclusion / exclusions contended will not be pressed. For AY 2017-18 we have directed the exclusion of Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd, for the reason that the company is into high end research and therefore functionally not comparable to the assessee. Given that there is no change to the functions of the assessee and Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd., we are of the view that our decision rendered for AY 2017-18 with regard to exclusion of Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd., mutatis mudandis applicable for the year under consideration also. Therefore we direct the TPO to exclude Majestic Research Services and Solutions Ltd., from the list of comparables and recomputed the ALP accordingly.
17 ITA No. 2461 & 2474/Mum/2022 Western Outdoor Interactive Pvt. Ltd. 31. With regard to non-granting of credit towards Foreign Tax paid contended through Ground 4, we direct the AO to consider the submissions of the assessee and allow the credit in accordance with law.
Ground No.5 with regard to levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C are consequential and Ground No.6 pertains to initiation of penalty proceedings which is premature. Therefore these grounds do not warrant any separate adjudication.
In result, ITA No. 2461/Mum/2022 for AY 2017-18 and ITA No. 2474/Mum/2022 for AY 2018-19 are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16-07-2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (MS. PADMAVATHY S) Judicial Member Accountant Member *SK, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai