PARVEZ MUKHTAR KHAN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal, for assessment years 2019-

2020 arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in

short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/

250/2023-24/1062985607(1), dated 20.03.2024, in

proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

“the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

grounds in the instant appeal :

2 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred by not giving sufficient &

reasonable opportunity for representing && making further

legal submissions, the learned CIT(A) had given one single

notice & after receiving written submission, has

immediately passed the Order without providing any

further opportunity of making additional submissions,

which were essential & necessary. The Appellant was

debarred from making personal representation through

Video Conferencing as specifically requested for & the

principles of fair representation have not been allowed &

the learned CIT(A) passed the Order hurriedly for no

reason.

amount of Rs.50,72,750/- by treating it as Profits in lieu of

Salary, he has erred in understanding the meaning of

Compensation in reference to Sec.17(3)(i) as explained by

various High Courts & has failed to apply the established

legal position of appellant's entitlement to receive &

employer's Obligation to pay, are fundamental to hold the

said amounts as compensation. He has erred in treating

the said Capital Receipt amounts as Profits in lieu of

Salary u/s 17(3), ignoring Explanation 3 of Sec. 17(2) &

Rule 3 sub-clause (10) Explanation ()().

3 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred by not taking a balanced

view by differing on the nature of the payments received

from the employer, he erred in not accepting the amounts

of Rs. 59,72,750/- as Capital Receipts in the same spirit

as he has accepted the Conditional Incentives as Capital

Receipts.

understanding the Financial Scheme Document and failed

to arrive at the correct interpretation and the underlying

intentions of the Co. towards the appellant and the need

for evolving the said scheme of pre-mature retirement of all

employees permanently.

Appellant's stand of the said amount received, being

Capital Receipts in nature, irrespective of the same being

obligatory or not on part of the Co. & has erred in not

considering that the payments were made de hors any

contract of employment & was paid voluntarily & towards

loss of source of income for premature termination of

Appellant's employment & the Appellant was legally

entitled to change the nature of his claim form Profits in

lieu of Salary to the same being Capital Receipts in the

course of assessment proceedings.

4 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 6. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confining the AO's

assessment which has been completed on an unbalanced

assessment, impartial of any assumptions & presumption,

he is required to co-relate the factual parameters & the

legal framework in tandem & decide by his wisdom &

uphold rule of law, as he is being a quasi-judicial officer.

the Grounds of the Appeal, before or during hearing of the

Appeal.”

invites our apt adjudication herein is that of correctness of

both the learned lower authorities action assessing this

taxpayer for Rs.84,93,920/- there by withdrawing his

deduction claim u/sec.89 of the Act. There is hardly any

dispute between the parties that this assessee was a salaried

employee with M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India (P) Ltd., in which

the latter decided to close manufacturing with the intention to

get out of the long term losses. The said employer appears to

have floated a golden hands-shake scheme namely “Pfizer

Healthcare India Ltd., Financial Scheme for employees at

Aurangabad 2019” which followed payment of compensation of

Rs.77,41,038/- to the taxpayer. And it is this sum received in

the relevant previous year which stands assessed in assessee’s

hands as his taxable income under section 89 of the Act.

5 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 4. Both the learned representatives reiterated their

respective stands against and in support of the impugned

disallowance. It further transpires that this tribunal’s recent

coordinate bench’s order in ITA.No.117/PUN./2024 Ashok

Raghunathrao Kulkarni vs. ITO, Aurangabad has already

decided the very issue in assessee’s favour and against the

department as follows :

“3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is an

individual and filed his return of income on 02.08.2019

declaring total income of Rs.61,10,370/-. The case was

selected for compulsory scrutiny under the E-assessment

Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:

S.No. Issues

i. Refund Claim

ii. Relief for Arrear Salary or Advance Salary

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were

issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the

assessee submitted details as called for by the Assessing

Officer from time to time.

Assessing Officer noted from the ITR that the assessee has

shown salary income of Rs.63,56,239/- in the ITR. Out of this,

an amount of Rs.57,12,674/- was shown as salary received in

6 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 advance in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule

21A and had claimed tax relief u/s 89 of the Act for the amount

of Rs.18,74,899/-. It was submitted that the assessee is a

salaried employee who had worked with M/s. Pfizer Healthcare

India Pvt. Ltd. during the assessment year 2019-20. Due to the

United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) Norms,

the said plant had been closed down. On account of loss of

income / service due to that the said company had given capital

receipts / payments to the employees to those who were

affected, depending on the balance service left on their service

records. This is the amount the assessee had received from his

employer for loss of service. Its calculations were done by the

employer on the basis of service balance as per his service

records.

Scheme for employees at Aurangabad, 2019 issued from the

employer of the assessee i.e. Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd.,

the Assessing Officer noted the following declarations: • Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited had decided

to cease manufacturing in its plant located at Plot No.

L-8 (part) & L-9, Gut NOs. 36, 37, 38, MIDC, Waluj,

Aurangabad-431136, India with the intention to exit

the Plant due to significant long term loss of product

demand.

7 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024

• The Company is desirous of providing a beneficial

settlement to all permanent employees of the Plant.

Towards this objective, the Company has taken a

decision to offer a financial scheme to its permanent

employees at the Plant, on the terms and conditions

set out below.

• The Scheme (as hereinafter defined) is purely

voluntary and it is for each such employee to decide

whether or not to opt for the same.

• In the event the employees opt to retire voluntarily

from their employment with the Company in

accordance with the Scheme, their last day of

employment with the company will be February 8,

2019, (unless mutually agreed otherwise in writing)

and they will be paid an attractive financial package

on the terms and conditions set out below. Those

employees who do not opt for the Scheme (as here in

after defined), will be paid only statutory or

contractual dues payable on cessation of

employment, provided they are eligible for the same.

• Employees desirous of opting for this Scheme and

whose Applications have been accepted by the

Management will be informed in writing or by

8 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 electronic mail about the acceptance of their

Applications and the concerned Employee will be

deemed to have voluntarily retired on February 8,

2019, unless mutually agreed otherwise.

• If the Application has been accepted by the

Management, the Employee will be paid

compensation equivalent to the lesser of the

following, subject to a minimum of 6(six) months'

Wages drawn by the Employee…..

………………………. • In addition to the Compensation as provided under

Clause 5 above, each Employee whose signed

Application has been accepted by the Company will

also be entitled to incentives based on certain

conditions ................................”

Rs.57,12,674, details of which are as under :

Ex-gratia (Severance pay) [Subject to a minimum of 6 (six months Rs.41,76,438/- Wages drawn by the Employee: (i) 75 days wages for every year of service with the Company, Or

Wages for the remaining months of service with the Company till the attainment of retirement age of 58 years.] (ii) Other Payments (Early Bird = Rs.7 Rs.12,00,000/- Lakh and Group participation Incentives =

9 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 Rs.5 Lakh) (iii) Notice Period Payout (3 months x Rs.2,39,866.80/- monthly gross considered for scheme calculation) (iv) Medical Reimbursement Rs.404.11/- (v) Bonus for Current Year FY 2018-19 (till Rs.14,400/- date of relieving) (vi) EL Encashment Rs.60,866/- (vii) Part Salary for the month of Relieving Rs.20,698.90/- i.e. Feb 2019 Total Rs.57,12,673.79/ -

assessee has received compensation and other dues totaling to

Rs.57,12,674/- which includes Ex-gratia (Severance pay),

incentives, EL encashment, Notice pay, etc. Rejecting the

various explanations given by the assessee and observing that

the Ex-gratia payment is presented to an individual by an

organization and is viewed as voluntary because the employer

making the payment is not obligated to compensate the

individual and therefore, it has to be treated as additional

compensation / severance pay received by an employee from

employer and therefore, is taxable as Profits in lieu of salary

u/s 17(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore,

disallowed the tax relief claimed u/s 89 of the Act of

Rs.18,74,899/-.

assessee vide its submissions dated 16.08.2021 had

withdrawn the claim u/s 89 of the Act made in the ITR and

computation and alternatively and protectively requested the

10 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 Assessing Officer to treat and consider all these amounts as

‘capital receipts’ as they were received as ex-gratia and

severance pay in lieu of termination of premature retirement and

permanent loss of source of income. The decision of the Mumbai

Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Ajay B Ghose vs. DCIT,

CPC, Bangalore for assessment year 2017-18 vide appeal in

ITA No.1720/Mum/2021, dated 15.11.2021 was also relied

upon.

contention of the assessee and upheld the action of the

Assessing Officer by observing as under:

“4.3.2 In this case, the AO observed that the Preamble

of Financial scheme for employees at Aurangabad 2019

(scheme) issued from the employer Pfizer Healthcare India

P ltd. that it is not a voluntary retirement in normal course

but a scheme to retire voluntary from their employment in

order to provide a beneficial settlement to its permanent

employees of the plant. It is on the employee to decide

whether or not to opt for the same. Moreover, the payment

of exgratia (severance pay) under the scheme together with

all other dues mentioned therein is in full and final

settlement of all the statutory and contractual dues owned

to the assessee in connection with his employment with

the company and the cessation thereof. It is also

11 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 mentioned in the preamble of Financial scheme for

employees at Auragabad 2019 (scheme) issued from the

employer Pfizer Healthcare India P Ltd. that those

employees who opt for voluntary retirement under the

Scheme will not be entitled to any compensation or notice

pay under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 as their cessation from the employment constitutes

resignation and does not constitute retrenchment or

termination of employment by the company.

4.3.3 In the appellant's case, the company has issued

Form 16 to the appellant showing the compensation

including other due payables under salary as per

provisions contained u/s. 17(1) and tax deducted at

source accordingly, which shows that the nature of pay an

allowance received by the appellant from his employer on

relieving the job, is in difference nature as shown by the

appellant in the !TR for A.Y. 2019-20 and in Form 10E. The

payment received by the appellant in the nature of Ex

gratia, notice pay, other payments (early bird), group

participation incentives, medical reimbursement, bonus for

current year, EL encashment and part salary for the month

of relieving is taxable in the hands of the employee as

profit in lieu of salary under section 17(3) of the I T Act and

12 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 is taxable on due basis or receipt basis, whichever is

earlier.

4.3.4 The case laws referred by the appellant are not

relevant in the case of the appellant. In the present case,

as per the scheme, it is not a voluntary retirement in

normal course but a scheme to retire voluntary from their

employment in order to provide a beneficial settlement. It is

on the employee to decide whether or not to opt for the

same.

4.3.5 In view of the above reasons, I have no reason to

interfere with the findings of the Assessing Officer and no

reason to hold that the AO was wrong in rejecting the

claim of the appellant made under sec. 89 of the I T Act.

Therefore, the disallowance of tax relief made by the AO

are confirmed. All grounds raised by the appellant are

dismissed.”

is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Scheme for the employees at Aurangabad of Pfizer Healthcare

India Pvt. Ltd., copy of which is placed at pages 73 to 83 of the

paper book and drew the attention of the Bench to the following

clauses:

13 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024

“I. PREAMBLE

(i) Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited (the

"Company") has decided to cease manufacturing in

its plant located at Plot No L-8 (part), L-9 & Gut Nos

36, 37, 38, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad - 431136

("Plant") with the intention to exit the Plant due to

significant long term loss of product demand.

(ii) The above decision is bona fide and has been made

after an extensive and careful evaluation. The

employees of the Plant have been informed of this

decision and reasons thereof.

(iii) The Company is desirous of providing a beneficial

settlement to all permanent employees of the Plant.

Towards this objective, the Company has taken a

decision to offer a financial scheme to its permanent

employees at the Plant, on the terms and conditions

set out below. The Scheme (as hereinafter defined) is

purely voluntary and it is for each such employee to

decide whether or not to opt for the same.

(iv) In the event the employees opt to retire voluntarily

from their employment with the Company in

accordance with the Scheme, their last day of

employment with the Company will be February 8,

14 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 2019, (unless mutually agreed otherwise in writing)

and they will be paid an attractive financial

package on the terms and conditions set out below.

Those employees who do not opt for the Scheme (as

hereinafter defined), will be paid only statutory or

contractual dues payable on cessation of

employment, provided they are eligible for the same.”

the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the

Bench to the sub-clause (viii) of the same, which reads as

under:

“(viii) All Employees who opt for voluntary retirement under

the Scheme will not be entitled to any compensation or

notice pay under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 as their cessation from the employment

constitutes “resignation” and does not constitute

“retrenchment” or “termination of employment” by the

Company”.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the same are not

applicable to the facts of the assessee, which reads as under:

“17(1)….

17(2)….

(3) "profits in lieu of salary" includes—

15 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 (i) the amount of any compensation due to or received

by an assessee from his employer or former employer

at or in connection with the termination of his

employment or the modification of the terms and

conditions relating thereto;

(ii) any payment (other than any payment referred to in

clause (10), clause (10A), clause (10B), clause (11),

clause (12), clause (13) or clause (13A) of section 10),

due to or received by an assessee from an employer or

a former employer or from a provident or other fund, to

the extent to which it does not consist of contributions

by the assessee or interest on such contributions or

any sum received under a Keyman insurance policy

including the sum allocated by way of bonus on such

policy.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, the

expression "Keyman insurance policy" shall have the

meaning assigned to it in clause (10D) of section 10;

(iii) any amount due to or received, whether in lump sum

or otherwise, by any assessee from any person—

(A) before his joining any employment with that

person; or

(B) after cessation of his employment with that

person.”

16 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 15. So far as sub-clause (ii) is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for

the assessee referring to the various decisions submitted that

this clause is also not applicable. He submitted that the amount

received by the assessee is not a compensation but on account

of loss of pay. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble High

Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose (1987)

165 ITR 90 (Cal), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has

held that where the conditions of service clearly stipulated that

the assessee’s services could be terminated at any time on

giving three months notice and there was no obligation on the

employer to pay anything to the assessee in connection with the

termination, payment made ex-gratia, therefore, totally

voluntary and not compensation which implies some sort of

obligation to pay and cannot be taxed as profits in lieu of salary

within meaning of section 17(3) of the Act. Referring to the copy

of letter of probation dated 20.07.2020 he drew the attention of

the Bench to column 14 of the same which reads as under:

“14. Notice Period : During the period of probation,

your employment can be

terminated without any notice

or assigning any reason thereof

on either side. On confirmation

your employment can be

17 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 terminated by one month’s

notice in writing or pay in lieu

thereof on either side.”

High Court of Calcutta cited (supra) is squarely applicable to the

assessee.

of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahadev

Vasant Dhangekar vs. ACIT (2023) 149 taxmann.com 170

(Pune-Trib.) submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has

held that where the assessee had received Rs.47.21 lacs from

the erstwhile company as ex-gratia and letter has been issued

by the employer which clearly stated that payment of amount

has been made voluntarily to the assessee and was not

compensation without establishing letter as non-genuine or

without examining sanctity of payment made simply invoking

provisions of section 17(3)(iii) for making addition was not

justified.

in the case of ITO vs. Avirook Sen (2024) 161 taxmann.com 462

(Delhi – Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said

decision has held that where the assessee has received certain

amounts as lump sum amount after his termination from the

18 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 service as a settlement out of court with his employer and said

payment was voluntary in nature without there being any

obligation on part of employer to pay further amount to

assessee in terms of any service rule, such payment would not

amount to compensation in terms of section 17(3)(i).

compilation, he submitted that the amount received by the

assessee cannot be termed as compensation in terms of section

17(3)(i).

the following employees where they have also received similar

amounts from Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., the said

amounts have not been added by the respective AOs in the

reopening assessments treating the same as capital in nature.

Sr. No. Particulars PAN Date of Order 1 Sharad D. Magar ASHPM1986C 28.3.2024 2 Dnyaneshwar ABCPW4100G 26.3.2024 Waghmare 3 Ajay K. Agrawal AJJPA2079F 21.3.2024 4 Kalidas T Deshmukh AKTPD8174D 10.3.2024 5 Bhimraj S Kahandal ABRPK4860E 9.3.2024 6 Nandkishor Khairnar BFEPK6767A 9.3.2024 7 Narendrakumar P BALPD6728C 4.3.2024 Desale 8 Ramesh S. Sonavne CEAPS7400G 21.2.2024 9 Sanjay N. Karale AAFPK0335H 16.2.2024 10 Ravindra W. ABDPA1341G 13.2.2024

19 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 Aherwal 11 AG Deshmane AVLPD8364J 10.11.2023

justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.57,12,673/-.

CIT(A) / NFAC.

sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld.

CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed by both the sides. We

have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We

find the Assessing Officer in the instant case rejected the claim

of relief u/s 89 of the Act of Rs.18,74,899/- on income of

Rs.57,12,674/- treating the same as income u/s 17(3) of the

Act. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the

Assessing Officer, reasons of which are already reproduced in

the preceding paragraphs. The CIT(A) / NFAC also rejected the

alternate claim of the assessee that such amount being a capital

receipt cannot be brought to tax. It is the submission of the Ld.

Counsel for the assessee that in case of various other

employees who have received similar compensation, the same

has been accepted as capital receipt by the respective AOs in re-

assessment proceedings and no addition has been made.

Further, various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in similarly

placed employees have also treated such compensation received

20 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 on termination of service as capital in nature and not falling u/s

17(3) of the Act.

Magar, who also resigned voluntarily from service of Pfizer

Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad has accepted the

compensation received at Rs.30,49,176/- as capital in nature

by observing as under:

“Brief facts of the case:

The assessee, Shri Sharad Daulatrao Magar, having PAN:

ASHPM1986C, an salaried individual, had filed ITR-1 u/s.

139(1) for AY 2019-20 on 29.07.2019 declaring total

income of Rs.32,03,150/-. Further, Rs.35,54,140/- was

shown as Gross Salary. The assessee was employee of

M/s Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad during

FY2018-19. The company launched VRS beneficial to the

employees on planned closure of its unit. The assessee

voluntarily resigned from service w.e.f 08.02.2019 and

received compensation and out of that compensation he

claimed Rs.30,49,176/- being salary claimed in Advance

as exempt u/s 89 from taxation in his ITR u/s 139(1) of

the Act.

……..

examined. As the assessee has submitted corroborative

21 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 and binding judicial pronouncements in support of his

claim that the amount of Rs.30,49,176/- received by him

from his employer at the time of cessation of his

employment due to closure of the manufacturing unit was

a capital receipt, not subject to tax. The assessee has also

placed reliance on various case laws, in support of his

above claim, and court has held as under "The amounts

received were due to loss of employment & not recurring in

nature & are not paid in lieu of any salary hence it does

not come under the preview of sec. 17(3)(i) as amount of

compensation. The said amounts have not been paid

against any services of the assessee. Hence the same is

not compensation as contemplated under the provisions of

sec. 17(3)(i)." As the various courts have allowed the claim

that the amount received at the time of cessation of his

employment due to closure of the manufacturing unit as

capital receipt during assessment proceedings in the cases

referred by the assessee, the AO's has duly accepted the

above claims of the respective assessee, which are very

similar cases as that of the assessee’s instant case.

Hence, the reopened assessment proceedings in the case

of the assessee, is hereby proposed to be completed by

accepting the income returned by the assessee in response

to 148.”

22 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 25. In the remaining cases also, the respective AOs have

treated such compensation as capital in nature. We, therefore,

find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

that when the concerned AOs after reopening of the assessment

have treated such compensation as capital in nature and the

Revenue has not challenged the same and which has attained

finality since no 263 proceedings have been initiated, therefore,

the assessee’s case being identical to the facts of the other

employees of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., the CIT(A) /

NFAC is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the

Assessing Officer.

of CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose (supra) has observed as under:

“4. The amount in question was received by the assessee

from his employer. It was received by him in connection

with the termination of his service. But the question still

remains whether it was compensation. Since it was

received by the assessee in connection with the

termination of his employment, the term "compensation"

would be referable to that event. In other words, it is to be

seen whether the amount was paid as compensation for

the termination or in lieu of the termination of the

employment.

23 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 5. The letter issued by the employer dated July 3, 1969,

stated that the amount was being paid ex gratia. There is

nothing to indicate that the assessee was entitled to

continue in the employment of the company up to any

particular age. Under the conditions of service, his services

were liable to be terminated on giving three months' notice

without assigning any reason. Under the circumstances, it

cannot be said that the assessee was entitled to remain in

service for any period longer after the requisite notice has

been given or that the employer was under any obligation

to pay anything to the assessee in connection with the

termination of his employment other than the salary for the

period of notice. Under the circumstances, in its true

nature and character, the payment was ex gratia, that is

to say, totally voluntary; it was not compensation which

implies some sort of an obligation to pay.

question was profits in lieu of salary within the meaning of

Clause (3) of Section 17. It was not taxable as such. The

finding of the Tribunal that the amount was a capital

receipt or that it was payment of a casual and non-

recurring nature was in the circumstances not necessary.

We, hence, do not express any opinion on it.

24 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of

the case, the amount of Rs. 24,933 received by the

assessee could be treated as income under the

charging section or under the section dealing with the

computation of income of the assessee ?"

and against the Department.”

vs. Avirook Sen (supra) at para 12 of the order has observed as

under :

“12. As the payment of ex-gratia compensation was

voluntary in nature without there being any obligation on

the part of employer to pay further amount to assessee in

terms of any service rule. it would not amount to

compensation in terms of section 17(3)(i) of the Act. The

impugned addition was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A).

The aforesaid point is accordingly determined against the

revenue department. The appeal is accordingly

not sustainable as we don't find any error of law or fact in

the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A). The department

appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

for the assessee placed in the paper book support his case to

25 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 the proposition that the payment of ex-gratia compensation

received by the assessee was voluntary in nature without there

being any obligation on the part of the employer to pay further

amounts to the assessee in terms of any service rule and

therefore, would not amount to compensation in terms of section

17(3) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A)

/ NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.”

specific distinction on facts or law since the same pertains to

the very employer i.e., M/s. Pfizer Healthcare India (P) Ltd.,

(supra), accepted accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.09.2024.

Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Pune, Dated 27th September, 2024

VBP/-

26 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 Copy to

//By Order//

//True Copy //

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.